Thank you, and good night! :D
Bye-e-e!
LvB would like to thank those composers who set the stage for him and those that gave it a good try after he was gone! Cheers!
Not far off, he truly was a great, the finshed article. Mozart was also fantastic but lacked the real development that LVB displayed. IMO only Wagner ever showed any real development after Beethoven
Quote from: Millfields on December 14, 2007, 06:16:48 AM
Not far off, he truly was a great, the finshed article. Mozart was also fantastic but lacked the real development that LVB displayed. IMO only Wagner ever showed any real development after Beethoven
We are going to be great friends, you and I.
I think Rod Corkin has a few things to say about that.....
Quote from: Harry on December 14, 2007, 06:47:14 AM
I think Rod Corkin has a few things to say about that.....
I'm sorry. LvB has never heard of Rod Corkin.
Late Beethoven > pretty much everything in the western canon, or any other canon for that matter. There are exceptions, but they are few in between.
Wait, what? ;D
Well, just set me down for the Respectful Opposition.
In principle, though, I stand ready to applaud a whole lotta Beethoven.
Karl,
Now you didn't think this was subjective, did you?
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on December 14, 2007, 07:14:09 AM
Late Beethoven > pretty much everything in the western canon, or any other canon for that matter. There are exceptions, but they are few in between.
In general, I find these rankings silly, but with regard to late Beethoven and especially the final quartets, I pretty much agree with you.
Quote from: Sforzando on December 14, 2007, 07:36:23 AM
In general, I find these rankings silly, but with regard to late Beethoven and especially the final quartets, I pretty much agree with you.
Yes, this thread was not meant to be taken seriously.
...But seriously, it's how I feel most of the time.
Quote from: MN Dave on December 14, 2007, 07:40:30 AM
Yes, this thread was not meant to be taken seriously.
...But seriously, it's how I feel most of the time.
Both points, just as I thought 8)
Although choosing between acknowledged geniuses is a futile exercise - Bach, Mozart, Beethoven and Wagner are all glorious in their own way - I do think Beethoven is the greatest in the sense that he shows total mastery AND continuous exploration. This ever-evolving oeuvre, in its humanity, and with its myriad solutions to countless structural problems, is without parallel in music. Mature Wagner comes near, but is narrower. In literature only Shakespeare is his equal, who shows the same astonishing ability.
So - yes, all other composers are inferior to Beethoven. You may have meant it humorously, but it is what I have concluded for myself, too. Which doesn't mean that Beethoven contains all the music I love. For some sensations I have to turn to other composers. But taken as a whole, Beethoven's work stands alone.
My unprentending love's the B flat major
by the old Budapest done
John Berryman, "Beethoven Triumphant"
I concur. Ludwig van rules.
Sarge
This must be a Beethoven love-fest. I thinki it's more reasonable to say that some other composers stand tall next to Beethoven - he would hate to be alone.
Quote from: Don on December 14, 2007, 08:50:08 AM
I think it's more reasonable to say that some other composers stand tall next to Beethoven - he would hate to be alone.
I agree with the first part, but I don't know about the second (I'll have to ask him).
Quote from: Don on December 14, 2007, 08:50:08 AM
This must be a Beethoven love-fest. I thinki it's more reasonable to say that some other composers stand tall next to Beethoven - he would hate to be alone.
We are not being reasonable today, Don. Yes, other composers may now approach and kiss the ring. :)
Quote from: Jezetha on December 14, 2007, 08:52:10 AM
I agree with the first part, but I don't know about the second (I'll have to ask him).
But I already did.
The following suggestion is for those who might be somewhat spiritually meditative,and even for those whose spiritual meditations means perusing the bottle labels down at Clancy's:
Read the magnificent description of Beethoven's last Piano Sonata #32, Opus 111 in Thomas Mann's highly musical novel Doctor >:D Faustus.
Then listen to the work, especially as played by old Wilhelm Kempff.
Or vice-versa!
You might actually believe the name of this topic! :o
Beethoven's is the only name inscribed above the Symphony Hall proscenium.
Only because Castelnuovo-Tedesco is too long, though.... ;D
Beethoven saved me money on life insurance!
Quote from: MN Dave on December 14, 2007, 09:29:36 AM
Beethoven saved me money on life insurance!
And here's the proof!
(http://www.uberreview.com/wp-content/uploads/beethoven.jpg)
Those have got even Bach's shades beat!
Quote from: karlhenning on December 14, 2007, 09:48:47 AM
Those have got even Bach's shades beat!
And they tell the time. 0:)
Quote from: Don on December 14, 2007, 08:50:08 AM
This must be a Beethoven love-fest. I thinki it's more reasonable to say that some other composers stand tall next to Beethoven...
Considering he was only about 5 foot 3...
Quote from: MN Dave on December 14, 2007, 09:41:44 AM
(http://www.uberreview.com/wp-content/uploads/beethoven.jpg)
The above evidence forces me officially to declare this thread a bust. ;D
This thread is truly one of the very best, hilariously funny and intelligently funny one we had in a long time! Don't stop, Gentlemen! :-*
Quote from: uffeviking on December 14, 2007, 03:36:09 PM
This thread is truly one of the very best, hilariously funny and intelligently funny one we had in a long time! Don't stop, Gentlemen! :-*
i'm sorry, but i think you just jinxed it.
really, keep on being funny, everyone! we need a new joke here!
Quote from: uffeviking on December 14, 2007, 03:36:09 PM
Don't stop, Gentlemen! :-*
please.......
another joke, someone?......
please........
make up something that'll make us all laugh, just like this: ;D
or even this is fine: :D
How can anyone find humor in something that is simply so absolutely true? I mean, class of his own. For god's sake, he has won every single poll/race we have ever staged here, including write-ins in ones he wasn't even entered! :o And if that doesn't settle it, what would? :)
8)
----------------
Now playing:
Moscheles Piano Concerti - Tasmanian SO / Shelley Shelley - Moscheles Concerto #3 in g for Piano Op 58 1st mvmt - Allegro moderato
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on December 14, 2007, 04:03:49 PM
How can anyone find humor in something that is simply so absolutely true? I mean, class of his own. For god's sake, he has won every single poll/race we have ever staged here, including write-ins in ones he wasn't even entered! :o And if that doesn't settle it, what would? :)
Quote~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
That's my opinion, I may be wrong!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
i hope you're wrong.....
Quote from: G...R...E...G... on December 14, 2007, 04:06:47 PM
i hope you're wrong.....
Hope on, Sunshine Boy. I am rarely ever wrong, not about the really important things in life (like Beethoven). :D
8)
----------------
Now playing:
Moscheles Piano Concerti - Tasmanian SO / Shelley Shelley - Moscheles Concerto #3 in g for Piano Op 58 3rd mvmt - Allegro agitato
is this thread getting any funnier?
cuz i think it's starting to get a bit sad...... :'(
;)
Quote from: G...R...E...G... on December 14, 2007, 04:16:02 PM
is this thread getting any funnier?
cuz i think it's starting to get a bit sad...... :'(
;)
Now, THAT'S funny. ;)
8)
----------------
Now playing:
Moscheles Piano Concerti - Tasmanian SO / Shelley Shelley - Moscheles Concerto #3 in g for Piano Op 58 3rd mvmt - Allegro agitato
But...But...but....he needed Berlioz-like orchestration in his symphonies!! :o :o :o
QuoteMN Dave
Thank you, and good night!
