GMG Classical Music Forum

Yes, it's silly, but play along, dammit. :)

Bach is rising in my esteem. Can he surpass Beethoven? Time will tell.

J. S. Bach  :)

Well, since the question was who is my favourite, vs. who I value more as a composer, my vote is for "the old Ludwig van". 8)

(Not to say I don't like Bach, of course - quite the contrary!)

My vote to LvB. Why? He was more of a rocknroller than Keith Richards. Always on the edge of the abyss (expct for a trip or two to Heiligenstadt that is).

I will not choose between them on a musical basis. What would music be without the two?

I choose Beethoven, not because i think he is better or anything, i just can't seem to picture Alex Delarge listening to Bach.

Bach all the way - it's a preference, not an indication of one being better than the other.

Quote from: James on August 20, 2007, 10:11:02 AM
Must admit im not really a fan of LvB, I understand his formal innovations but...the character and underlying aesthetic of it turns me off in a big way. He was a big drama queen you know, and wallowed in that an awful lot. I really have to be in the mood to listen to him. The over-assertion of self in his music via dynamics etc. ugh...

This makes me wonder how much Beethoven you actually know.

Quote from: James on August 20, 2007, 10:11:02 AM
Must admit im not really a fan of LvB, I understand his formal innovations but...the character and underlying aesthetic of it turns me off in a big way. He was a big drama queen you know, and wallowed in that an awful lot. I really have to be in the mood to listen to him. The over-assertion of self in his music via dynamics etc. ugh...To me, Bach is the man, the untouchable great....nothing naft, bombastic, egotistical or vulgar in his offerings, pure music tapped into the very source and a harmonic depth & understanding that Beethoven himself famously acknowledged & dreamt of having...

Beethoven doesnt come close IMHO. But no one really did, and they knew it too!

In the "drama queen" category where would Mahler reside?

Bach.

Cage match to the *second* death?

GOOGLE FIGHT! (http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=Bach&word2=Beethoven)

And Ludwig falls to ...
































... Dukes of Hazzard star, Catherine Bach!

(http://content.answers.com/main/content/img/PosterThumbs/catherinebach.jpg)

Quote from: Scriptavolant on August 20, 2007, 11:57:45 AM
Bach.

Quote from: beclemund on August 20, 2007, 12:16:40 PM
Cage match to the *second* death?

GOOGLE FIGHT! (http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=Bach&word2=Beethoven)

And Ludwig falls to ...
































... Dukes of Hazzard star, Catherine Bach!

(http://content.answers.com/main/content/img/PosterThumbs/catherinebach.jpg)

Not to mention:

Sebastian Bach































Sebastian Philip Bach

(http://image.listen.com/img/356x237/2/6/8/8/508862_356x237.jpg)

There is Beethoven and then there is Beethoven (http://noahsarkpbprescue.tripod.com/Pictur%20pages/beethoven.htm)

Striking resemblance, Drasko.

Beethoven. Bach has never stirred me to weep like a child.

I bring the good news and tidings of great joy that there is no f***ing reason to choose.

Quote from: RebLem on August 20, 2007, 02:10:18 PM
I bring the good news and tidings of great joy that there is no f***ing reason to choose.

Well, duh.

It is silly, but I played along: Beethoven

Quote from: karlhenning on August 20, 2007, 03:35:10 PM
It is silly, but I played along: Beethoven

Thanks for playing.

Quote from: karlhenning on August 20, 2007, 03:35:10 PM
It is silly, but I played along: Beethoven

I voted, but I won't say for whom. Not Mahler, though.

I voted, but I won't say for whom. Not Elgar, though.

I guess Larry voted for Bach and D Minor voted for Beethoven.

I wanted a "Banana" option.

Quote from: edward on August 20, 2007, 04:25:25 PM
I wanted a "Banana" option.

I knew I forgot something. No banana for you. ;)

I cannot vote, even jokingly. Just can't do it!

We used to have a poster called "Minnesota Dave" who started polls like this, but otherwise was a pretty nice guy. ;)

Beethoven.

8)

Quote from: edward on August 20, 2007, 04:25:25 PM
I wanted a "Banana" option.

"Banana" isn't in vogue these days.

Quote from: Gurn Blanston on August 20, 2007, 05:14:32 PM
We used to have a poster called "Minnesota Dave" who started polls like this, but otherwise was a pretty nice guy. ;)

Beethoven.

8)

:-[

Sounds like a cool guy.  8)

I voted for Bach, but my alter ego voted for Beethoven  ;)

I voted Beethoven.  I find Bach a little boring.

Bach  ;)

The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has already decided this thru its Cage Match:

http://www.cbc.ca/musicandcompany/cagematch.html#cagematchstats

This thread is something like "Music vs. Music".

I vote "Music". ;) (What means that I will finally not vote).

Here's my voting slip.

(http://www.cs.uiowa.edu/~jones/cards/collection/chadhang1.jpg)

I'll have to wait 'till the Florida Governor decides my voting preference.

Quote from: James on August 20, 2007, 10:11:02 AM
The over-assertion of self in his music via dynamics etc. ugh...

There wan't an "over"-assertion of self in Bach's music? Please describe examples in Beethoven's work that point toward "over-assertion of self", and then contrast it with Bach's "adequate/moderate" assertion of self and how we can judge that in his music.

Quote from: James on August 20, 2007, 10:11:02 AM

To me, Bach is the man, the untouchable great....nothing naft, bombastic, egotistical or vulgar in his offerings, pure music tapped into the very source and a harmonic depth & understanding that Beethoven himself famously acknowledged & dreamt of having...
Beethoven doesnt come close IMHO. But no one really did, and they knew it too!

Right.


Despite James' obviously objective, non-self-assertive ruminations, I go with LvB. For me, Bach was a composer of music so advanced that many of his pieces seem borderline supernaturally inspired. The Brandenburg Concertos, his Toccata in D minor, the Passacaglia in C minor...all examples of highest craft in composition. However, I personally can't weigh those compositions against opps.59. 131, 132, 135, the Missa Solemnis, or the 9th Symphony. The Grosse Fuge by itself tends to put me off listening to the WTC for long periods of time, and I practically never listen to Bach's most famous masses...most certainly not after being astounded by the Missa Solemnis.

Again, this is only the opinion of a middle-aged guitar teacher from Burlington Vermont.

Quote from: D Minor on August 20, 2007, 04:17:58 PM

I voted, but I won't say for whom. Not Elgar, though.

Dminor: Master of belly-laugh-provoking, subtle (yet not) mean-itude!

Quote from: dtwilbanks on August 20, 2007, 03:41:01 PM
Thanks for playing.

At your service, mon vieux.

In this case, I consider that I have voted with shelf-space, whether measured by recordings, or scores.

Quote from: Don on August 20, 2007, 05:29:17 PM
"Banana" isn't in vogue these days.

This year's crop of bananas was used up over at the Poju-Elgar thread  8)

Quote from: karlhenning on August 21, 2007, 04:51:07 AM
This year's crop of bananas was used up over at the Poju-Elgar thread  8)

BWA- ;D!!!

Quote from: karlhenning on August 21, 2007, 04:51:07 AM
This year's crop of bananas was used up over at the Poju-Elgar thread  8)

:D  :D  :D

As much as I tried, I could not bring myself to vote. Sorry.

Quote from: dtwilbanks on August 20, 2007, 04:19:47 PM
I guess Larry voted for Bach and D Minor voted for Beethoven.

No, Beethoven voted for D Minor and Larry voted for Elgar.

Quote from: Daidalos on August 21, 2007, 06:04:55 AM
As much as I tried, I could not bring myself to vote. Sorry.

For my part, Daidalos, you needn't apologize  :)

Quote from: Daidalos on August 21, 2007, 06:04:55 AM
As much as I tried, I could not bring myself to vote. Sorry.

Maybe you could select the last of the two composers you listened to, or whichever one has the most CDs in your collection, or which you listen to more often.

Remember: it's only a poll.

I think James was not completely wrong when he was talking about the over-assertion of Self thing. Neither he was wrong not finding this feature in Bach.

Quote from: Daidalos on August 21, 2007, 06:04:55 AM
As much as I tried, I could not bring myself to vote. Sorry.

 Me too.  An impossible question to answer.  

 marvin
 

Quote from: Scriptavolant on August 21, 2007, 06:18:44 AM
I think James was not completely wrong when he was talking about the over-assertion of Self thing. Neither he was wrong not finding this feature in Bach.

He was not completely right either, and is relying on a very partial and clichéd notion of Beethoven's achievement.

Quote from: Scriptavolant on August 21, 2007, 06:18:44 AM
I think James was not completely wrong when he was talking about the over-assertion of Self thing. Neither he was wrong not finding this feature in Bach.

Please be more specific about precisely where Beethoven is "overly self assertive" as opposed to Bach (musically), and also why this "overt self-assertiveness" turns you off. I'm honestly just very very curious.

Quote from: karlhenning on August 21, 2007, 07:03:56 AM
What if you could not have a Wagner av, Marvin;  and there were only two choices for your av: Bach or Beethoven.

Which would you choose?

Oh, stop.  :P

I withdraw the question, your honor  8)

Quote from: Larry Rinkel on August 21, 2007, 06:31:02 AM
He was not completely right either, and is relying on a very partial and clichéd notion of Beethoven's achievement.

I agree partially, since I think that acknowledging Beethoven's self-assertion doesn't imply a depreciation of his music or his genius. I mean: I'm not considering the term "self-assertion" as a negative feature.
But I consider it to be a fact that Bach pureness and rigour, his supreme impersonality (common to most of the pre-romantic music) was lost in XIXth Century, starting with Beethoven.
That consideration, which is widely accepted among scholars, obviously reflects my own personal taste and inclinations.

Quote from: Scriptavolant on August 21, 2007, 07:44:36 AM
I agree partially, since I think that acknowledging Beethoven's self-assertion doesn't imply a depreciation of his music or his genius. I mean: I'm not considering the term "self-assertion" as a negative feature.
But I consider it to be a fact that Bach pureness and rigour, his supreme impersonality (common to most of the pre-romantic music) was lost in XIXth Century, starting with Beethoven.

If Bach's music were "supremely impersonal," his music would just sound like other composers of his era.

Every artist's work is an expression of himself.  So to claim that this great artist's work is more "self-assertion" than that other's, is front-loaded with other assumptions.

Quote from: karlhenning on August 21, 2007, 07:47:13 AM
If Bach's music were "supremely impersonal," his music would just sound like other composers of his era.

Every artist's work is an expression of himself.  So to claim that this great artist's work is more "self-assertion" than that other's, is front-loaded with other assumptions.

