I say yes!
Oops! Wrong section. Mods, please move to the main forum.
I'm not particularly fond of nos. 2 and 4,
though they may still be "masterpieces". All the others, yes!
Oddly enough, the only one I think may not be a masterpiece is the most famous, i.e. No. 9. That's because I've never been convinced by the structure of the Finale - it seems like sort of a grab-bag, with the second half much less inspired than the first.
I suppose No.1 is not super-special either, I can think of several other composers' firsts that I would put above it. But it's still a nice piece.
Quote from: kyjo on February 22, 2022, 11:27:28 AM
I'm not particularly fond of nos. 2 and 4,
though they may still be "masterpieces". All the others, yes!
This is funny, because nowadays 2, 4 and 8 are the ones I listen to most often.
The 9th finale is one of the most underrated movements in Beethoven; it's as logical or grab bag as op.133 and far easier to follow because of the more accessible tune. The structure is comparably loose but not more so than the Eroica finale or op.133
I think the 1st is an intentionally modest piece and while not flawed in obvious ways not really among the best Beethoven wrote at that time. There is a tradition of preferring the 1st to the 2nd (e.g. Furtwängler) that I never understood; except for the 3rd movement the 2nd is far superior, especially in the first two movements and the larghetto is one of the most beautiful slow movements by Beethoven.
4 and 8 are comparably modest in scale in their surroundings but I think they achieve pretty exactly what Beethoven intended with them. (I don't much care for the 6th personally, but it was one of the most influential and highly regarded in the early-mid 19th century.)
Quote from: Jo498 on February 22, 2022, 11:57:28 AM
The 9th finale is one of the most underrated movements in Beethoven; it's as logical or grab bag as op.133 and far easier to follow because of the more accessible tune. The structure is comparably loose but not more so than the Eroica finale or op.133
Maybe, but my interest level drops sharply at "seid umschlungen, Millionen" and stays low until the exciting coda arrives.
I do think the 2nd is somewhat underrated. When it was new, it may have been the longest, most imposing symphony anyone had written up to that point - something we tend to forget, because Beethoven then smashed his own record with the
Eroica.
Not a masterpiece
First, Second, Fifth
Are a masterpiece
Third, Fourth, Seventh, Eighth
Not a masterpiece but original enough to be categorized separately
Sixth, Ninth
Generally, the odd symphonies are preferred. 1st, 3rd, 5th, 7th, 9th. But with that said, the others are gems too. I think you should think of this as a genius can be mistaken too. For example, Einstein didn't think Black Holes were possible though they were in his formulas. He also didn't believe in the Big Bang which is certain. He was wrong and also absolutely brilliant. It's possible to be both. I would say Beethoven falls in that category. He was both a genius and not always right.
I would say yes.
Yes.
This almost belongs to the "unpopular opinions" thread, but imho the Sixth is the masterpiece.
5, 7, 9 are great (but not masterpieces)
3, 4, 8 are good
1 & 2 are "meh"
I don't dislike the 6th and I loved it as a teenager (for odd reasons, 3, 6 and 9 were the first I encountered, even before the 5th) but I think it has the closest thing to flaws in the mature symphonies: Schubertian broadness and repetition in movements 1, 2 and 5 and some reliance on the program in movements 2-4. If movements like the finales of the 3rd and 9th have a few rough edges, I find this justified by the extraordinary daring of the conception. I don't find the program/conception of the Pastoral all that daring and extraordinary...
Quote from: JBS on February 22, 2022, 05:14:07 PM
Not a masterpiece
Fifth
Whoa. Discuss?
(I tend to think 2-8 are clear masterpieces, 1 wasn't trying to be but is very good, and 9 probably is but in a weird way that other composers should have been more hesitant about imitating.)
Quote from: Brian on February 23, 2022, 05:34:10 AM
Whoa. Discuss?
(I tend to think 2-8 are clear masterpieces, 1 wasn't trying to be but is very good, and 9 probably is but in a weird way that other composers should have been more hesitant about imitating.)
+1
In my mind, the ninth would have been a unalloyed masterpiece had Beethoven lived to carry out an idea he had (as I read somewhere) for separating the finale as a free standing piece and writing an instrumental finale (as he did for the B-flat quartet and the Grosse Fuge).
Currently my most listened-to Beethoven Symphony is the 8th. The 2nd and 4th didn't make a big impression on me in traditional performances, but HIP or PI performances of the 2nd and 4th opened them up for me (Immersaal, Harnoncourt).
The 9th finale would not have been a free-standing piece. To my knowledge there was far earlier the idea to write a separate piece based on the Schiller text but this never led to any real sketches.
At the time of the planning and composition of the 9th the latter apparently was the fusion of two symphony plans for one of which some choral part was present at least as an idea (there is a note by Beethoven that already in a slow movement the choir should start). So the inclusion of the Schiller text was a comparably late decision but the idea of a choral symphony had been hovering in Beethoven's mind for some time. And a later separation and replacement is either a myth or mainly a suggestion by some well-meaning philistine friends.
The complex history of op.130/133 makes also a dubious parallel case, because it is really different (it was not open until late in the original composition what kind of finale there would be) and also because nowadays Beethoven's "final" version is usually disregarded. ;)
The first two are nothing ground-breaking. Technically perfect, but they are covering the same ground as Haydn.
The Fourth has never been a favorite of mine.
All the others - sublime, with the Ninth making new ground that resonates today.
Quote from: Brian on February 23, 2022, 05:34:10 AM
Whoa. Discuss?
(I tend to think 2-8 are clear masterpieces, 1 wasn't trying to be but is very good, and 9 probably is but in a weird way that other composers should have been more hesitant about imitating.)