Bach was as very strong opponent. But in the end of the race, Ludwig wins. The old Ludwig is still the number one!
So the silver medal goes to Johan Sebastian and the bronze medal to the young Amadeus.
During the race Herr Richard and Herr Johannes were disqualified for trying to push each other out of the track.
The russian Mr. Modest was also disqualified in the doping tests. He had a strange substance in his blood, called Cognac.
Quote from: val on December 15, 2007, 01:26:13 AM
Bach was as very strong opponent. But in the end of the race, Ludwig wins. The old Ludwig is still the number one!
So the silver medal goes to Johan Sebastian and the bronze medal to the young Amadeus.
During the race Herr Richard and Herr Johannes were disqualified for trying to push each other out of the track.
The russian Mr. Modest was also disqualified in the doping tests. He had a strange substance in his blood, called Cognac.
;D
Quote from: MN Dave on December 14, 2007, 08:55:05 AM
We are not being reasonable today, Don. Yes, other composers may now approach and kiss the ring. :)
Possibly post of the year.
Quote from: MN Dave on December 14, 2007, 06:48:04 AM
I'm sorry. LvB has never heard of Rod Corkin.
Possibly post of the year.
Re: All other composers are inferior to BeethovenQuote from: MN Dave on December 14, 2007, 05:50:36 AM
Thank you, and good night! :D
Possibly post of the year. ;D
Quote from: Millfields on December 14, 2007, 06:16:48 AM
Not far off, he truly was a great, the finshed article. Mozart was also fantastic but lacked the real development that LVB displayed. IMO only Wagner ever showed any real development after Beethoven
Thank God there is another Wagnerian on this forum! Welcome Millfields, glad to have you on board! And I heartily agree with you that Beethoven was truly GREAT! All other composers are inferior to Beethoven??- notwithstanding my adulation of Beethoven I would like to dispute the title of this thread. I think that Wagner's Ring Cycle, Tristan und Isolde, Meistersinger von Nurnberg and Parsifal present an acheivement in musical composition that is
certainly not inferior to Beethoven but pays tribute to Beethoven's legacy- I am prejudiced here but I think that Wagner's way was the best way to carry on Beethoven's legacy.
marvin
Quote from: marvinbrown on December 15, 2007, 10:28:58 AM
I am prejudiced here but I think that Wagner's way was the best way to carry on Beethoven's legacy.
Well, yeah, didn't Wagner himself say so?
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on December 15, 2007, 10:34:33 AM
Well, yeah, didn't Wagner himself say so?
I rest my case 0:).
marvin
Quote from: George on December 15, 2007, 10:25:02 AM
I can assure you that the post of the year has yet to arrive. 8)
Beethoven was great and Menuhin was there to showcase that with the Sinfonia Varsovia!
I think all other composers are inferior to Elgar.
Quote from: Bogey on December 15, 2007, 05:27:23 AM
Re: All other composers are inferior to Beethoven
Possibly post of the year. ;D
A man of taste!
Quote from: MN Dave on December 15, 2007, 03:55:25 PM
A man of taste!
He's the trunk and the rest are merely branches. You can lock it down now Dave.
(Granted there are some other pretty strong limbs out there...Bach, Haydn, Mozart, Copland...)
Quote from: Bogey on December 15, 2007, 04:48:16 PM
He's the trunk and the rest are merely branches. You can lock it down now Dave.
(Granted there are some other pretty strong limbs out there...Bach, Haydn, Mozart, Copland...)
You had me till Copland. ;D
Quote from: 我叫格雷格 on December 15, 2007, 03:55:00 PM
I think all other composers are inferior to Elgar.
Wtf Greg, how the hell do you make your username into Chinese? Didn't even know you can change it.
Quote from: James on December 15, 2007, 05:47:16 PM
Ahhh yes and along those lines it was good ol' Ludwig Van himself who said,
"Not Bach (German for "brook") but Ocean should be his name." Nuff said. Case closed.
We can lock this sucker up! 8)
And
Beethoven in 1801 referred to Bach as "the immortal god of harmony...just showing his gracious side. ;D
http://books.google.com/books?id=JsaG1AP1I0cC&pg=PA373&lpg=PA373&dq=the+immortal+god+of+harmony+beethoven&source=web&ots=RJCPUSPIqR&sig=5v_Rs_XmX2JqtZUrtsYWJOm79FI
Quote from: 復活交響曲 on December 15, 2007, 06:07:47 PM
Wtf Greg, how the hell do you make your username into Chinese? Didn't even know you can change it.
I put 復活交響曲 through Babelfish. It means Reactivating Symphony...
Quote from: MN Dave on December 14, 2007, 06:24:02 AM
We are going to be great friends, you and I.
WOW, my first friend on GMG. I'm home ;D
Quote from: Jezetha on December 15, 2007, 11:59:55 PM
I put 復活交響曲 through Babelfish. It means Reactivating Symphony...
Gotta love Babelfish. I am going to guess that the reference is to the
Mahler Second . . . .
Quote from: karlhenning on December 16, 2007, 05:32:14 AM
Gotta love Babelfish. I am going to guess that the reference is to the Mahler Second . . . .
"Aufersteh'n, ja aufersteh'n
Wirst du, meine Symphonie..." ;D
Quote from: jochanaan on December 16, 2007, 07:41:45 AM
"Aufersteh'n, ja aufersteh'n
Wirst du, meine Symphonie..." ;D
"Das klinget so herrlich, das klinget so schön!
Tralla lala la Trallalala!
Nie hab ich so etwas gehört und geseh'n!
Trallalalala Tralla lalala." ;)
格雷格不叫雷格...(Greg ist aber kein Reger.) ;D
Quote from: James on December 15, 2007, 05:47:16 PM
Ahhh yes and along those lines it was good ol' Ludwig Van himself who said,
"Not Bach (German for "brook") but Ocean should be his name." Nuff said. Case closed.
Yes, but by that logic, here's the greatest musician of them all:
(http://www.anticoemoderno.it/Antico/Vinile/ingrandimenti/Billy%20Ocean%20-%20When%20the%20going%20gets%20tough,the%20tough%20get%20going.jpg)
Quote from: lukeottevanger on December 16, 2007, 08:31:28 AM
Yes, but by that logic, here's the greatest musician of them all:
Fortunately, what Beethoven actually said (or was recorded as saying) was, "nicht Bach, sondern Meer."
Quote from: Sforzando on December 16, 2007, 09:00:11 AM
Fortunately, what Beethoven actually said (or was recorded as saying) was, "nicht Bach, sondern Meer."
Phew. Thank goodness for that. ;D
Quote from: Jezetha on December 15, 2007, 11:59:55 PM
I put 復活交響曲 through Babelfish. It means Reactivating Symphony...
Babelfish sucks! Karl's right, it's "Resurrection Symphony"...
Quote from: 復活交響曲 on December 16, 2007, 09:25:15 AM
Babelfish sucks! Karl's right, it's "Resurrection Symphony"...
Babelfish doesn't know the classics.
But in a no-nonsense way, it came quite near to what a resurrection actually does to you.
Quote from: Millfields on December 14, 2007, 06:16:48 AM
Not far off, he truly was a great, the finshed article. Mozart was also fantastic but lacked the real development that LVB displayed. IMO only Wagner ever showed any real development after Beethoven
Yes but Mozart died young and neglected to go deaf.