As usual you didn't get it.

Quote from: Scriptavolant on August 21, 2007, 07:47:47 AM
As usual you didn't get it.

Wow; this overwhelming erudition so entirely convinces me.

Quote from: karlhenning on August 21, 2007, 07:49:05 AM
Wow; this overwhelming erudition so entirely convinces me.

You didn't get it once again.
Karl, you're PhD, you really cannot tell any difference between Romantic and Baroque expressiveness? You really cannot grasp the meaning of "supreme impersonality"? You think music from very different periods has always the same flat ammount of sentimental contents?
These are themes Thomas Eliot developed profoundly for example (in poetry). Not merely my opinion.

Quote from: Scriptavolant on August 21, 2007, 07:44:36 AM
I agree partially, since I think that acknowledging Beethoven's self-assertion doesn't imply a depreciation of his music or his genius. I mean: I'm not considering the term "self-assertion" as a negative feature.
But I consider it to be a fact that Bach pureness and rigour, his supreme impersonality (common to most of the pre-romantic music) was lost in XIXth Century, starting with Beethoven.
That consideration, which is widely accepted among scholars, obviously reflects my own personal taste and inclinations.

Could it be read that Beethoven's "personal struggle" in his music is actually part of a greater human struggle? That is how I see it.

I chose Beethoven only because I prefer him as an adventuror against Bach who was more of a consolidator.

As the original question is one of personal favourites, I'm obliged to vote for Ludwig.

Quote from: Corey on August 21, 2007, 07:55:10 AM
Could it be read that Beethoven's "personal struggle" in his music is actually part of a greater human struggle? That is how I see it.

I see it this way too, but I think that his struggle becomes collective and universal only in works such as the symphonies. For what concerns his chamber music - for example - the struggle is much more similar to a personal, solitary confession.

Quote from: Scriptavolant on August 21, 2007, 08:02:51 AM
I see it this way too, but I think that his struggle becomes collective and universal only in works such as the symphonies. For what concerns his chamber music - for example - the struggle is much more similar to a personal, solitary confession.

Why? Is it because of the smaller instrumental forces? I don't agree.

Quote from: James on August 21, 2007, 08:54:00 AM
His often tiresome excessive use of force to grab the listeners attention as in...I AM SHOUTING. CAN YOU HEAR ME. THIS BIT IS LOUD. IT IS THE CLIMAX. DO YOU UNDERSTAND. etc. Stuff like that for instance.

I don't find Beethoven's use of dynamic range tiresome.

And another listener, you know, will find certain aspects of Bach's work tiresome, instead, of course.

Quote from: George on August 21, 2007, 05:55:38 AM
As much as I admire Bach, the choice was easy.
                              V  ^
                              |   |
       -------------------   |
      |    -------------------
      |   |
      V  ^
Beethoven wins again!!

8)

Beethoven's slow movements are just too long. Bach's should never end. Bach wins.

Quote from: Corey on August 21, 2007, 08:48:06 AM
Why? Is it because of the smaller instrumental forces? I don't agree.

Not only a matter of instrumental forces (I wouldn't say that instrumental forces has no bearing on the artistic intention, though), but of poetic contents. Take for example the "Canzona di ringraziamento" from Op. 132 or the Adagio with variations from Op. 127, or maybe the late string quartets as a corpus. I can feel a major ammount of intimist elucubration, of solitary reflection. The "Choral Symphony" was more of a gift for mankind, a sort of collective archetype.
Of course it is not so easy to define such abstract nuances in language, to give straight definition or to differentiate sharply. Thus, no surprise you could not agree.

Quote from: James on August 21, 2007, 08:54:00 AM
His often tiresome excessive use of force to grab the listeners attention as in...I AM SHOUTING. CAN YOU HEAR ME. THIS BIT IS LOUD. IT IS THE CLIMAX. DO YOU UNDERSTAND. etc. Stuff like that for instance..

It's very easy to see and no surprise really why he's probably preferred to Bach who never resorted to silly things like this, and who's music is often perceived as much more austere, dry, more subtle in comparison...  ...it doesnt have the bombast and theatre so often present/transparent in LvB, which folks love no doubt. It just screams out for their attention. To me a lot of it is quite vacuous, despite the dry formal technicalities/achievements, like the structural inter-relationships he created in broader forms etc. He spent a lot of time setting his ego to music and was pretty wrapped up in himself. Bach wrote for a higher purpose/aspiration, for the glory of God, this clearly backlights the music. Beethoven thought he was one and it's very ego-centric. He was truly nowhere near Bach's level of genius insight and density of thought. Listen to a Beethoven (or Mozart for that matter) fugue and you'll hear what I mean. But then again he (they) weren't really interested in writing like that for the most part...

I do hear the ostensible differences in the later work of LvB, like the late piano sonatas & late string quartets, but experience the same boorishness that is present in his earlier work. The music is dressed a bit differently, but is permeated by the same characteristic.

just my view. doubt anyone will agree, that's ok though...

Your half-informed arguments are tiresome. I doubt anyone will disagree, and that's OK.

Quote from: oyasumi on August 21, 2007, 09:03:15 AM
Beethoven's slow movements are just too long.

Not in the least :-)

Once again I cannot completely disagree with James.
I would simply say that the poetics of emotion and sentimentalism, still have major ascendancy on listeners.

Plus, Bach didn't write any bad music. Beethoven did, which isn't something to criticize him for, but it makes Bach better.

Quote from: James on August 21, 2007, 09:11:07 AM
Not to mention all of the extra-musical romantic hype & baggage that clouds perceptions...

No, it is your uncritical acceptance of a clichéd view of Beethoven the Thunderer that is clouding your perceptions... Take off the sunglasses.

I must say, for someone who is going on and on about subtlety vs. bombast, you exhibit a striking lack of the former and a striking abundance of the latter.

Quote from: oyasumi on August 21, 2007, 10:31:45 AM
Plus, Bach didn't write any bad music. Beethoven did, which isn't something to criticize him for, but it makes Bach better.

That doesn't even make sense . . .

Quote from: karlhenning on August 21, 2007, 08:55:34 AM
I don't find Beethoven's use of dynamic range tiresome.

And another listener, you know, will find certain aspects of Bach's work tiresome, instead, of course.

Beethoven banged very loudly at times. So did Bach. So?

Quote from: Larry Rinkel on August 21, 2007, 10:42:47 AM
That doesn't even make sense . . .

It does.

Quote from: Haffner on August 21, 2007, 11:06:36 AM




Beethoven banged very loudly at times. So did Bach. So?

Beethoven banged loudly 45% more often than Bach. ::)

Quote from: Scriptavolant on August 21, 2007, 07:44:36 AM
I agree partially, since I think that acknowledging Beethoven's self-assertion doesn't imply a depreciation of his music or his genius. I mean: I'm not considering the term "self-assertion" as a negative feature.
But I consider it to be a fact that Bach pureness and rigour, his supreme impersonality (common to most of the pre-romantic music) was lost in XIXth Century, starting with Beethoven.
That consideration, which is widely accepted among scholars, obviously reflects my own personal taste and inclinations.

I tend to agree.
If james was 1% objective, you've quoted this 1%.

Self-assertion brought so much to music and to art in general.
Blessed be self-assertion!

I voted LOUDwig, you guessed

Quote from: oyasumi on August 21, 2007, 11:07:08 AM
It does.

Well, that explains things.

Quote from: quintett op.57 on August 21, 2007, 11:29:28 AM
I tend to agree.
If james was 1% objective, you've quoted this 1%.

Self-assertion brought so much to music and to art in general.
Blessed be self-assertion!

I voted LOUDwig, you guessed

To explain a little better, I don't even think Beethoven is the clearest example of self-assertion. In his late music the fusion between poetical burst and musical perfection is so complete you can hardly feel any triviality.
Troubles with self-assertion had to come later, in my opinion, and usually listeners/critics, not composers, were to blame for the encumbering extra-musical baggage James mentioned.

Quote from: Scriptavolant on August 21, 2007, 07:53:09 AM
Karl, you're PhD, you really cannot tell any difference between Romantic and Baroque expressiveness? You really cannot grasp the meaning of "supreme impersonality"? You think music from very different periods has always the same flat ammount of sentimental contents?
These are themes Thomas Eliot developed profoundly for example (in poetry). Not merely my opinion.

You confuse form and content. Every composer needs self-assertion whether his name is Bach or Beethoven, as far as the spiritual content of his work (almost) always is an expression of his personal emotions. Only the surface (style) may be different (e..g. baroque or romantic). And Bach´s music is as to content certainly some of the most personal music ever written. His music is most often about his personal emotions in relation to (his) God. For comparation much of LvB´s music is about his personal emotions in relation to his young female piano-pupils, but for both composers the content of their music is the description of their personal emotions.

Karl, Correct me if I am wrong.

Quote from: premont on August 21, 2007, 12:07:42 PM
You confuse form and content.

Yes, and consciously. I don't believe in this trite Romantic worthless dualism between form and content.

Quote from: premont on August 21, 2007, 12:07:42 PM
For comparation much of LvB´s music is about his personal emotions in relation to his young female piano-pupils.

Much of LvB's music is about discovering new possibilities for expanding the language of sonata form, variations, rondo, scherzo, and fugue.

Quote from: premont on August 21, 2007, 12:07:42 PM
Karl, Correct me if I am wrong.

Not Karl, but done.

I just didn't get it, as usual  ;D

Quote from: Larry Rinkel on August 21, 2007, 12:18:35 PM
Much of LvB's music is about discovering new possibilities for expanding the language of sonata form, variations, rondo, scherzo, and fugue.

Very true, but you relate to the form, I relate to the content.

Quote from: Scriptavolant on August 21, 2007, 12:14:52 PM
Yes, and consciously. I don't believe in this trite Romantic worthless dualism between form and content.

Well, if we assume that you are right: What are the characteristics of personal music, and what are the characteristics of impersonal music.

I'll get into this gracious teacher-pupil dialectic to consider that this:

QuoteFor comparation much of LvB´s music is about his personal emotions in relation to his young female piano-pupils, but for both composers the content of their music is the description of their personal emotions.

Doesn't say a thing. It's obvious. The way composers solve the problem of relation to form is what musical creation is all about. That's the starting point, interesting points come after this basical assumpion. These ways change, enormously, from baroque to romanticism, from renaissance to Darmstadt.

This reminds me a bit of the other discussion, where someone was in disagree with the assumption that Baroque was a mainly polyphonic period, while Romantic was mainly omophonic. No, it wasn't true, they were all equally polyphonic according to some. Now, each musical period has become sentimental and descriptive. Sorry but it looks quite like a sort of syncretic salad and I don't enjoy syncretic salads.  :P

Scriptavolant,
Now it is me, who don´t get it.
Am I right, or are you wrong? Both I am afraid.