Compared to 3 and 4, 5 is a falling off, and it certainly is below the level of 7 and 8.
The main thing going for it is its Reputation.
No, the 5th is tremendous, far tighter and more stringent than almost any other (possible exceptions are 7 and 8 but they don't have the emotional breadth) and this combined with the unprecedented overall arch that is also the strongest of all of them made it so influential and iconic. We take so much of this for granted because it became a model that we have become jaded, also because of overexposure.
Quote from: JBS on February 23, 2022, 06:58:36 PM
Compared to 3 and 4, 5 is a falling off, and it certainly is below the level of 7 and 8.
I could nominate that as the most absurd thing I have ever read on GMG! :laugh:
Merge this with "Unpopular Opinions" ;D
Quote from: Spotted Horses on February 24, 2022, 07:19:59 AM
I could nominate that as the most absurd thing I have ever read on GMG! :laugh:
My statement boils down to saying the Fifth is at most Beethoven's fifth or sixth best symphony.
First tier
3 4 7 8
Middle tier
5 6 9
Bottom tier
1 2
Put that way, does it still sound absurd?
Quote from: kyjo on February 22, 2022, 11:27:28 AM
I'm not particularly fond of nos. 2 and 4,
though they may still be "masterpieces". All the others, yes!
The
Op. 60 is brilliant!
Quote from: JBS on February 24, 2022, 03:28:03 PM
My statement boils down to saying the Fifth is at most Beethoven's fifth or sixth best symphony.
First tier
3 4 7 8
Middle tier
5 6 9
Bottom tier
1 2
Put that way, does it still sound absurd?
I have no quarrel with you.
Quote from: JBS on February 24, 2022, 03:28:03 PM
My statement boils down to saying the Fifth is at most Beethoven's fifth or sixth best symphony.
First tier
3 4 7 8
Middle tier
5 6 9
Bottom tier
1 2
Put that way, does it still sound absurd?
The only Beethoven symphony that I might be tempted to characterize as prosaic is the first, when he was still to some extent channeling Haydn. What is unique about Beethoven is that he wrote a small number of symphonies (not 41 odd, not 1o4 odd) but each one is a world unto itself. For Mozart or Haydn I suspect someone could swap slow movements between two symphonies, and as long as it were transcribed so as not to be out of place within the key scheme, I might not notice. Could you put the slow movement of the 7th into the 5th, the 6th, the 8th, the 9th, be persuaded that it fits in? I think not.
I have my favorites, but I think that every Beethoven symphony after the first opened new territory for the symphony and is a true "masterpiece," to the extent that I know what that term means.
I feel something of a fraud responding to this thread, because I have musical competence whatsoever, and because Beethoven rarely appears in my listening. Having said that, like many utter novices who have no idea where to start when they first come to classical music, Beethoven's symphonies were one of my entry points. I pretty much thought there was Beethoven, Mozart, Bach, a few others like Haydn and Handel, and that was your lot. As a result, I played these symphonies to death.
For me, they are all outstanding, and I still love them. Like everyone, I have favourites, and some I return to less frequently but from the perspective of an amateur listener, I find them all 'masterpiecey'.
6, 5, 7, 2, 3, 9, 4, 8, 1 on the Fox Scale.
Apologies in advance to the Beethovenists (Beethovanians? Beethoveners?)
Masterpiece + : 3
Masterpieces: 5, 9
Solid: 2, 4, 6-8
High - quality student work: 1
For me, the Beethoven 9 is the first instance of the "finale problem" in symphonic literature that haunts the symphony to this day. The 9th is where this trend started (IMO). A flawed masterpiece for me, but awesome all the same.
Quote from: Leo K. on February 25, 2022, 09:34:22 AM
For me, the Beethoven 9 is the first instance of the "finale problem" in symphonic literature that haunts the symphony to this day. The 9th is where this trend started (IMO). A flawed masterpiece for me, but awesome all the same.
My feeling, too.
The same can be said of the 5th, an uneven symphonic patchwork.
I have a much higher opinion of no 1 than most here. I consider it one of LvB's most successful symphonies. :)
Masterpieces: 3 and 7
Flawed masterpieces: 5 and 9
Excellent, solid symphonies: 1, 4. Superb when sympathetically interpreted (not very often): no 6
Good when sympathetically interpreted: 2 and 8.
The same 'exercise' could be made toward other composers' symphonies... 8)
Quote from: JBS on February 24, 2022, 03:28:03 PM
My statement boils down to saying the Fifth is at most Beethoven's fifth or sixth best symphony.
First tier
3 4 7 8
Middle tier
5 6 9
Bottom tier
1 2
Put that way, does it still sound absurd?
Yes, to put the 3 historically most influential and today still most popular ones all in the middle tier is at least a little bizarre.
Quote from: André on February 25, 2022, 12:01:36 PM
The same can be said of the 5th, an uneven symphonic patchwork.
What's "patchy" about it? There is probably no more tightly constructed symphony in the standard repertoire, if anything it's fault is it monomanic unidimensionality.
Must listen more to 1, 2 and 4.
Love 8, 3 is still a revolution, and 9 is 9.
Yes is the answer.
Yes, for me they are all masterpieces!
The ones I like the least are numbers 2 and 4.
My favorites, 9, 6 and 3
Number 9 is my favorite piece of music in the world, since I was a teenager (and I'm 75 I haven't changed :D)
Have you had the opportunity to listen to the 10th, in the orchestration of the sketches performed by Barry Cooper? There is only the first movement, the only one it seems that it was possible to arrange
It was funny that I was just thinking about these symphonies... as in some of the finest out there, but collectively nothing compared to his piano sonatas and string quartets imho.