I guess we are dominated by Anglo-Saxons here, although no one has mentioned Goethe.
Quote from: Ten thumbs on December 16, 2007, 01:52:18 PM
Yes but Mozart died young and neglected to go deaf.
How negligent of Mozart .........
Quote from: Ten thumbs on December 16, 2007, 01:52:18 PM
I guess we are dominated by Anglo-Saxons here,
Not sure how that would affect anything, since those composers are all Teutonic.
For the record, i'm Mediterranean, and i absolutely detest Italian composers bar a few exceptions. Should i be more nationalistic? :-\
Quote from: fl.traverso on December 16, 2007, 08:05:52 AM
格雷格不叫雷格...(Greg ist aber kein Reger.) ;D
hey, stop screwing around with my username! ;D
There's a spontaneous question rising. So what?
I mean, apart from a temporary amelioration in your social relationships and the bewitching membership for the superiorly aknowledged caste of music lovers, what do I gain from that?
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on December 16, 2007, 02:44:55 PM
For the record, i'm Mediterranean, and i absolutely detest Italian composers bar a few exceptions. Should i be more nationalistic? :-\
Well, "absolute detestation" is
de trop, of course.
QuoteFor the record, i'm Mediterranean, and i absolutely detest Italian composers bar a few exceptions. Should i be more nationalistic? Undecided
and i absolutely detest lots of music by American composers (anything that has a lot of that American sound), so lol, it's ok 8)
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on December 17, 2007, 07:32:12 AM
Truth? Knowledge? Wisdom?
I like Mozart better than truth, knowledge and wisdom.
Quote from: Scriptavolant on December 17, 2007, 07:40:24 AM
I like Mozart better than truth, knowledge and wisdom.
As if they were mutually exclusive.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on December 16, 2007, 02:44:55 PM
Not sure how that would affect anything, since those composers are all Teutonic.
For the record, i'm Mediterranean, and i absolutely detest Italian composers bar a few exceptions. Should i be more nationalistic? :-\
No, but maybe we should be more even handed. Once there was a great German school. At another time there was a great Russian school. There was even a period with great French composers. I don't deny Beethoven's genius but if he had lived twenty years later it would not have seemed so pronounced. It's all a matter of perspective. If you don't think there is bias, explain the neglect of Onslow if you can.
Quote from: Ten thumbs on December 17, 2007, 12:50:52 PM
If you don't think there is bias, explain the neglect of Onslow if you can.
Only after you explain why we should care about Onslow.
Quote from: Ten thumbs on December 17, 2007, 12:50:52 PM
No, but maybe we should be more even handed. Once there was a great German school. At another time there was a great Russian school. There was even a period with great French composers. I don't deny Beethoven's genius but if he had lived twenty years later it would not have seemed so pronounced. It's all a matter of perspective. If you don't think there is bias, explain the neglect of Onslow if you can.
Considering that for a great many lovers of Beethoven, his last period is his very greatest, it could be argued just as well that had he lived longer his genius would have seemed even more pronounced.
As for your final point, it doesn't follow at all that "bias" is involved. "Bias" implies active efforts to disparage a composer's work, and such a claim recalls Charles Rosen's response when a critic accused Hans Pfitzner of being subjected to a "conspiracy" to prevent his music from being heard. Rosen replied something to the effect that if such a splendid conspiracy existed, he wondered how he could join it.
More likely, Onslow's work is just not known, or if it is, not many people have felt strongly disposed to be his advocate. After nearly 50 years of listening I have yet to encounter any Onslow myself; it could well be that he is worth investigating, but it could also well be that he is just one of the hundreds of worthy but unexceptional names whom history has weeded out as not being as interesting as the composers who have in fact survived. Enthusiasm begets enthusiasm, and if Onslow's work were truly remarkable one would expect some groundswell of interest in putting his name before the public. It hasn't happened, and I'm not about to accept that "bias" is involved simply on the claim of a minority opinion from someone posting on the Internet.
Onslow is better regarded in France, where ironically enough he is known as the 'French Beethoven'. I don't regard him as a Beethoven by any means but we do listen to other composers besides the greatest. Beethoven remains the greatest until we know otherwise. My point about his date of birth was that twenty years later he would not have been in a position to lead the changes that were taking place in music, although I have no doubt he would still have made great music. If the Germans had had their way, Mendelssohn would be in much the same plight as Onslow, because he was a Jew. Louise Farrenc is little performed because she was a woman - and you say there is no prejudice? That's cloud-cuckoo land.
OTOH, if there were a 'French Beethoven', his name is Berlioz.
^ Speaking of which, how strange so many non-Germans (Barlioz, Chopin, Liszt) were able to escape this Germanocentric conspiracy that kept the Teutonic masters on top while brushing everybody else under the carpet. This is why Joachim Raff, one of the most popular German composers of the times was also left forgotten after his death.
Quote from: Ten thumbs on December 18, 2007, 11:47:12 AM
Onslow is better regarded in France, where ironically enough he is known as the 'French Beethoven'. I don't regard him as a Beethoven by any means but we do listen to other composers besides the greatest. Beethoven remains the greatest until we know otherwise. My point about his date of birth was that twenty years later he would not have been in a position to lead the changes that were taking place in music, although I have no doubt he would still have made great music. If the Germans had had their way, Mendelssohn would be in much the same plight as Onslow, because he was a Jew. Louise Farrenc is little performed because she was a woman - and you say there is no prejudice? That's cloud-cuckoo land.
Of course we listen to other composers besides the greatest. Beethoven remains the greatest until we know otherwise, but what is the likelihood of that? Mendelssohn's talent was recognized from his youth, and he remained popular in England. The Germans couldn't do much with that. The issue of women composers is a whole other matter. But to imply that Farrenc (some of whose work I do know, and enjoy) would have been better recognized if she had been a man is speculative. Maybe she would have, maybe not. It is not inevitably true that a neglected composer is undeservedly neglected.
Most neglected composers are deservedly so. When the case is to the contrary it is right to try and remedy that. There are no conspiracies but there was prejudice because prejudice is part of human nature. Also concert promoters had and still have to consider what fills seats and the general public like what they know. The era of readily available recorded music only began recently. I cannot at the moment see an opportunity arising for a composer of Beethoven's stature to arise. The talent almost certainly but not the opportunity to express it.
Quote from: Ten thumbs on December 19, 2007, 05:40:27 AM
Most neglected composers are deservedly so. When the case is to the contrary it is right to try and remedy that.
Of course. But in the present climate, where anything and everything seems to be recorded, there is more chance for the neglect of such composers as Farrenc and Onslow to be remedied.
What works of either composer do you most admire? Personally, I think Farrenc's 1st symphony is terrific.
Quote from: Sforzando on December 19, 2007, 06:19:38 AM
Of course. But in the present climate, where anything and everything seems to be recorded, there is more chance for the neglect of such composers as Farrenc and Onslow to be remedied.
What works of either composer do you most admire? Personally, I think Farrenc's 1st symphony is terrific.
I certainly enjoy listening to Farrenc's 3 symphonies but I also love her sextet for piano and wind. It is so refreshing. I haven't actually heard any Onslow yet. I am responding to praise for him from this board but don't know what to try. There are 4 symphonies true but no less than 36 quartets. Even if they were all good they'd never fit into the repertoire! I may of course be disappointed.