Quote from: James on August 21, 2007, 12:39:57 PM
Now now Larry, let's not sling personal attacks about, that's pretty childish.

Now now James, do I hear the sound of the pot caling the kettle black?  :D

Quote from: premont on August 21, 2007, 12:24:00 PM
Very true, but you relate to the form, I relate to the content.

My point is that the form of a work is its content, and the content its form. What Beethoven may have felt about such and such a pretty girl has nothing to do with the Moonlight Sonata or Für Elise (the only examples I can think of where external circumstances might be adduced to support your point).

Quote from: James on August 21, 2007, 12:54:32 PM
whatever...

Res ipsa loquitur.

Quote from: premont on August 21, 2007, 12:40:42 PM
Scriptavolant,
Now it is me, who don´t get it.
Am I right, or are you wrong? Both I am afraid.

What is that you don't get? Form and content create an inseparable unity in great works of art. In my opinion, of course. There's no way you can consider one without considering the other. A sharp distinction is just an abstract mental construct which has no sense, if you can clearly distinguish between these two elements, work of art has something wrong (example: some of Liszt's Tone Poems)
The other quite simple thing I was saying is that baroque expressiveness is far away from Romantic expressiveness. They're different universes with little or none overlapping.

edited on advice of maestro Henning

Quote from: James on August 21, 2007, 12:57:42 PM
Larry, what language is that?

James, you cannot mean it?

Quote from: Scriptavolant on August 21, 2007, 01:00:13 PM
Form and content create an inseparable unity in great works of art. In my opinion, of course.

That attempt at a save ("In my opinion, of course") is amusing, but the statement is the wash of a hog.

It's obvious, so don't make us explain it to you  8)

Quote from: karlhenning on August 21, 2007, 01:05:48 PM
That attempt at a save ("In my opinion, of course") is amusing, but the statement is the wash of a hog.

It's obvious, so don't make us explain it to you  8)

But you just proved my point! In your case infact form and content are both soap bubbles.


Pluf.. 8)

Quote from: Scriptavolant on August 21, 2007, 01:00:13 PM
In my opinion, of course.

But not in mine, - and I don´t need to cross this out.

Well I think I'll leave it this way.

By the way, you wrote

Quotebut for both [Bach and Beethoven] composers the content of their music is the description of their personal emotions.

I couldn't be less convinced of this statement. And I'm quite sure I'm not alone in this.
Larry seems to have expressed the same idea I have. Form is content and content is form.
Schumann himself wrote that people who think composers sit down and compose just in order to describe their emotions are going wrong.
Something similar you can find in Copland's "What to listen for in music"; he writes that the greatness of a Tone Poem, for example (I think he took the example of Tchaikovsky's "Francesca da Rimini") resides in the way it is formally accomplished, not in the poetical idea alone.
Your platonic view of music as something that necessarily calls for extra-musical baggages leaves me dissatisfied. Nevermind.

I realize that this is designed to be a pointless thread, but it still amazes me that people admit to voting in this.  Bach lived in a completely different time period than Beethoven ......... COMPLETELY DIFFERENT with no overlap of any kind ........ such that the two composer cannot be compared.  They had entirely different goals, with entirely different resources, and entirely different expectations (of themselves and their audiences).

Quote from: Scriptavolant on August 21, 2007, 02:14:01 PM
Well I think I'll leave it this way.

By the way, you wrote

I couldn't be less convinced of this statement. And I'm quite sure I'm not alone in this.
Larry seems to have expressed the same idea I have. Form is content and content is form.
Schumann himself wrote that people who think composers sit down and compose just in order to describe their emotions are going wrong.
Something similar you can find in Copland's "What to listen for in music"; he writes that the greatness of a Tone Poem, for example (I think he took the example of Tchaikovsky's "Francesca da Rimini") resides in the way it is formally accomplished, not in the poetical idea alone.
Your platonic view of music as something that necessarily calls for extra-musical baggages leaves me dissatisfied. Nevermind.

I can't remember who said this, but some composer was asked, "what's the hardest part of composing, Mr. Composer? is it getting in the mood, seeing a sunset, feeling inspired?" And the composer replied, "The hardest part of composing is - getting the notes right."

Quote from: D Minor on August 21, 2007, 02:51:46 PM
I realize that this is designed to be a pointless thread, but it still amazes me that people admit to voting in this.  Bach lived in a completely different time period than Beethoven ......... COMPLETELY DIFFERENT with no overlap of any kind ........ such that the two composer cannot be compared.  They had entirely different goals, with entirely different resources, and entirely different expectations (of themselves and their audiences).

Which doesn't change the fact that I prefer to listen to Bach's music.

Quote from: Don on August 21, 2007, 03:34:11 PM
Which doesn't change the fact that I prefer to listen to Bach's music.

Of course not. The ridiculous thing is that people are attempting to justify why they prefer Bach over Beethoven and vice-versa.

I like Bach best--until I listen to some Beethoven.  Then I like Beethoven best--until I hear some Bach again, and... ;D

Quote from: James on August 21, 2007, 04:13:23 PM
its not ridiculous...when you think about it...it's even more ridiculous (and lazy) to just state a name without going into why there is the preference....someone explaining why they prefer one composer over another etc, nothing wrong with that.....this is a discussion forum for fsakes...and you're not going to agree with everyone, that's LIFE...learn to deal with it.

You're right, this is a discussion forum, but discussing your ill-informed assertions (especially given your bizarrely defensive disposition) hardly seems worth the effort.

Quote from: James on August 21, 2007, 02:09:07 PM
Didn't Igor Stravinsky loathe Beethoven?

At the early part of his career. Towards the middle and later years he came to revere Beethoven above all other composers, and especially for the later quartets.

Quote from: James on August 21, 2007, 04:13:23 PM
its not ridiculous...when you think about it...

Well, one wants to be careful.

There's that trapdoor leading to where Bach's vibrational fields are superior to Beethoven's . . . .

Quote from: James on August 21, 2007, 05:09:48 PM
Interesting but seems to contradict things I've read (and his own output. especially in his mature years). I do remember reading his opinion about Grosse Fuge....

"This absolutely contemporary piece of music that will be contemporary forever."

Quote from: James on August 21, 2007, 05:09:48 PM
Here is this ....

The public and academic confusion to which he refers might be explained by the fact that in an artistic climate dominated by emotion, drama, and ego, Stravinsky was moving towards a musical philosophy that eschewed the clamorous and imperious artist in favor of the selfless artisan. To him, the epoch that saw the dawn of European polyphony was much nearer to the essential truth – unadorned, harsh even – than the sophisticated response of a declining society's disillusioned minds. "He was stimulated by the early polyphonist's straightforward approach, hardly hampered by harmonic implications, as they were; for the emotionally conditioned harmonic style, which was evident, to a varying degree, in his earlier music, had no longer any attraction for him." (Weissman)

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canticum_Sacrum

I don't know what this has to do with Stravinsky's opinion of Beethoven. Here's what he actually wrote:

on the C# minor: "Everything ins this masterpiece is perfect, inevitable, unalterable."

on the Fugue: "The Great Fugue enlarges the meaning of Beethoven more than any other work... It breaks all our measurements, too, human no less than musical."

on the Eflat major: "The E flat and the larger and more innovatory [hear, hear!] C shapr minor are the most unified, consistent, satisfying of the late quartets."

on the Bb major: "This is the most radical of the quartets; most modern, too."

on the lates as a set:
"These quartets are my highest articles of musical belief (which is a longer word for love, whatever else), as indispensable to the ways and meanings of art, as a musician of my era thinks of art and has tried to learn it, as temperature is to life.

- from Themes and Conclusions

Quote from: Corey on August 21, 2007, 03:45:31 PM
Of course not. The ridiculous thing is that people are attempting to justify why they prefer Bach over Beethoven and vice-versa.

I cannot choose between the two myself. For the past months I've been immersing myself in the Bach sacred cantatas. A few less interesting ones here and there, but so many are just works of staggering genius.

Bach and Beethoven are in such a position that it is possible to compare, but not possible to rank. And even comparisons would be quite difficult, considering the natural difference of styles.

I cannot choose among them.

Quote from: Larry Rinkel on August 21, 2007, 05:33:25 PM
"This absolutely contemporary piece of music that will be contemporary forever."



I don't know what this has to do with Stravinsky's opinion of Beethoven. Here's what he actually wrote:

on the C# minor: "Everything ins this masterpiece is perfect, inevitable, unalterable."

on the Fugue: "The Great Fugue enlarges the meaning of Beethoven more than any other work... It breaks all our measurements, too, human no less than musical."

on the Eflat major: "The E flat and the larger and more innovatory [hear, hear!] C shapr minor are the most unified, consistent, satisfying of the late quartets."

on the Bb major: "This is the most radical of the quartets; most modern, too."

on the lates as a set:
"These quartets are my highest articles of musical belief (which is a longer word for love, whatever else), as indispensable to the ways and meanings of art, as a musician of my era thinks of art and has tried to learn it, as temperature is to life.

- from Themes and Conclusions

Thanks those quotations. Very interesting

Quote from: Larry Rinkel on August 21, 2007, 05:41:04 PM
so many are just works of staggering genius.

I'm in complete agreement with you there. My preference for Beethoven over Bach is for entirely personal reasons, and has nothing to do with any kind of notion of a "universal indicator" of greatness. Perhaps my choice is influenced by extra-musical associations — so be it. Is Bach's music immune from these attachments?

Quote from: James on August 21, 2007, 06:20:17 PM
this is an mildly amusing discourse....last reply for today

ive read some of his things about the last few quartets (of LvB's output) and his fascination with them  but it doesnt really conclusively state or illustrate that he revered LvB over all others....with the bit I posted Beethoven was the epitomy of the self artisan, its what he represented...and Stravinsky's whole artistic philosophy (and music) especially as he matured seemed to respresent the diametric opposite of LvB....and I just don't hear to a large or substantial degree the influence too much, and I hear more of the Baroque model in lots of the neo-classical stuff... and as he went along he was more stimulated by the unadorned early polyphonist's straightforward approach which he felt was closer to the "essential truth", unhampered with harmonic implications, more austere etc ... that's NOT Beethoven to me....and that philosophy Igor grew to prefer and adopt, I DO in fact hear in the music....so the "Towards the middle and later years he came to revere Beethoven above all other composers" as you say seems a bit spurious & contradictory to how he really felt....