I have a few recordings from Farrenc and more than a few from Onslow. Both are excellent composers, but I wouldn't put either near the top of the hill.
Beethoven fell short of Mozart in a number of areas, notably his writing for wind instruments, opera and he lacked Mozart's natural ease with counterpoint (Beethoven's various fugues are great, but lack the grace and fluidity of Mozart or Bach).
He surpassed Mozart in other areas, so this is no dig, just a relative appraisal
Quote from: bwv 1080 on December 19, 2007, 10:43:27 AM
Beethoven fell short of Mozart in a number of areas, notably his writing for wind instruments,
Hmm. I am particularly taken by Beethoven's colorful woodwind timbres.
Quoteand he lacked Mozart's natural ease with counterpoint (Beethoven's various fugues are great, but lack the grace and fluidity of Mozart or Bach).
Perhaps grace and fluidity were not what he was after? The great achievements of some modern composers in counterpoint would also have to be dismissed for "lack of grace and fluidity", and those qualities are distinctly not what these composers were after. Stockhausen's music, for example, has many examples of "recalcitrant" counterpoint or polyphony, but this is not due to inability of the composer, as is evident from the gracefully fluid polyphony of some of his works, like
Ave for basset-horn and alto flute (here the polyphony
has to be graceful, given the feminine character of the work).
I would assert that at least in the Grosse Fuge Beethoven definitely was after a clashing of voices against each other -- counterpoint in the most literal sense, which leaves little room for grace and fluidity.
Al
Quote from: bwv 1080 on December 19, 2007, 10:43:27 AM
Beethoven fell short of Mozart in a number of areas, notably his writing for wind instruments, opera and he lacked Mozart's natural ease with counterpoint (Beethoven's various fugues are great, but lack the grace and fluidity of Mozart or Bach).
He surpassed Mozart in other areas, so this is no dig, just a relative appraisal
Beethoven's late contrapuntal style focuses a lot on various additive, dotted and contrasting rhythm figurations which i believe were quite innovative in the realms of polyphony and served as inspiration for a lot of composers, particularly in the early 20th century. This is what makes his fugal writing so seemingly disjointed (where in fact there's nothing particularly odd about it) as well as one of the reasons why he sounds so... modern. That, combined with his obsession in bending every formal structure or rule to the expressive fabric of the music (and that includes fugue) as well as the fact Beethoven late music is actually polyphonic in a stricter sense gives him his "avant-gard" patina. Eternally modern, like Stravinsky said in regards to the Op.133 (though the same principle applies to all of his later works).
Mozart's counterpoint is really astonishing though. It's always intrinsically woven with his voluptuous melodic writing (which is always one inch from braking into free chromaticism) and the overall texture simply flows with contrapuntal possibilities. Point against point at it's utmost perfection (this is the root of Chopin's appraisal over Mozart's contrapuntal refinement as opposed to Beethoven, with which he was actually in discord). While Beethoven caught a lot of ground late in his life, i don't think he is remotely in the same league as Mozart in his early and middle periods.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on December 19, 2007, 04:36:18 PM
Beethoven's late contrapuntal style focuses a lot on various additive, dotted and contrasting rhythm figurations which i believe were quite innovative in the realms of polyphony and served as inspiration for a lot of composers, particularly in the early 20th century. This is what makes his fugal writing so seemingly disjointed (where in fact there's nothing particularly odd about it) as well as one of the reasons why he sounds so... modern. That, combined with his obsession in bending every formal structure or rule to the expressive fabric of the music (and that includes fugue) as well as the fact Beethoven late music is actually polyphonic in a stricter sense gives him his "avant-gard" patina. Eternally modern, like Stravinsky said in regards to the Op.133 (though the same principle applies to all of his later works).
Mozart's counterpoint is really astonishing though. It's always intrinsically woven with his voluptuous melodic writing (which is always one inch from braking into free chromaticism) and the overall texture simply flows with contrapuntal possibilities. Point against point at it's utmost perfection (this is the root of Chopin's appraisal over Mozart's contrapuntal refinement as opposed to Beethoven, with which he was actually in discord). While Beethoven caught a lot of ground late in his life, i don't think he is remotely in the same league as Mozart in his early and middle periods.
Yes, and my only point was that Mozart had better counterpoint "chops" than Beethoven. There are no Mozart pieces I like better than the Grosse Fuge or the fugue from the Hammerklavier Sonata
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on December 19, 2007, 04:36:18 PM
...While Beethoven caught a lot of ground late in his life, i don't think he is remotely in the same league as Mozart in his early and middle periods.
But IIRC, Mozart came to counterpoint relatively late too. ;)
Quote from: James on December 15, 2007, 05:47:16 PM
Ahhh yes and along those lines it was good ol' Ludwig Van himself who said,
"Not Bach (German for "brook") but Ocean should be his name." Nuff said. Case closed.
We can lock this sucker up! 8)
My football team is the greatest too, but SO WHAT?
I'm sorry but a lot of you posters who say 'Beethoven is the greatest' without supplying a shred of evidence MAY JUST BE influenced by the hype of the some 19th century writers who elevated him and some other composers into near god-like status. (Wagner didn't need anyone else to do that for him. He simply exalted himself.) Before the romanticism of the
artist-hero, composers were craftsmen, presumably just as 'great' as their successors: Monteverdi, Vivaldi, Machaut, etc., not to mention Bach and Handel whom the latter was recognized by Beethoven himself as being the greatest of composers.
Some of Beethoven's piano sonatas are simply boring. Without the ready grace and lyricism of a Mozart, the fillers can be awkward and the construction at times showing and vocal writing almost always labored. His one opera "Fidelio", though with some great moments, is a real trial to stage successfully. The Choral Fantasy is one gargoyle of a work, almost as monstrous as Czerny's who most probably was inspired by his mentor's.
Daniel Barenboim recently in his taped masterclasses said that late Beethoven is problematic because of the fragmented quality of much of the writing. I'm not so sure that this is due to what Bernstein in the "Unanswered Question" refers to as 'deletion', the process of whittling away ALL unneccessary additives so what remains is the equivalent of poetry, or simply because all of the possibilities had not been explored as in the Fugue of Op. 110.
Beethoven's 'hits' were unmistakable but not everything came up to the level of his best works. This is not actually true for Bach and Mozart who didn't really have any
bad wig days.
ZB
The Hammerklavier Sonata give me a migraine, except for the ineffable 3rd movement and the Grosse Fuge makes my fillings fall out. If I want weird and visionary I'll take Parsifal. It's the musical analogue of quantum theory.
It has come to my attention that this topic is a direct attack on Istvan Tututulu, whose 19 symphonies (at last count) put Beethoven and the composer himself to shame, and therefore I must ask the moderators to issue a cease and desist order! $:)
I don't care about Lulu's tutu, or how many symphonies are sewn into it!
Quote from: jochanaan on December 19, 2007, 10:03:08 PM
But IIRC, Mozart came to counterpoint relatively late too. ;)
He was in his mid 20s when he achieved supreme contrapuntal mastery. That's relatively early by most standards. The fact he died at an early age doesn't make that his 'late period'.
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on December 19, 2007, 11:02:26 PM
My football team is the greatest too, but SO WHAT?