I'm not talking about the influence on Beethoven in Stravinsky's music, though that most definitely can be traced; I'm talking about Stravinsky's declared attitude towards Beethoven's music, and if the quotations I've provided don't prove my point, kindly explain what they do prove. If you want to call Stravinsky's comments "spurious," be my guest. But you might read Stephen Walsh's biography on Stravinsky, volume 2, and look up Stravinsky's attitude towards Beethoven, how he sided "against the stupidity and drivel of fools who think it up to date to giggle as they amuse themselves by running [Beethoven] down." And in the later years, when Stravinsky spent most of his evenings with Robert Craft listening to recordings, the Beethoven quartets were always among his first choices.

I think you're projecting your distaste for Beethoven onto Stravinsky.

Quote from: Don on August 21, 2007, 03:34:11 PM
Which doesn't change the fact that I prefer to listen to Bach's music.

And when I'm in the mood for the best of Bach fused with the best of Beethoven ....... I opt for Brahms .......

Quote from: D Minor on August 21, 2007, 06:42:22 PM
And when I'm in the mood for the best of Bach fused with the best of Beethoven ....... I opt for Brahms .......

Nicely done  8)

Quote from: James on August 21, 2007, 06:55:44 PM
whoa got dragged back in ...
i was calling your comment about how he revered Beethoven above  all others etc to be a bit spurious, as it seems to be based on these few comments on some quartets

Wrong. I've merely excerpted a few passages from several lengthy sections of the conversation books with Craft. There's more evidence; for example, in a documentary released in 1980, Charles Rosen drew a comparison between IS's piano sonata and Beethoven's sonata Op. 54. You claim "contradictory" evidence but have produced none. I take Stravinsky at his word, I can document all my claims, and unless anyone produces reliable evidence otherwise, I see no reason to alter my position.

Quote from: Don on August 20, 2007, 11:34:50 AM
Bach all the way - it's a preference, not an indication of one being better than the other.

Beethoven all the way - it's a preference, not an indication of one being better than the other.  :)

(Hope you do not mind me borrowing you response here Don and adding my viewpoint, but it was so well put, that I could not help it.)  :)

Quote from: Bogey on August 21, 2007, 07:42:14 PM
(Hope you do not mind me borrowing you response here Don and adding my viewpoint, but it was so well put, that I could not help it.)  :)

((( .....Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery .....)))

When it comes down to the epochal genius of both the vs. simply does NOT apply only your preferences and even that is subject to your moods!

There is a dimension in Beethoven which does not exist in Bach. Call it the Enlightenment, the Kantian revolution or the incipience of an Existential philosophy. Beethoven certainly, according to his life and times, had more reason to be existential than most.

Bach was the Aquinas of music, a mystic, a theorist, whose definitive summation of Technique and Belief was not unlike that of Bruckner in the 19th century whose genius too was completely dedicated to the greater glory of God.

...at least these perceptions of God are good for something!

Obviously these kinds of sound expressions grant different perspectives...so when is this drivel going to end??

Quote from: max on August 21, 2007, 08:01:40 PM
so when is this drivel going to end??

You want drivel?  Have I got a thread for you .........

Quote from: D Minor on August 21, 2007, 08:16:26 PM
You want drivel?  Have I got a thread for you .........

;D

Quote from: D Minor on August 21, 2007, 08:16:26 PM
You want drivel?  Have I got a thread for you .........

...oh please show me! Drivel has always been my magnum opus and I wish to make a contribution!

I thought this was the one.

Quote from: max on August 21, 2007, 08:54:33 PM

...oh please show me! Drivel has always been my magnum opus and I wish to make a contribution!

I thought this was the one.

Trust me: you're much, much better off to never set foot into the noisome waters of that murky quagmire ........

Quote from: James on August 21, 2007, 05:09:48 PM
Interesting but seems to contradict things I've read (and his own output. especially in his mature years).

In the first place, James, Stravinsky was always ready with a bon mot, he delighted in witty and sharp comment (and learnt at an early stage that they make good press, as well).  So it is not difficult to find two Stravinsky comments which appear to contradict one another.

Also, an artist such as Stravinsky on the one hand necessarily forms sharp aesthetic opinions;  on the other hand, over the course of a long career, a man with an active mind will not hold onto the same opinion etched in stone for all time.

At any rate, you here should resist such easy judgments as "Stravinsky didn't think much of Beethoven. Period."  It could be, James, that you simply are not well read enough to latch onto such a dictum for a Procrustean bed.

I am surprised you haven't heard Stravinsky's report of an exchange he had once in (I think Paris) . . . I paraphrase, since my sources are at home:

Quote"Beethoven?"
--"Rubbish!"
"But, the late quartets?"
--"Worst things he ever wrote!"

-- Actually, I should normally have agreed with him, only praising the Beethoven late quartets was such a commonplace among intellectuals at the time.

Quote from: LarryI'm not talking about the influence on Beethoven in Stravinsky's music, though that most definitely can be traced; I'm talking about Stravinsky's declared attitude towards Beethoven's music, and if the quotations I've provided don't prove my point, kindly explain what they do prove. If you want to call Stravinsky's comments "spurious," be my guest. But you might read Stephen Walsh's biography on Stravinsky, volume 2, and look up Stravinsky's attitude towards Beethoven, how he sided "against the stupidity and drivel of fools who think it up to date to giggle as they amuse themselves by running [Beethoven] down." And in the later years, when Stravinsky spent most of his evenings with Robert Craft listening to recordings, the Beethoven quartets were always among his first choices.

I think you're projecting your distaste for Beethoven onto Stravinsky.

Quote from: Larry
Wrong. I've merely excerpted a few passages from several lengthy sections of the conversation books with Craft. There's more evidence; for example, in a documentary released in 1980, Charles Rosen drew a comparison between IS's piano sonata and Beethoven's sonata Op. 54. You claim "contradictory" evidence but have produced none. I take Stravinsky at his word, I can document all my claims, and unless anyone produces reliable evidence otherwise, I see no reason to alter my position.

All this entirely to the point.

Quote from: Don on August 21, 2007, 11:24:34 AM
Beethoven banged loudly 45% more often than Bach. ::)

OOOooooOOOOooo NOW I get it 8)!

Quote from: premont on August 21, 2007, 12:07:42 PM
You confuse form and content. Every composer needs self-assertion

Could it be possible to not assert oneself? That word, "need" gives me troubles.

Nietzsche put down the Stoic school of thought; in Beyond Good and Evil he summarized their belief system as having to do with worshipping what is considered "Natural".

So, for the Stoics, Nature=Life, thus one should live according to Life.

As Nietzsche exasperatedly wrote "how can you not live 'according to life'?"

How can you not express your Self? Perhaps the situation the Self is in is just as important (if not more). But it's hard for me to see an individual doing anything without somehow expressing him or herself, even if it's "just" a matter of simple presence.

Some would remember the Mozart vs. Beethoven tread we had a few years back... ;D

The Toccata and Fugue in D minor is an example of a piece that is about as thundering as the most "Heavy Metal" pieces in LvB's repetoire. And there are several other examples in Bach that come to mind.


When I read someone discussing how much less Bach (as opposed to LvB) represented himself as a personality in his music, I tend to wonder whether people are taking into account the historical context in which both J.S. and LvB lived. What could be seen as "personal" in LvB's music might have seemed quite im-or even anti-personal in LvB's day, and vice versa. I'm sure that James has thought of this.

Many people on the Internet have pondered whether LvB's "musical personality" is making him recognized as the greatest Composer of All Time today due mainly to the fact that he was more "recent" than Bach, Mozart, Haydn, etc. And Wagner, being even more "recent" (but not dead long enough to warrant "Greatest" acclamations), is getting more reknowned than ever.

To me, that last in particular tends to portray the psyche of the average Cultural appraiser (and perhaps even more than that). Something has to be "old" to be venerable, yet "new" enough to revoke the "old" Convenant.

Makes me more hopeful/borderline confident in the eventual, deservedly more thorough appreciation of Rock and Metal music in the 22nd century.

Quote from: D Minor on August 21, 2007, 06:42:22 PM
And when I'm in the mood for the best of Bach fused with the best of Beethoven ....... I opt for Brahms .......

There's some validity here...although there are also pieces like Schumann's Piano Quintet (last movement) which traverse similar territory as D mentioned.

Just my opinion. Also, it seems some posters here see Schubert as perhaps the "best of...", only with LvB and Mozart in mind.

Quote from: max on August 21, 2007, 08:01:40 PM
When it comes down to the epochal genius of both the vs. simply does NOT apply only your preferences and even that is subject to your moods!

There is a dimension in Beethoven which does not exist in Bach. Call it the Enlightenment, the Kantian revolution or the incipience of an Existential philosophy. Beethoven certainly, according to his life and times, had more reason to be existential than most.

Bach was the Aquinas of music, a mystic, a theorist, whose definitive summation of Technique and Belief was not unlike that of Bruckner in the 19th century whose genius too was completely dedicated to the greater glory of God.

...at least these perceptions of God are good for something!

Obviously these kinds of sound expressions grant different perspectives...so when is this drivel going to end??

You probably already thought of this, Max: It might be that you see Beethoven as the reflection of a set of ideologies which are more pleasing to you.

Quote from: D Minor on August 21, 2007, 08:16:26 PM
You want drivel?  Have I got a thread for you .........

The subtlety and restraint displayed here in not posting a link to such a thread(s) speaks volumes...

Bach was not a theorist, thank heavens!  He was a practicing, and producing, creative artist.

Quote from: karlhenning on August 22, 2007, 04:30:39 AM
Bach was not a theorist, thank heavens!  He was a practicing, and producing, creative artist.

It seems rare that a composer can be both. Copland comes to mind...tremendous books, excellent compositions...

Quote from: James on August 22, 2007, 04:51:32 AM
larry, ive been around for along time, probably longer than you and most of the others here...Bach is my fave
you seem like an upset LvB fanboy, as soon as I said I wasnt much of a LvB fan u were one of the first to jump in saying "how much do you know" etc....there are so many other composers id choose to listen to before good ol' LvB for many reasons, I could go on and on as to why I don't like him, some of which ive stated in the thread already, learn to deal with other peoples preferences my friend.

I certainly respect your preferences, James. Bach is a real Giant.

However,  I am a little disappointed that you never answered my question in regard to pointing out specifically what is so "impersonal" in Bach's music, as opposed to LvB. I honestly was just very curious.

Quote from: James on August 22, 2007, 04:58:47 AM
I never said Bach's music was "impersonal", it obviously ment a lot to him and his life...so I have no idea where you got this...

Forgive me once more, please. I must have read your posts wrong.