I'm sorry but a lot of you posters who say 'Beethoven is the greatest' without supplying a shred of evidence MAY JUST BE influenced by the hype of the some 19th century writers who elevated him and some other composers into near god-like status. (Wagner didn't need anyone else to do that for him. He simply exalted himself.) Before the romanticism of the artist-hero, composers were craftsmen, presumably just as 'great' as their successors: Monteverdi, Vivaldi, Machaut, etc., not to mention Bach and Handel whom the latter was recognized by Beethoven himself as being the greatest of composers.
Some of Beethoven's piano sonatas are simply boring. Without the ready grace and lyricism of a Mozart, the fillers can be awkward and the construction at times showing and vocal writing almost always labored. His one opera "Fidelio", though with some great moments, is a real trial to stage successfully. The Choral Fantasy is one gargoyle of a work, almost as monstrous as Czerny's who most probably was inspired by his mentor's.
Daniel Barenboim recently in his taped masterclasses said that late Beethoven is problematic because of the fragmented quality of much of the writing. I'm not so sure that this is due to what Bernstein in the "Unanswered Question" refers to as 'deletion', the process of whittling away ALL unneccessary additives so what remains is the equivalent of poetry, or simply because all of the possibilities had not been explored as in the Fugue of Op. 110.
Beethoven's 'hits' were unmistakable but not everything came up to the level of his best works. This is not actually true for Bach and Mozart who didn't really have any bad wig days.
ZB
This is a very impassioned speech, but it doesn't really invalidate anything said previously. It's not necessary for all of Beethoven's work to reach the level of the C# minor quartet or the Diabelli Variations for him to be considered among the greatest of composers. It is perfectly valid as well to say that some of the piano sonatas are boring (I'll nominate opp. 7, 14/2, 22, 27/1, and 54 as being in that category). And I'll add numerous other works that are negligible or forgettable (I never understood the popularity of the Violin Concerto, the Choral Fantasy is enjoyable but a thorough mess, and then there are all those folksong arrangements that hardly anybody bothers with).
But in your own words, SO WHAT? The fact that Shakespeare wrote a blood-and-guts clunker like Titus Andronicus does nothing to diminish Henry IV, Hamlet, or Antony and Cleopatra. The fact that Beethoven wrote Wellington's Victory does nothing to diminish the Eroica. If you want "evidence," I could talk for hours about some of the quartets and symphonies to show passages of extraordinary imagination and logical thought, and hype has nothing to do with it. (Especially "19th-century hype." The rise in esteem for Beethoven's late period is predominantly a 20th-century phenomenon, the late music having been largely unplayed and ignored for many years following Beethoven's death.)
Quote from: karlhenning on December 20, 2007, 04:39:22 AM
I don't care about Lulu's tutu, or how many symphonies are sewn into it!
Karl, do you realize how many Hungarian-Fijians you just insulted!!! :o
Given the
Gypsy/Mojo Powers involved, I would be very careful crossing streets, crossing your wife, and crossing guards! 0:)
Oh, the mojitos are all the rage in Boston these days, even I've had one!
Quote from: max on December 19, 2007, 11:05:22 PM
The Hammerklavier Sonata give me a migraine, except for the ineffable 3rd movement and the Grosse Fuge makes my fillings fall out. If I want weird and visionary I'll take Parsifal. It's the musical analogue of quantum theory.
Didn't Beethoven write the last movement of the Moonlight to annoy his neighbours? It works, I'll give him that.
Quote from: max on December 19, 2007, 11:05:22 PM
The Hammerklavier Sonata give me a migraine, except for the ineffable 3rd movement and the Grosse Fuge makes my fillings fall out. If I want weird and visionary I'll take Parsifal.
Sounds like you only like the sugarplum
Beethoven.
Not that there's anything
wrong with that . . . .
Quote from: karlhenning on December 20, 2007, 05:35:34 AM
Oh, the mojitos are all the rage in Boston these days, even I've had one!
I suppose you would add a dash of paprika for a Gypsy Mojito! :o
Last day of school today, and I hear there might be pitchers of such things at the Christmas Party in the rectory!
But these pitchers would not be on steroids! 0:)
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on December 17, 2007, 08:18:42 AM
As if they were mutually exclusive.
If you identify truth, wisdom and knowledge with the acknowledgment of Beethoven's superiority, then it must be mutually exclusive. I think Beethoven is the kind of artist that the greater part of Western culture keeps on considering the greatest for a serie of arbitrary reasons which is in my faculty to disagree with.
For what concerns the topic, I've already discussed the point in the past. I don't think Beethoven is tout court the greatest composer, because - as suggested by someone else - he didn't cover or accomplished the whole musical spectrum neither he covered the complete range of artistic expression. Though, I don't have problems in considering him one among the greatest and the most influentials.
Quote from: Scriptavolant on December 20, 2007, 06:08:20 AM
If you identify truth, wisdom and knowledge with the acknowledgment of Beethoven's superiority, then it must be mutually exclusive.
It's the other way around. I recognize Beethoven's supremacy because i acknowledge truth, wisdom and knowledge, and denying the first is a rejection of those values. Whether Beethoven is in fact the greatest it's irrelevant, i don't pretend to be an absolute authority over a subject which as been torn apart by finer minds then my own, but when two conflicting views come upon each other i automatically assume one to be correct, and the other to be wrong, and i take full responsibility in the eventuality the erroneous assertion happens to be
my own (after being proven wrong, of course).
Quote from: Scriptavolant on December 20, 2007, 06:08:20 AM
I think Beethoven is the kind of artist that the greater part of Western culture keeps on considering the greatest for a serie of arbitrary reasons which is in my faculty to disagree with.
And i think you are mistaken in identifying the reasons why Beethoven is considered the greatest.
Quote from: Scriptavolant on December 20, 2007, 06:08:20 AM
For what concerns the topic, I've already discussed the point in the past. I don't think Beethoven is tout court the greatest composer, because - as suggested by someone else - he didn't cover or accomplished the whole musical spectrum neither he covered the complete range of artistic expression.
The same could be said for all of them, you know that, right? :P
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on December 20, 2007, 07:24:53 AM
. . .when two conflicting views come upon each other i automatically assume one to be correct, and the other to be wrong.
This is a very rash assumption. Very often there is truth and falsehood on both sides of the argument.
All other Beethovens are inferior to Ludwig von Beethoven -- of that I am fairly certain.
To me Beethoven, Haydn, Mozart, Shostakovich, Mahler, Wagner, etc. are all so outstanding it's hard for me to make a statement like "Beethoven is superior".
However, it's easier for me to stomach such a pronouncement whenever I hear op.132.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on December 20, 2007, 07:24:53 AM
...I recognize Beethoven's supremacy because i acknowledge truth, wisdom and knowledge, and denying the first is a rejection of those values. Whether Beethoven is in fact the greatest it's irrelevant...
Assuming you're serious, do you not recognize the oxymoronic quality of those two statements? If "Whether Beethoven is in fact the greatest it's irrelevant", where is the "truth, wisdom and knowledge" in asserting that he is? ???
Quote from: springrite on December 20, 2007, 07:47:40 AM
All other Beethovens are inferior to Ludwig von Beethoven -- of that I am fairly certain.