Quote from: James on August 22, 2007, 04:58:47 AM
I never said Bach's music was "impersonal", it obviously ment a lot to him and his life...so I have no idea where you got this...

Briefly this:

Quote from: James on August 20, 2007, 10:11:02 AM
Must admit im not really a fan of LvB, I understand his formal innovations but...the character and underlying aesthetic of it turns me off in a big way. He was a big drama queen you know, and wallowed in that an awful lot. I really have to be in the mood to listen to him. The over-assertion of self in his music via dynamics etc. ugh...To me, Bach is the man, the untouchable great....nothing naft, bombastic, egotistical or vulgar in his offerings, pure music tapped into the very source and a harmonic depth & understanding that Beethoven himself famously acknowledged & dreamt of having...

Beethoven doesnt come close IMHO. But no one really did, and they knew it too!

Quote from: James on August 22, 2007, 04:51:32 AM
you seem like an upset LvB fanboy, as soon as I said I wasnt much of a LvB fan u were one of the first to jump in saying "how much do you know" etc.

Saying you're not much of a fan of Beethoven, would be one thing.  Calling Beethoven "a big drama queen you know" is quite another;  and when you set a tone like that, you're inviting people who do, in fact, know more about Beethoven than you do, to call you to the carpet, James. Corkin' Rod got his comeuppance when he tried to puff Handel up by trashing Bach;  your approach (not the intent of the OP, of course) to this is exactly on that primitive level ("Bach is da man, LvB be heap big drama queen").

Your vague notion of musical "purity" is suspect here;  there is nothing "impure" about Beethoven's work, any more than about Bach's.

Quote from: Haffner on August 22, 2007, 05:04:08 AM
Forgive me once more, please. I must have read your posts wrong.

I don't think it is so much a matter of your reading him wrong, Andy, as James trying to be a little slippery.  He's been more than a little adolescent here, but he's trying to play "Oh, I've always been aboveboard" now.

Quote from: karlhenning on August 22, 2007, 05:08:57 AM
Briefly this:

Saying you're not much of a fan of Beethoven, would be one thing.  Calling Beethoven "a big drama queen you know" is quite another;  and when you set a tone like that, you're inviting people who do, in fact, know more about Beethoven than you do, to call you to the carpet, James. Corkin' Rod got his comeuppance when he tried to puff Handel up by trashing Bach;  your approach (not the intent of the OP, of course) to this is exactly on that primitive level ("Bach is da man, LvB be heap big drama queen").

Your vague notion of musical "purity" is suspect here;  there is nothing "impure" about Beethoven's work, any more than about Bach's.

Checkmate.

In fairness to James, the "supreme impersonality" canard came from Scriptavolent.

Quote from: James on August 22, 2007, 04:51:32 AM
larry, ive been around for along time, probably longer than you and most of the others here...Bach is my fave
you seem like an upset LvB fanboy, as soon as I said I wasnt much of a LvB fan u were one of the first to jump in saying "how much do you know" etc....there are so many other composers id choose to listen to before good ol' LvB for many reasons, I could go on and on as to why I don't like him, some of which ive stated in the thread already, learn to deal with other peoples preferences my friend.

Coming from someone who has previously stated -

QuoteNow now Larry, let's not sling personal attacks about, that's pretty childish...let's keep it civil.

- to assert yourself as "someone been around for along time, probably longer than you and most of the others here," when the fact is you know nothing of my background, and to call me "an upset LvB fanboy" are both pretty good examples of the pot calling the kettle black - as I have previously stated. Res ipsa loquitur. Look it up.

Easy choice.

For symphonies, piano concertos, piano sonatas, string quartets, piano trios and other chamber music --- Beethoven all the way.

For cantatas, oratorios, organ music, solo violin and cello sonatas and partitas, concertos for several instruments and orchestra --- Bach all the way.

;D

Quote from: karlhenning on August 21, 2007, 07:29:06 AM
I withdraw the question, your honor  8): What if you could not have a Wagner av, Marvin;  and there were only two choices for your av: Bach or Beethoven.

Which would you choose?

  To answer Karl's withdrawn question (belatedly- I'm on holiday and access to the internet is scarce) in lieu of a Wagner avatar I'd choose an schizophrenic avatar with half of Beethoven's face fused with half of Bach's face- again impossible to choose between two of the greatest men in music.

  marvin

Quote from: marvinbrown on August 22, 2007, 05:35:40 AM
  To answer Karl's withdrawn question (belatedly- I'm on holiday and access to the internet is scarce) in lieu of a Wagner avatar I'd choose an schizophrenic avatar with half of Beethoven's face fused with half of Bach's face- again impossible to choose between two of the greatest men in music.

  marvin

Hmmm....no! Quadrophenia...the faces of Beethoven, Mozart, Haydn, and Wagner!

JA!

Quote from: George on August 21, 2007, 06:02:06 PM
???

So you voted for Bach?

yes sir. just switched the names to show the way it works for me. In those cases there is only one final arbiter: Whose CD(s) do you pull out of your case more frequently (or in my case do I go one or two 'pages down' to reach the composer I want to listen to  ;D

Quote from: orbital on August 22, 2007, 05:54:23 AM
In those cases there is only one final arbiter: Whose CD(s) do you pull out of your case more frequently . . . .

Yes, in simplifying the question to this practice, I clearly was "voting" for Beethoven.

But naturally, I have no quarrel with anyone whose practice favors Old Bach  0:)

Just a quarrel with anyone blathering about "drama queens"   8)

Quote from: D Minor on August 22, 2007, 03:18:15 AM
Trust me: you're much, much better off to never set foot into the noisome waters of that murky quagmire ........

(http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/HPM/FM2060~Family-Guy-Quagmire-Posters.jpg)

Quote from: James on August 22, 2007, 05:51:59 AM
Here is a well considered (and articulated) article that I agree with, as you'd expect, though I don't rate LvB at the level this writer does..

LINK >> Roll Over, Beethoven (http://hcs.harvard.edu/~salient/issues/04112002/04112002_thayer_basement.html)

There are a lot of misconceptions and inaccuracies within that article.

Quote from: karlhenning on August 22, 2007, 06:21:01 AM
Yes, in simplifying the question to this practice, I clearly was "voting" for Beethoven.

But naturally, I have no quarrel with anyone whose practice favors Old Bach  0:)

Just a quarrel with anyone blathering about "drama queens"   8)

You know, in most cases it may have more to do with the listener than anything else.

I can't coherently explain why I listen to Bach more than Beethoven. Perhaps I am a calm person, and Bach's music is more suited to my personality, or perhaps I don't like being challenged by dynamics (of life or music) that much. It can really be so many things, least of all being the composer's fault.

Where a composer fails to talk to us is generally what we seek out in music. It is neither our nor the composer's fault that we don't align all the time. Eventually we sometimes compromise a little to come closer, and if what we gain is worthy of what we let go, then all the better: a new composer in our perimeter :D

Excellent post, orbital!

I'm really amazed by the way the PhDs around here are unable to grasp the simple metaphorical meaning of the term "impersonality", which has not to be intended in a literal way, of course.
Maybe the reading of Thomas Eliot's "Tradition and the Individual talent" would help. (maybe)

By "impersonality" Eliot meant subjectivity, impartiality, disinterestedness, distance - the control of accidentals, of subjectivity, of mere contingencies. Hence the idea of the objective correlative and its implied contract between writer and reader - that the impenetrably private is inadmissable as art.

from: http://books.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,,1983084,00.html

Eliot thought of this "impersonality" as the main characteristic of Classic Culture, in sharp contrast with Romantic poetics.

..but of course Rachmaninoff is a major composer.. so why arguing which such brilliant Phd-brains?  ;D

Quote from: orbital on August 22, 2007, 06:55:03 AM
You know, in most cases it may have more to do with the listener than anything else.

I can't coherently explain why I listen to Bach more than Beethoven. Perhaps I am a calm person, and Bach's music is more suited to my personality, or perhaps I don't like being challenged by dynamics (of life or music) that much. It can really be so many things, least of all being the composer's fault.

Where a composer fails to talk to us is generally what we seek out in music. It is neither our nor the composer's fault that we don't align all the time. Eventually we sometimes compromise a little to come closer, and if what we gain is worthy of what we let go, then all the better: a new composer in our perimeter :D

In that case, we all might benefit from listening to composers we don't like as much as others, as this practice might serve to expand our consciousness.   :)

Quote from: Scriptavolant on August 22, 2007, 07:01:20 AM
I'm really amazed by the way the PhDs around here

Quote from: HamletO wonderful son, that can so astonish a mother!

Quote from: Scriptavolant on August 22, 2007, 07:01:20 AM
but of course Rachmaninoff is a major composer

At last a statement of yours to which I can subscribe...  ;D

Quote from: Florestan on August 22, 2007, 07:09:41 AM
At last a statement of yours to which I can subscribe...  ;D

Aye, there is good in the lad, yet!  8)

Quote from: James on August 22, 2007, 07:15:02 AM
I do own quite a bit of LvB & do have favorites when in the mood...
the last 3 piano sonatas, some of the bagatelles...
and a few of the last string quartets....
the rest can be tossed back into the sea, i dont have much use for it really...

James, I have absolutely no problem with you disliking Beethoven. But isn't the highlighted statement likely to hurt the feelings of those of us who do have use for it?

Quote from: James on August 22, 2007, 07:15:02 AM
I do own quite a bit of LvB & do have favorites when in the mood...
the last 3 piano sonatas, some of the bagatelles...
and a few of the last string quartets....
the rest can be tossed back into the sea, i dont have much use for it really...

(meekly) The Missa Solemnis?

Quote from: James on August 22, 2007, 07:15:02 AM
I do own quite a bit of LvB & do have favorites when in the mood...
the last 3 piano sonatas, some of the bagatelles...

I wouldn't deprive myself of the Late three Sonatas as well.

Quote from: Florestan on August 22, 2007, 07:18:48 AM
James, I have absolutely no problem with you disliking Beethoven. But isn't the highlighted statement likely to hurt the feelings of those of us who do have use for it?

Oh, ignore him. He makes statements like that just to get attention.

Quote from: Florestan on August 22, 2007, 07:18:48 AM
James, I have absolutely no problem with you disliking Beethoven. But isn't the highlighted statement likely to hurt the feelings of those of us who do have use for it?

Nah. It just makes "us" less likely to take James seriously.

Quote from: James on August 22, 2007, 07:28:07 AM
Are you that hurt over that, really?

Of course I'm not. Your statements on Beethoven say a lot about you and nothing about him. I was just trying to make you be more thoughtful about what you write, 90% of which can be tossed back into the sea, I don't have much use for it, really.  ;D

Quote from: James on August 22, 2007, 07:46:00 AM
but our statements should reflect more about us and our individual tastes, than Beethoven per se, its an opinion poll, and the thread isnt about me...its about who's music we like better; Bach or Beethoven. You're going to get all kinds of different responses, some of them you'll agree with and others you simply won't (like mine), but none of it should hurt your feelings or even be taken to seriously...

I agree. See? You've already begun to post more sensibly. :)

Well, this thread had me throwing on the Brandenburg Concertos again (a favorite of mine for about 25 years). So, I must thank James.

OTOH, this thread confirms me in a keener interest in Stravinsky than in Bach.

Thank you, James!  8)

Quote from: karlhenning on August 22, 2007, 03:43:47 AM
In the first place, James, Stravinsky was always ready with a bon mot, he delighted in witty and sharp comment

Very true
And you like using some of his comments in GMG discussions sometimes, don't you, Karl?  >:D ;D

Why, I'm sure I don't know what you mean  0:)

Hey, I started the damned thread.  :P

Quote from: James on August 22, 2007, 07:15:02 AM
I do own quite a bit of LvB & do have favorites when in the mood...
the last 3 piano sonatas, some of the bagatelles...
and a few of the last string quartets....
the rest can be tossed back into the sea, i dont have much use for it really...

Quoting James from the Hummel thread:

QuoteAnd his great talent was vital in the evolution & renewal of form, Beethoven developed new and more elaborate Sonata and symphonic forms etc. These formal developments opened new ground for subsequent composers, his brilliant groundwork on the structural vessels that delivered so much for the future, which he cast a very large shadow over...

QuoteHe obviously built upon what came before...but he did so with such staggering genius, honed and distilled into staggering results...he did elaborate and further development form. i.e. Symphonic, sonata, string quartets etc

Sorry, James, but I feel in your words an abnormal incoherence.

Well, I was halfway through Brandenburg Concerto #3 when I had to slap on Klemperer's Missa Solemnis. Shucks.

Quote from: Gabriel on August 22, 2007, 08:29:46 AM
Sorry, James, but I feel in your words an abnormal incoherence.

Maybe there are two posters named James.

Quote from: Haffner on August 22, 2007, 08:32:36 AM
Well, I was halfway through Brandenburg Concerto #3 when I had to slap on Klemperer's Missa Solemnis. Shucks.

You gotta do what you gotta do, Andy :-)

Quote from: James on August 22, 2007, 07:15:02 AM
I do own quite a bit of LvB & do have favorites when in the mood...
the last 3 piano sonatas, some of the bagatelles...
and a few of the last string quartets....
the rest can be tossed back into the sea, i dont have much use for it really...

Well I might be wrong, but for me, this subjectivity goes much far beyond taste.
I assume it's a refusal to consider some pieces. It has more to do with what you would like your taste to be.

Personnally I enjoy almost all the classical music I know and I believe it's nothing but a matter of opening your heart to it and to make an effort.
You'll never read anything scornful from me about classical music, there are those I consider great or good and those I've not understood.
I'll never throw anything to the bin or to the sea because it could only limit my musical knowledge and the potential pleasures I could get out of this art.

Quote from: karlhenning on August 22, 2007, 08:36:59 AM
You gotta do what you gotta do, Andy :-)

The Missa Solemnis is just...

"in a class by itself" is all I can come up with. It would be euphoria-inducing to hear that piece performed in St. Pete's Basilica...shoot, at my little parish down the street!

Bach > (late) Beethoven > everybody else.

I like to keep things simple, as you can see.  ;D

I would be harder to keep it simple if you had to explain what it means.

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on August 22, 2007, 09:12:05 AM
Bach > (late) Beethoven > everybody else.

I like to keep things simple, as you can see.  ;D

Thus, Bach is greater than late Beethoven, yet thay both blow out every other composer's output.

Quote from: Scriptavolant on August 22, 2007, 07:01:20 AM
By "impersonality" Eliot meant subjectivity, impartiality, disinterestedness, distance - the control of accidentals, of subjectivity, of mere contingencies. Hence the idea of the objective correlative and its implied contract between writer and reader - that the impenetrably private is inadmissable as art.[/i]

With due respect for Eliot, what has this do do with Bach?

Quote from: premont on August 22, 2007, 09:46:17 AM
With due respect for Eliot, what has this do do with Bach?

The poetics of objectivity Eliot built on Classic Culture (and which were renewed in Neoclassical period), I find in Bach.

"subjectivity, impartiality, disinterestedness, distance - the control of accidentals, of subjectivity, of mere contingencies"

and "the impenetrably private is inadmissable as art"

are all features I find completely accomplished in Bach's music (well, in most of the pre-romantic music).

An interesting link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Objectivity

Let me know if these concepts are too difficult to grasp.

Well, I understand the concepts, but I find them irrelevant in the context of Bach. Bach was a human being with human emotions, and if you make the effort, you can hear this very clearly in his music, which expresses exactly his emotions - in the same way as LvB´s music expresses his emotions. And to a large extent it is the same sort of emotions, only the wrapping ( = style) is different.

Quote from: James on August 22, 2007, 08:53:47 AM
No...let me clarify

Beethoven was a great talent and a genius, and I credit his formal innovations that were vital in the evolution & renewal of form. And these formal developments opened new ground for subsequent composers - ones that I might even like ... LOL

Though im no real fan of his music and how it actually sounds, I was just stating facts in that other thread.

"Everything must change so that everything can remain the same"

So you enjoy the formal innovations, but not the substance of music?

I'd really love that you could accurately explain which formal innovations you enjoy in other composers as prefigured by Beethoven. And avoid the "ampliation of structures", because for that you could also mention Mozart, Haydn, Reicha, Cherubini, Schubert, Dusík, Vorísek and more of the same period.

Quote from: Scriptavolant on August 22, 2007, 09:53:49 AM
Let me know if these concepts are too difficult to grasp.

Yes, yes, they are much too difficult to grasp. How very exceptionally intelligent you must be!

Quote from: premont on August 22, 2007, 10:17:31 AM
Well, I understand the concepts, but I find them irrelevant in the context of Bach. Bach was a human being with human emotions, and if you make the effort, you can hear this very clearly in his music, which expresses exactly his emotions - in the same way as LvB´s music expresses his emotions.

But as I've said no music is absolutely inexpressive. Not even Cage's Immaginary Landscape. This is not the point. The point is to consider how much importance is given to sentimental contents and formal problems, in different periods. Unlike you I don't believe music is nothing else but a depiction of emotions, so I try to consider other things. I don't think they're irrelevant, they're just part of this thing called musical expression. Each composer had to face the matter.
I'm much more inclined towards considering inane this "cult of emotion".

QuoteAnd to a large extent it is the same sort of emotions, only the wrapping ( = style) is different.

Quoting Larry:

The form of music is its content. And the content is its form.

Quote from: karlhenning on August 22, 2007, 10:34:17 AM
How very exceptionally intelligent you must be!

QuoteO wonderful son, that can so astonish a mother!

Quote from: James on August 22, 2007, 10:24:41 AM
No, I said..I 'credit' his innovations and was just stating facts.

So you don't enjoy them, just credit them, and enjoy them when applied by other composers.

So you credit which innovations? (Besides the "ampliation of structures", as I said; a long work is not necessarily better than a short one).

Quote from: James on August 22, 2007, 11:27:52 AM
I mainly listen to music be moved quite frankly...

All right; and that's why so many of us love Beethoven's music.

Quote from: Florestan on August 22, 2007, 05:23:25 AM
Easy choice.

For symphonies, piano concertos, piano sonatas, string quartets, piano trios and other chamber music --- Beethoven all the way.

For cantatas, oratorios, organ music, solo violin and cello sonatas and partitas, concertos for several instruments and orchestra --- Bach all the way.

I prefer Bach's symphonies to LvB's ........

Quote from: James on August 22, 2007, 11:27:52 AM
I already mentioned them in that Hummel thread did I not? i.e. "Beethoven developed new and more elaborate Sonata and symphonic forms etc"  ETC.

This doesn't mean "longer works".

Anyway, I am aware that he did do these things, and that it's fact. (I do not pretend to be an expert or even be very interested !)
And I notice and observed these things in my listening...

I dont listen to any music primarily for the "innovations", cloud judgement with analytical points etc .. its immaterial to me... to experience the joy music can bring in a pure sense..the creative essense & the beauty & the meaning, derived from the experience...

The problem is that you wrote that you liked how those formal improvements were applied by composers after Beethoven, what means you have the capacity of discerning when and how they are applied. It still doesn't sound coherent to me, but I will not insist.

Quote from: James on August 22, 2007, 11:27:52 AM
I mainly listen to music be moved quite frankly...

I also agree wholeheartedly with this. If formal/technical understanding can help, even better.

Before I came to this forum I didn't realise how valued Beethoven is among fans of classical music. All I can say I really have failed to see the greatness in Beethoven's music people say there is. Maybe I am stupid but for my money J. S. Bach is clearly greater.

Quote from: 71 dB on August 22, 2007, 11:43:45 AM
Maybe I am stupid but for my money J. S. Bach is clearly greater.

Why must one be "greater" than the other (which is not at all necessarily what this poll is after)?

Quote from: Haffner on August 22, 2007, 04:17:46 AM

You probably already thought of this, Max: It might be that you see Beethoven as the reflection of a set of ideologies which are more pleasing to you.

...actually that's not true. Ideology has never made me prefer one kind of music over another. Music has the last word when listening to music but when discussing it, it's fair game to bring up the context of the age in which it was written and how that would have changed the sound which is also a language.

That's one reason why I think comparison threads like these are drivel. It's a matter of preference pure and simple and are not the same at all times. If I want to listen to the B minor mass then I, for sure, don't want to listen to the Missa Solemnis or the other way around; both works have vastly different colors and my preferences are not monochromatic!

When it's said that 'comparisons are odious', threads like these are perfect examples of that! It's clear this forum is running out of subjects.   

Quote from: max on August 22, 2007, 11:50:15 AM
When it's said that 'comparisons are odious', threads like these are perfect examples of that! It's clear this forum is running out of subjects.   

No. I just like doing polls. ;D

And it's a frikken message board; these things happen.

Quote from: 71 dB on August 22, 2007, 11:43:45 AM
Before I came to this forum I didn't realise how valued Beethoven is among fans of classical music. All I can say I really have failed to see the greatness in Beethoven's music people say there is. Maybe I am stupid but for my money J. S. Bach is clearly greater.

Testify, Brother .........