LOL My nomination for post of the year! ;D
Quote from: Sforzando on December 20, 2007, 05:09:02 AM
This is a very impassioned speech, but it doesn't really invalidate anything said previously. It's not necessary for all of Beethoven's work to reach the level of the C# minor quartet or the Diabelli Variations for him to be considered among the greatest of composers. It is perfectly valid as well to say that some of the piano sonatas are boring (I'll nominate opp. 7, 14/2, 22, 27/1, and 54 as being in that category). And I'll add numerous other works that are negligible or forgettable (I never understood the popularity of the Violin Concerto, the Choral Fantasy is enjoyable but a thorough mess, and then there are all those folksong arrangements that hardly anybody bothers with).
But in your own words, SO WHAT? The fact that Shakespeare wrote a blood-and-guts clunker like Titus Andronicus does nothing to diminish Henry IV, Hamlet, or Antony and Cleopatra. The fact that Beethoven wrote Wellington's Victory does nothing to diminish the Eroica. If you want "evidence," I could talk for hours about some of the quartets and symphonies to show passages of extraordinary imagination and logical thought, and hype has nothing to do with it. (Especially "19th-century hype." The rise in esteem for Beethoven's late period is predominantly a 20th-century phenomenon, the late music having been largely unplayed and ignored for many years following Beethoven's death.)
Great post. Though, what would I know? I actually enjoy those folksong arrangements of his. :-\
Quote from: Sforzando on December 20, 2007, 05:09:02 AM
The fact that Beethoven wrote Wellington's Victory does nothing to diminish the Eroica.)
This is the only work of Beethoven's that I don't particularly enjoy or like. I still haven't heard his songs, bagatelles (except the Fur Elise of course), or string trios (which I MUST listen to soon! ???)
Quote from: Cato on December 20, 2007, 03:35:49 AM
Istvan Tututulu[/b], whose 19 symphonies (at last count) put Beethoven and the composer himself to shame, and therefore I must ask the moderators to issue a cease and desist order! $:)
You did ask me to issue the cease and desist order to Tututulu, didn't you? ???
$:) ;D
Quote from: Harry on December 14, 2007, 06:47:14 AM
I think Rod Corkin has a few things to say about that.....
I would say Beethoven is supreme in every genre he attempted other than oratorio, but that still leaves other music up for grabs. By volume Beethoven is predominantly an instrumental composer, for theatre/vocal music by volume Handel has to be the master. No one else comes close, be they Mozart, Bach or Wagner. Thus Beethoven and Handel are the true 'twin peaks' of music, no need for a trinity...
Now, that post was completely unexpected . . . .
Quote from: karlhenning on December 20, 2007, 12:08:52 PM
Now, that post was completely unexpected . . . .
Yes ......... we're completely shocked by that post ..........
Quote from: Rod Corkin on December 20, 2007, 12:01:50 PM
I would say Beethoven is supreme in every genre he attempted other than oratorio, but that still leaves other music up for grabs. By volume Beethoven is predominantly an instrumental composer, for theatre/vocal music by volume Handel has to be the master. No one else comes close, be they Mozart, Bach or Wagner. Thus Beethoven and Handel are the true 'twin peaks' of music, no need for a trinity...
The corkster has something here. I have no need for a trinity - Bach stands alone.
Quote from: Don on December 20, 2007, 01:07:39 PM
The corkster has something here. I have no need for a trinity - Bach stands alone.
Good idea ....... Let's get the Corkster involved in a Bach vs. Händel debate ........
Beethoven can bow at Mozart's feet. Beethoven wishes he could write a masterpiece like Die Zauberflote...or PC 20! I think Mozart's last 3 symphonies are as good, if not better as any Beet wrote. So what Beethoven went a little nutty at the end of his life? Big deal..if Mozart lived as long as Beethoven who know how many more masterpieces he would have written. Mozart is number 1 and Beethoven is a far 2nd. Period.
Quote from: Rod Corkin on December 20, 2007, 12:01:50 PM
I would say Beethoven is supreme in every genre he attempted other than oratorio, but that still leaves other music up for grabs. By volume Beethoven is predominantly an instrumental composer, for theatre/vocal music by volume Handel has to be the master. No one else comes close, be they Mozart, Bach or Wagner. Thus Beethoven and Handel are the true 'twin peaks' of music, no need for a trinity...
Aren't you forgetting that for song, Schubert is the master, and Schumann and Fanny Mendelssohn come close behind.
Quote from: Ten thumbs on December 21, 2007, 01:33:03 AM
Aren't you forgetting that for song, Schubert is the master, and Schumann and Fanny Mendelssohn come close behind.
I suggest I could put a CD together of the best of Beethoven songs that would be better than if you did the same for those of Schubert et al.
Quote from: Ten thumbs on December 21, 2007, 01:33:03 AM
Aren't you forgetting that for song, Schubert is the master, and Schumann and Fanny Mendelssohn come close behind.
Hahahahahah. Please.
Quote from: Ten thumbs on December 21, 2007, 01:33:03 AM
Aren't you forgetting that for song, Schubert is the master, and Schumann and Fanny Mendelssohn come close behind.
Didn't know about Fanny's reputation for lieder. I thought the quartet of the lieder literature were Schubert, Schumann, Brahms and Wolf.
Quote from: ChamberNut on December 21, 2007, 05:22:44 AM
Didn't know about Fanny's reputation for lieder. I thought the quartet of the lieder literature were Schubert, Schumann, Brahms and Wolf.
If that is the case you can add Beethoven to the list. Many people have been surprised by the quality of his songs, myself included as at one time I presumed the status quo was correct (a long time ago!). I think the Romantic lied became a rather overblown genre personally, Beethoven's are for the most part simpler rather more spontaneous efforts, and sound all the better for it. I've got a few of his downloadable at my site at the moment if anyone's interested, von Otter doing a surprisingly good job.
Quote from: ChamberNut on December 21, 2007, 05:22:44 AM
Didn't know about Fanny's reputation for lieder. I thought the quartet of the lieder literature were Schubert, Schumann, Brahms and Wolf.
So would have I. But if TT has examples of Fanny's songs he'd like to recommend, please post them.
Quote from: E..L..I..A..S.. =) on December 20, 2007, 08:54:41 PM
Beethoven can bow at Mozart's feet. Beethoven wishes he could write a masterpiece like Die Zauberflote...or PC 20! I think Mozart's last 3 symphonies are as good, if not better as any Beet wrote. So what Beethoven went a little nutty at the end of his life? Big deal..if Mozart lived as long as Beethoven who know how many more masterpieces he would have written. Mozart is number 1 and Beethoven is a far 2nd. Period.
Even if Beethoven had not lived to 36 his output up until then totally eclipses Mozart's equivalents - where is Mozart's Moonlight, Waldstein, Appassionata, Kreutzer, Eroica etc etc? Music that has not been surpassed since by composers of any age. And I'd put Leonore up against the best of Mozart's operas without any fear. Just think of the Leonore 2 overture alone to see how Beethoven was simply on a higher level altogether.
I have seen a few Mozart operas live and thought the music very boring for the most part, barely a memorable tune in any of it, especially to ears used to Handel's great epics which all have a feast of 'hits'.
Quote from: Rod Corkin on December 21, 2007, 06:28:45 AM
I have seen a few Mozart operas live and thought the music very boring for the most part, barely a memorable tune in any of it, especially to ears used to Handel's great epics which all have a feast of 'hits'.
That's the funniest post I've read all day, thanks!
"I've got a few of his downloadable at my site at the moment if anyone's interested, von Otter doing a surprisingly good job."
I would be interested...
Quote from: Rod Corkin on December 21, 2007, 06:28:45 AM
I have seen a few Mozart operas live and thought the music very boring for the most part, barely a memorable tune in any of it, especially to ears used to Handel's great epics which all have a feast of 'hits'.
Speaking of a "feast of hits," there's
Berg's Wozzeck, which blows them all out of the water.
*[ducks]*--Bruce
Quote from: karlhenning on December 21, 2007, 06:34:55 AM
That's the funniest post I've read all day, thanks!
Funny but true, and you contradicted not a word of it. I now laugh that Mozart's operas are treated with such veneration, though I cried at the amount I paid to see them live. There's more memorable music in the first act of Jiulio Cesare alone than in all of Mozart's operas put together. This is just the sad simple truth of it (from poor Mozart's perspective).
I am showcasing Handel's operas at my site with a number of downloads available, and with many more to come. Try them for yourself if you want, but you'll have to join up. I put my music where my mouth is.
Quote from: Jezetha on December 21, 2007, 06:37:00 AM
"I've got a few of his downloadable at my site at the moment if anyone's interested, von Otter doing a surprisingly good job."
I would be interested...
Join up then. I am here, surely you can go there for a few minutes?
Quote from: Rod Corkin on December 21, 2007, 06:53:41 AM
Join up then. I am here, surely you can go there for a few minutes?
I just joined...
Quote from: Rod Corkin on December 21, 2007, 06:28:45 AM
Even if Beethoven had not lived to 36 his output up until then totally eclipses Mozart's equivalents - where is Mozart's Moonlight, Waldstein, Appassionata, Kreutzer, Eroica etc etc? Music that has not been surpassed since by composers of any age. And I'd put Leonore up against the best of Mozart's operas without any fear. Just think of the Leonore 2 overture alone to see how Beethoven was simply on a higher level altogether.
I have seen a few Mozart operas live and thought the music very boring for the most part, barely a memorable tune in any of it, especially to ears used to Handel's great epics which all have a feast of 'hits'.
Sooo...throw
out the
Mozart Piano Sonatas (that includes of course
Il Rondo Alla Turca and
La Sonata Facile among so many other life-improving, resoundingly ingenious Masterpieces), the
Operas (WHAT!!Laughing and moaning at the same time)...
Or something.
Quote from: Rod Corkin on December 21, 2007, 06:51:26 AM
Funny but true, and you contradicted not a word of it. I now laugh that Mozart's operas are treated with such veneration, though I cried at the amount I paid to see them live. There's more memorable music in the first act of Jiulio Cesare alone than in all of Mozart's operas put together. This is just the sad simple truth of it (from poor Mozart's perspective).
I see that the corkster hasn't changed his mode of operation. He holds up Beethoven and Handel as the best in the business while dumping on Mozart and Bach to further elevate his favorite two composers. Very unbecoming but nothing unexpected from the corkster.
Quote from: Haffner on December 21, 2007, 07:44:14 AM
Sooo...throw out the Mozart Piano Sonatas (that includes of course Il Rondo Alla Turca and La Sonata Facile among so many other life-improving, resoundingly ingenious Masterpieces), the Operas (WHAT!!Laughing and moaning at the same time)...
Or something.
Who said throw them out? I'm saying they are overrated, in the context of this topic at least. I think I have been quite fair and reasonable.
Quote from: Rod Corkin on December 21, 2007, 08:02:18 AM
Who said throw them out? I'm saying they are overrated, in the context of this topic at least. I think I have been quite fair and reasonable.
For an extremist, you might be fair and reasonable.
Quote from: Rod Corkin on December 21, 2007, 08:02:18 AM
Who said throw them out? I'm saying they are overrated, in the context of this topic at least. I think I have been quite fair and reasonable.
I stand corrected.
Quote from: Don on December 21, 2007, 08:00:50 AM
I see that the corkster hasn't changed his mode of operation. He holds up Beethoven and Handel as the best in the business while dumping on Mozart and Bach to further elevate his favorite two composers. Very unbecoming but nothing unexpected from the corkster.
Corkster didn't start this topic Don! I'm merely an innocent bystander.
Don't be so grumpy, it's holiday time soon!
Quote from: Rod Corkin on December 21, 2007, 06:51:26 AM
There's more memorable music in the first act of Jiulio [sic] Cesare alone than in all of Mozart's operas put together.
If so, how is it that I can play huge chunks of Mozart's operas on the piano from memory?
I don't include Beethoven amongst the elite for lieder because although there is quality in his songs, he did not write them in quantity. I didn't go on to Brahms and Wolf because there is no reason to stop with them and they would cloud the issue. As to Fanny Mendelssohn, she composed 247 lieder (at least) and I don't believe that any serious musician could question their quality. When Felix said that they are the most beautiful that any human could create, he was possibly a little over the top but he was not joking. The reason that they are not yet widely known is that most of them were held in manuscript in archive until late in the 20th century. There are a number of selections available, which are hardly difficult to find. This is not really the place to discuss this issue.
Quote from: Rod Corkin on December 21, 2007, 06:51:26 AM
Funny but true, and you contradicted not a word of it.
A. It is funny.
B. It's balderdash, and your repeating your eccentric mantras doesn't make them true.
C. No, I did not trouble to contradict it. One doesn't trouble to contradict balderdash. One has better things to do with one's time.
Quote from: Rod Corkin on December 21, 2007, 08:04:20 AM
Quote from: DonI see that the corkster hasn't changed his mode of operation. He holds up Beethoven and Handel as the best in the business while dumping on Mozart and Bach to further elevate his favorite two composers. Very unbecoming but nothing unexpected from the corkster.
Corkster didn't start this topic Don! I'm merely an innocent bystander.
First day with the new reading comprehension skillset, Rod? The fact that you didn't start this topic (which is a diverting
jeu d'esprit from our esteemed
MN Dave) is one thing; the fact that you have taken it as yet another occasion to bring in
Handel as an irrelevancy here, and to dump on
Mozart, is another. "Innocent bystander"! You're a one-man bundle of unalloyed fatuity, Rod.
Quote from: Rod Corkin on December 21, 2007, 08:04:20 AM
Corkster didn't start this topic Don! I'm merely an innocent bystander.
Don't be so grumpy, it's holiday time soon!
I guess that the holiday season remains fair game for your "dumping on composers" regimen. But I suppose that God forgives you even though she's a Bach and Mozart enthusiast.
Oh, blast! I was having fun joking about the love/hate relationship Classical Musicdom has with Beethoven, and then you guys had to go all serious! :'(
I don't need to prove my love for Beethoven by dissing any other composer, certainly not Fanny Mendelssohn, whose Piano Trio, Opus 11, is as masterful as anything her brother ever wrote. (I don't know her lieder, but I'll happily accept the judgment of others who say they're wonderful. :D) Beethoven is great, Bach is great, Handel and the Haydn brothers and Mozart and--we're inundated with great composers! That's why GMG exists. ;D
Quote from: jochanaan on December 21, 2007, 11:17:16 AM
I don't need to prove my love for Beethoven by dissing any other composer, certainly not Fanny Mendelssohn, whose Piano Trio, Opus 11, is as masterful as anything her brother ever wrote. (I don't know her lieder, but I'll happily accept the judgment of others who say they're wonderful. :D) Beethoven is great, Bach is great, Handel and the Haydn brothers and Mozart and--we're inundated with great composers! That's why GMG exists. ;D
We accept all that.