Quote from: max on August 22, 2007, 11:50:15 AM
When it's said that 'comparisons are odious', threads like these are perfect examples of that! It's clear this forum is running out of subjects.   

I'd agree with you if you said that these kind of on line debates are worthless, a waste of time, inconclusive and so on (I know: but these days I happen to have nothing important to do..so here I am).

To say they're absolute drivel I can't agree with. At least not in their intention. To know, explain or try to investigate why one prefers one kind of music to another is perfectly legitimate. As it is to discuss aesthetical principles or artistic matters.

Quote from: Scriptavolant on August 22, 2007, 10:43:44 AM
The point is to consider how much importance is given to sentimental contents and formal problems, in different periods. Unlike you I don't believe music is nothing else but a depiction of emotions, so I try to consider other things. I don't think they're irrelevant, they're just part of this thing called musical expression.

I am but a mere PhD (so you have got your indisputable right to read my words with strong reservation) , and maybe it is just me, but listening to music I always learn by experience, that I can listen to the music in two ways. 1) The analytical way, which analyzes the formal characteristics and 2) the emotional way, which try to understand, what the composer wants to express. It is usually possible to switch from 1) to 2) or the reverse, but it is hardly possible to listen in both ways at the same time. So my dividing into form and content is not plucked out of the air.

Quote from: Scriptavolant
Quoting Larry:
The form of music is its content. And the content is its form.

This very clever claim doesn´t become more true by quoting a self-appointed authority.  It remains a claim.

Quote from: premont on August 22, 2007, 12:29:24 PM
but it is hardly possible to listen in both ways at the same time. So my dividing into form and content is not plucked out of the air.

No, it isn't and I didn't mean that.
But I usually consider two things. Music is not verbal language, in which the distinction between form and content is possible. A word and its meaning are arbitrarly linked.
When I listen to music, I don't run into emotions as a sort of abstract concepts. They're always musical emotion, that is emotion solved in musical terms, directly coming from the musical matter. That's why I'm unable to sharply divide the two things. It is possible to distinguish of course, but only in abstract terms, not in practical terms.

In other words, from the link I added a few posts ago:

The romantic position values strong emotions, makes them central to the achievement of art. It was a mistake Eliot was determined to overturn: in art, he wrote, "it is not the 'greatness', the intensity of the emotions, the components, but the intensity of the artistic process, the pressure, so to speak, under which the fusion takes place, that counts". Instead, he argued for the impersonality of great art [...] But this does not mean, could not mean, that art should be purged of anything personal - as many have wrongly believed. On the contrary, Eliot maintains the emotions are what we make art from. The emotions are "the components", but they have to be made into something. "Tradition and the Individual Talent" is though, a denunciation of unreconstructed subjectivity in art. Strong feelings cannot make you a poet. Otherwise, every sentimental drunk, every football fan, every religious bigot would qualify. Creativity means creating something.

Quote from: premont on August 22, 2007, 12:29:24 PM
I am but a mere PhD (so you have got your indisputable right to read my words with strong reservation) , and maybe it is just me, but listening to music I always learn by experience, that I can listen to the music in two ways. 1) The analytical way, which analyzes the formal characteristics and 2) the emotional way, which try to understand, what the composer wants to express. It is usually possible to switch from 1) to 2) or the reverse, but it is hardly possible to listen in both ways at the same time. So my dividing into form and content is not plucked out of the air.


This very clever claim doesn´t become more true by quoting a self-appointed authority.  It remains a claim.

I don't know what field you have your PhD in, and I am neither self-appointed nor an authority. I say what I think based on my experience, just like anyone else here. Of course you can examine formal procedures in a work or experience it in real-time start to finish without breaking it into analytical sections. But I don't think that the form-content theory necessarily explains that dichotomy. You can have analytical insights while listening, just as you can have an emotional experience while doing an analysis. One approach to the music is more intellectual, the other more emotional - perhaps - but the musical work is the same. A melody may be very moving, but this melody is the sum total of its pitches, rhythms, harmonies, and other musical elements. Likewise an entire symphony or sonata, but with all the components writ large. So I don't see these attributes as being divisible into "content" here and "form" there; rather the two approaches you describe are more like two types of interface by which we experience the same underlying music. (To put it another way, they are two kinds of experience brought by the listener, but to the same work of art.)

Quote from: Scriptavolant on August 22, 2007, 09:53:49 AM
"the impenetrably private is inadmissable as art"

Could you please give us an example of impenetrably private in Beethoven's output?

Quote from: Florestan on August 22, 2007, 11:09:40 PM
Could you please give us an example of impenetrably private in Beethoven's output?

Clearly if impenetrable one cannot tell what is within, it may be a private thought or a jungle. Hidden meaning that cannot be detected has no meaning except to the composer, who in this case is dead. It seems that the concept of impenetrably private can safely ignored.

Quote from: 71 dB on August 22, 2007, 11:43:45 AM
Before I came to this forum I didn't realise how valued Beethoven is among fans of classical music. All I can say I really have failed to see the greatness in Beethoven's music people say there is. Maybe I am stupid but for my money J. S. Bach is clearly greater.

I have problems getting Elgar...

Quote from: D Minor on August 22, 2007, 11:38:42 AM
I prefer Bach's symphonies to LvB's ........

Lol, though on a more serious note, I much prefer Bach's Piano/Keyboard Concertos to those of Beethoven. In fact, Bach's D Minor Keyboard concerto is perhaps my favourite concerto of all. Here, you will not find any of that virtuosic-for-the-sake-of-being-virtuosic nonsense, which does unfortunately make it's way into so many other concertos before and after Bach.

Quote from: premont on August 22, 2007, 12:29:24 PM
I am but a mere PhD (so you have got your indisputable right to read my words with strong reservation) , and maybe it is just me, but listening to music I always learn by experience, that I can listen to the music in two ways. 1) The analytical way, which analyzes the formal characteristics and 2) the emotional way, which try to understand, what the composer wants to express. It is usually possible to switch from 1) to 2) or the reverse, but it is hardly possible to listen in both ways at the same time. So my dividing into form and content is not plucked out of the air.

I don't see these two ways as mutually exclusive.  I've only got a bachelor's, plus some thirty years' experience in performing music :), but it seems to me that you can do both at once.  At least, that sure seems like what's happening when I listen. :D

Also, it seems that, to quote Marshall McLuhan, the medium is the message, especially in deliberately romantic music in which the dramatic/emotional content determines the form but also even in "absolute" music such as the Bach fugues.

Quote from: Norbeone on August 23, 2007, 08:00:55 AM
. . . Here, you will not find any of that virtuosic-for-the-sake-of-being-virtuosic nonsense

Examples of such concerti?

Quote from: karlhenning on August 23, 2007, 08:07:15 AM
Examples of such concerti?

I'm curious as well.

Quote from: jochanaan on August 23, 2007, 08:06:47 AM
I don't see these two ways as mutually exclusive.  I've only got a bachelor's, plus some thirty years' experience in performing music :), but it seems to me that you can do both at once.  At least, that sure seems like what's happening when I listen. :D

You probably have to thank your long-time practical musical experience for this ability. When I practise music (what I sometimes do for the pleasure of myself and a small group of like-minded people), I feel able at most to experience the music in both ways, - my mind and the music so to say form a synthesis, but when I just listen to some music, I find, that as soon as I begin to analyze my emotional response and consider what this response is caused by, the quality of the emotional response drops to a lower level. Maybe it is just me.

Quote
Also, it seems that, to quote Marshall McLuhan, the medium is the message

A variation of "the form is the content, and the content is the form". Sounds clever, but remains a claim, I think, as it can´t be "proved".

Quote from: Norbeone on August 23, 2007, 08:00:55 AM
I much prefer Bach's Piano/Keyboard Concertos to those of Beethoven. In fact, Bach's D Minor Keyboard concerto is perhaps my favourite concerto of all. Here, you will not find any of that virtuosic-for-the-sake-of-being-virtuosic nonsense, which does unfortunately make it's way into so many other concertos before and after Bach.

Well, Bach's D Minor keyboard concerto is indeed extraordinary.

As to Beethoven's "virtuosic-for-the-sake-of-being-virtuosic":

5th Concerto (Emperor): Guilty
4th Concerto (G Major): Not Guilty

LvB's 4th Piano Concerto is virtuosic, but like Brahms' concerti, the virtuosity flows naturally and organically from the dialog (and resulting tensions) between the piano and orchestra.  There is no superfluous virtuosity -- rather, the virtuosity is integrated into the whole fabric of the piece.

Brahms is one of the few composers to fully capitalize on this framework initiated by Bach (D Minor concerto), extended by Mozart (20th, 24th concerti), and brought to perfection by Beethoven (4th Piano Concerto).  To have a truly integrated dialog between piano and orchestra without superfluous embellishment is a very, very rare thing.

Thus, apart from these few exceptions, I think your point is quite correct (regarding "virtuosic-for-the-sake-of-being-virtuosic").

Quote from: D Minor on August 23, 2007, 01:00:53 PM

Brahms is one of the few composers to fully capitalize on this framework initiated by Bach (D Minor concerto), extended by Mozart (20th, 24th concerti), and brought to perfection by Beethoven (4th Piano Concerto).  To have a truly integrated dialog between piano and orchestra without superfluous embellishment is a very, very rare thing.

In my opinion, D minor, the integration of piano and orchestra in Mozart's music is exemplary not just in the minor-keyed concerti, but in general in the mature concerti. He had a "concertante" logic which was, by the way, not only important for the concertos, but also for his operas.

I'd rather consider Beethoven's first piano concertos to be virtuosic for the sake etc etc. Not his 4th and certainly not his 5th.
And I think Bach Keyboard concertos has very little to do with Romantic concertos. The aesthetical problem of a balanced integration between orchestra and soloist wasn't raised before Late-classical, Early Romantic period, that is not before the basso continuo practice had died.

And if we're talking about virtuosic onanism, there are at least two names that come into my mind..but let's not twist the knife in the wound  >:D

Quote from: Scriptavolant on August 23, 2007, 07:45:13 PM
The aesthetical problem of a balanced integration between orchestra and soloist wasn't raised before Late-classical, Early Romantic period, that is not before the basso continuo practice had died.

May I ask what, in your opinion, did Mozart do in this respect?

Quote from: premont on August 23, 2007, 12:09:02 PM
A variation of "the form is the content, and the content is the form". Sounds clever, but remains a claim, I think, as it can´t be "proved".

My point is that what you're calling form and content are differences in your response to the work, not aspects of the work itself. It's not a clever McLuhanesque slogan at all. The same point can be made with regards to literature, where people often try to extract a "meaning" from a poem, as if it can be reduced to a few nuggets of wisdom that are divorced from the language. As I said earlier, a melody may move you, but the melody is the sum total of all the musical elements (pitch, rhythm, harmony, articulations, etc.) used to create it. I'm more than willing to grant you can approach the work emotionally or intellectually or both at different times, but not that this indicates a form-content dichotomy within the work itself.

Quote from: Gabriel on August 24, 2007, 02:03:52 AM
May I ask what, in your opinion, did Mozart do in this respect?

For my taste his achievements in the Piano Concerto are unequalled. To me the K595 in B flat major is the greatest piano concerto ever.

Quote from: Larry Rinkel on August 24, 2007, 03:08:51 AM
My point is that what you're calling form and content are differences in your response to the work, not aspects of the work itself. .. I'm more than willing to grant you can approach the work emotionally or intellectually or both at different times, but not that this indicates a form-content dichotomy within the work itself.

Now you are much more clear, and now I can partially agree with you. I consider it to be self-understood, that my claimed "dichotomy" is a consequence of our human psychological mechanisms. But I dare to say, that these mechanisms exert their effects not only upon the listener, but upon the musicians and the composers as well. Music can´t express anything at all by itself, but as we have got rather strong culturally inherited musical emotional associations (compare f.x. the so called "affektlehre"), music acquires a more or less common accepted emotional content (at least in our western culture), and the composers know this and of course use it in composition. I have not claimed that the "content" of music was anything else than the affect or emotion it provokes in us as intended by the composers. Music is as much a psychological as a technical phenomenon.

Quote from: Scriptavolant on August 24, 2007, 03:44:30 AM
For my taste his achievements in the Piano Concerto are unequalled. To me the K595 in B flat major is the greatest piano concerto ever.

Outstanding choice, S. And I'm pretty much with you on this one. Pretty much any of the PCs after and including k467.

Quote from: Haffner on August 24, 2007, 05:06:28 AM
Outstanding choice, S. And I'm pretty much with you on this one. Pretty much any of the PCs after and including k467.

Don't you mean K466?  :-[

Form and content are two aspects of the piece;  there is some degree of overlap;  yet, too, they address different planes.  It isn't like a pie-graph (Form 19%, Content 81%);  there is neither exact sharing/complementation, nor clean opposition.

An earlier comment that musical content determines form (that, for instance, there is always one best form for any particular musical content), is not always applicable in the same way or degree.  It is not difficult to find a given musical artifact ('content') which readily inhabits a variety of musical forms/contexts.

Quote from: George on August 24, 2007, 05:07:40 AM
Don't you mean K466?  :-[

Actually, now that I stopped being "duh" and writing without thinking, yes George. And sincere thanks for the correction!

Quote from: Haffner on August 24, 2007, 05:10:48 AM
Actually, now that I stopped being "duh" and writing without thinking, yes George. And sincere thanks for the correction!

*Breathes a sigh of relief*

:)

Quote from: Scriptavolant on August 24, 2007, 03:44:30 AM
For my taste his achievements in the Piano Concerto are unequalled. To me the K595 in B flat major is the greatest piano concerto ever.

Thanks for your reply, to which I agree wholeheartedly in its first part. On the specific favourite concerto we could have some differences. ;)

No great composers achievements are ever "equalled" by the achievements even of other great composers.  "Equation" has no meaning here.

Just saying.

I love the great Mozart piano concerti.  And I love the Liszt concerti, the Chopin concerti, the Saint-Saëns concerti, the Brahms, Tchaikovsky, Rakhmaninov, Prokofiev and Stravinsky concerti.  It is technically correct to say that Mozart remains "unequalled," but I do not at all consider that to mean that any of these other concerti are in the least "second tier."

(Gosh, and here I didn't even mention the Beethoven piano concerti, and he's in the title of the thread . . . .)

Quote from: karlhenning on August 24, 2007, 06:51:55 AM
No great composers achievements are ever "equalled" by the achievements even of other great composers.  "Equation" has no meaning here.

Yes, I think you could say, that every great composer has got his own personal style, where he is unequalled. The personal style is the characteristic trait of a great composer, and the reason, why we often recognize him at once, even if we don´t know the work in question.

Quote from: karlhenning on August 24, 2007, 06:51:55 AM
I love the great Mozart piano concerti.  And I love the Liszt concerti, the Chopin concerti, the Saint-Saëns concerti, the Brahms, Tchaikovsky, Rakhmaninov, Prokofiev and Stravinsky concerti.  It is technically correct to say that Mozart remains "unequalled," but I do not at all consider that to mean that any of these other concerti are in the least "second tier."

Elgar's Piano Concerto ......

Wicked, mon vieux, wicked!  ;D

Quote from: Gabriel on August 23, 2007, 01:45:45 PM
In my opinion, D minor, the integration of piano and orchestra in Mozart's music is exemplary not just in the minor-keyed concerti, but in general in the mature concerti. He had a "concertante" logic which was, by the way, not only important for the concertos, but also for his operas.

When I was young, Mozart was God, Bach and Beethoven his angels. I would add that many of the concertos you criticize for their virtuosity actually have a very sound underlying structure. The embellishments are merely added to suit public taste. The very essence of the Baroque was embellishment and Classicism returned to simple uncluttered style.

Quote from: Ten thumbs on September 04, 2007, 02:57:31 AM
When I was young, Mozart was God, Bach and Beethoven his angels. I would add that many of the concertos you criticize for their virtuosity actually have a very sound underlying structure. The embellishments are merely added to suit public taste. The very essence of the Baroque was embellishment and Classicism returned to simple uncluttered style.

Sorry, but I guess I don't remember the concertos I criticized for their virtuosity.

Quote from: Ten thumbs on September 04, 2007, 02:57:31 AM
The embellishments are merely added to suit public taste.

Of course, but if the embellishments are extraneous to the underlying motivic and organic structure of the piece, then they would be excised and excluded by Brahms, Beethoven, and, to a great extent, Mozart.

Quote from: D Minor on September 04, 2007, 12:30:26 PM
Of course, but if the embellishments are extraneous to the underlying motivic and organic structure of the piece, then they would be excised and excluded by Brahms, Beethoven, and, to a great extent, Mozart.

And Bach, to go back further.

Even today, Liszt et al would not go down well if one took away the fireworks. I think we should also bear in mind that some of the fancy figuration was extremely innovative. One could also argue that most but not all of the ornamentation in Bach is non-structural and superfluous on modern instruments but I for one consider it an essential part of his style. Incidentally, very difficult concertos that lack flamboyance are very hard on the performer because not all of the audience are in the know. 

Oh boy emotionally charged rhetoric!  Don't you just love these threads? ;D

Dave will Bach eclipse Beethoven for you?  As you get into Bach he will for awhile, because you will be reveling in your reevaluation of his music, it will sound different to you and fresh and you might want to explore more of his music as well.  Whether you like one more than another takes time to see.  I got into Bach last year, and I'm still just in the phase of really experiencing and embracing his music.  I can't move onto the decision until the discovery phase, you know what I mean?  It takes along time, but it's worth a slow journey, don't you think? :)

Quote from: Ten thumbs on September 05, 2007, 01:10:17 AM
Even today, Liszt et al would not go down well if one took away the fireworks. I think we should also bear in mind that some of the fancy figuration was extremely innovative. One could also argue that most but not all of the ornamentation in Bach is non-structural and superfluous on modern instruments but I for one consider it an essential part of his style. Incidentally, very difficult concertos that lack flamboyance are very hard on the performer because not all of the audience are in the know.  

I do not disagree with you. 

Every composer embarking on creating a concerto faces an intrinsic tension: "how do I unleash the virtuosity of the instrument and performer without compromising the architectural and structural integrity of the piece?"

Perhaps 99% of the listening pubic has no clue about how the hidden virtuosities in Brahms piano concerti are actually organically related to, integrated with, and indispensable to the concerto's underlying structure .......  For example, consider the fortissimo octave trills in Brahms D Minor Piano Concerto (1st mvt): they are simultaneously treacherously difficult for the pianist (even Barenboim routinely botches these) yet they represent the culmination of the motivic and organic framework initiated by Brahms in the opening measures. 

They are indispensable to the structure, yet are consummately virtuosic.  There is no compromise. 

Beethoven accomplishes this same feat with his 4th Piano Concerto: the virtuosity is a natural, organic, and indispensable culmination of the underlying structure of the composition.  There is no virtuosity for the sake of showmanship; rather, the virtuosity exists solely for the sake of coherence, integration, unification, and organic culmination of the composition's dramatic structure.  The virtuosity is a natural unleashing of the dramatic tension inherent in the composition.  The virtuosity thus slips past the casual listener, concealing its seamless and deeply-rooted difficulties.

Contrast Liszt's Totentanz in D Minor.  Although this is one of my favorite piano concertos, it is, nevertheless, about 50% glitz and showmanship.  It's a highly effective piece, but it's not anywhere near the same level of overall craftsmanship as the Brahms and Beethoven concerti discussed above. 

Whether you prefer Totentanz in D Minor to Brahms First PC in D Minor depends on what you value in music.  I happen to think that the true test of greatness addresses the issue of "whether any given composition can possibly be improved upon."  If you can identify and delete extraneous glitz and frills, then, in my opinion, the piece CAN be improved upon.  On the other hand, if all of the virtuosity is organically interwoven into the whole fabric of the composition while simultaneously representing the inevitable culmination and natural release of the underlying drama and tension of the composition, then that represents perfection.

1. Unfair in that the poll gives Beethoven the edge when there is no way to vote (that I can discover anyway).

2. I agree with the poster who calls Beethoven a drama queen. I have read (in a description by Prof. Charles Rosen, I believe) Beethoven's work described as having a continual moral earnestness that grates on the nerves of some people. That's it, exactly: he takes himself so seriously that it's almost caricature. Just settle down and make make music, boy; don't be in a continual state of crisis.

BACH easily.

My fav is and has always been Beethoven. Living here in Heiligenstadt I either see him (my oil portrait of him or one of the many statues of him here in Vienna) or I hear his music (on the radio and TV or coming from a window of some church or concert hall, etc.) almost everyday. I am forever surrounded by Beethoven. I live nearby to many of the houses he lived in here in Heiligenstadt and the Vienna Woods (that he enjoyed spending hours walking through) is also close by.

Now I must admit that I do enjoy Bach and he is my favorite Baroque composer.

Quote from: chaszz on September 05, 2007, 09:20:24 PM
2. I agree with the poster who calls Beethoven a drama queen.

A drama queen is somebody who makes a big deal out of nothing. You really think that applies to Beethoven?