All we ask in return is that you accept that
Beethoven is the greatest. Fair enough?
It seems so little to ask.
Let me check with paulb . . . .
Quote from: jochanaan on December 21, 2007, 11:17:16 AM
I don't need to prove my love for Beethoven by dissing any other composer, certainly not Fanny Mendelssohn, whose Piano Trio, Opus 11, is as masterful as anything her brother ever wrote. (I don't know her lieder, but I'll happily accept the judgment of others who say they're wonderful. :D) Beethoven is great, Bach is great, Handel and the Haydn brothers and Mozart and--we're inundated with great composers! That's why GMG exists. ;D
Well said, and I wish that certain other board members would adopt your view.
There are many whom will set a rabid Vibra-Slap on me for writing this, but I'll take Mahler's 6th and 9th symphonies any day over any LvB Symphony except the 9th.
Quote from: Don on December 21, 2007, 11:24:43 AM
Well said, and I wish that certain other board members would adopt your view.
........ without naming names ........
We'll always need the BIG guys to make comparisons as to who's the biggest but I think, even that may be seasonal.
I personally believe that Vivaldi is THE GREATEST in spring, summer, autumn and winter. ::)
Quote from: Haffner on December 21, 2007, 11:25:58 AM
There are many whom will set a rabid Vibra-Slap on me for writing this, but I'll take Mahler's 6th and 9th symphonies any day over any LvB Symphony except the 9th.
Mahler's symphonies are wonderful but his compositions do not range across many genres, not in volume anyway. Maybe this was a product of the era in which he lived. I do not know. Times change. Beethoven couldn't produce over a hundred symphonies and the whole concept of a symphony has had to change today.
Quote from: uffeviking on December 20, 2007, 10:58:56 AM
You did ask me to issue the cease and desist order to Tututulu, didn't you? ???
$:) ;D
Do we dare say Toodle-loo to Tututulu??? 8)
Quote from: Rod Corkin on December 21, 2007, 06:28:45 AM
I have seen a few Mozart operas live and thought the music very boring for the most part, barely a memorable tune in any of it, especially to ears used to Handel's great epics which all have a feast of 'hits'.
I agree about the (surprising) weakness of Mozart's operas but Mozart is still greater composer than Beethoven imo. Händel is above both.
Quote from: jochanaan on December 21, 2007, 11:17:16 AM
Oh, blast! I was having fun joking about the love/hate relationship Classical Musicdom has with Beethoven, and then you guys had to go all serious! :'(
Well, at least i tried to kept a modicum of mirth in the form of personal self parody. While i'm in no way less bigoted then our other esteemed philistines i at least promise to avoid being as boorish as they
all the time. Nobody likes broken records.
I'd listen to Handel more if those damn HIPsters weren't so determined to bring out all the dreadful excesses of 18th century liberalism, like, for instance, the tendency to blur the line from what is male and what is female, a common trend among libertine societies. God bless the 19th century for bringing that to an end. Gives me hope for the future of our own degenerate society. ;D
Listening to the Messiah tends to make me doubt the topic's validity. But then, so did listening to Mozart's C minor Piano Concerto yesterday.
So many other composers were as good if not better. By that I mean their music soared more effortlessly and was more grounded and yearning than Beethoven's music. Was Beethoven a great composer? Yes. Were there other great composers? Yes.
Here's a list of some other great pieces full of emotion and dynamics...moreso than anything I hear in Beethoven, Shubert, etc. of that era.
R. Strauss: An Alpine Symphony
Rachmaninoff: Piano Concertos, Prelude in C sharp minor Op.3, No.2
Pretty much any piano piece by Medtner
Mahler symphonies
Bruckner symphonies
Need more?
Enough about Beethoven already. It's making me sick.
I am also sick of these "this composer is better than that composer, no?'' threads. Art can only be measured objectively, one's favourite piece could be another's nightmare. One's desert island disc could be another's P.O.S. So you can't say this is superior than that just because you personally like A more than B.
With that said, though, Elgar is the worst composer next to Dittersdorf. Too vibrationally simple.
Quote from: 復活交響曲 on December 22, 2007, 05:26:25 PM
Art can only be measured objectively
Finally somebody who sees the truth.
Quote from: 復活交響曲 on December 22, 2007, 05:26:25 PM
So you can't say this is superior than that just because you personally like A more than B.
Let's try this out.
How do we objectively compare the valuation of the following pairs of musical works?--
1.A.
Bach St Matthew Passion1.B.
Brahms German Requiem2.A.
Beethoven Symphony No. 72.B.
Beethoven Symphony No. 83.A.
Chopin Prelude in E Minor, Opus 28 No. 43.B.
Tallis, Spem in alium4.A.
Brahms Double Concerto for Violin and Cello in A Minor, Opus 1024.B.
Nielsen Maskarade
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on December 22, 2007, 05:33:23 PM
Finally somebody who sees the truth.
Perhaps you could speak it out for all us benighted ones?
Most of the things that matter in art, are not the sort of thing for which we have measuring tools.
That, "Josquin," is the truth. Whether you see it, or no.
Quote from: karlhenning on December 22, 2007, 06:09:29 PM
Let's try this out.
How do we objectively compare the valuation of the following pairs of musical works?--
1.A. Bach St Matthew Passion
1.B. Brahms German Requiem
2.A. Beethoven Symphony No. 7
2.B. Beethoven Symphony No. 8
3.A. Chopin Prelude in E Minor, Opus 28 No. 4
3.B. Tallis, Spem in alium
4.A. Brahms Double Concerto for Violin and Cello in A Minor, Opus 102
4.B. Nielsen Maskarade
What's your point? I was saying that whether a piece of art is good or not depends on the person you ask. I might like LvB's 7th more than his 8th but you might like the 8th better.
Doesn't "objectively" mean personally? Maybe you misunderstood my post because I used the word incorrectly. In that case, I apologize.
Quote from: 復活交響曲 on December 22, 2007, 05:26:25 PM
I am also sick of these "this composer is better than that composer, no?'' threads. Art can only be measured objectively, one's favourite piece could be another's nightmare. One's desert island disc could be another's P.O.S. So you can't say this is superior than that just because you personally like A more than B.
This sentiment only makes sense 'subjectively' through the eyes or ears of the beholder in short.
Reading through even a fraction of the these posts, it's clear that it is subjectivity which rules and boy ain't some of it weird!!
With that said, though, Elgar is the worst composer next to Dittersdorf. Too vibrationally simple.
Quote from: D Minor on December 21, 2007, 11:21:47 AM
We accept all that.
All we ask in return is that you accept that Beethoven is the greatest. Fair enough?
Fair enough--when we've defined "greatest." ??? ;D
Quote from: 復活交響曲 on December 22, 2007, 06:24:20 PM
What's your point? I was saying that whether a piece of art is good or not depends on the person you ask. I might like LvB's 7th more than his 8th but you might like the 8th better.
Doesn't "objectively" mean personally? Maybe you misunderstood my post because I used the word incorrectly. In that case, I apologize.
No worries;
objectively actually means
impersonally,
impartially. (And then, we get into the long discussion over the extent to which artistic matters are ajudged objectively . . . which is to say, neither
entirely, nor
to no extent at all.)
So, you will now have divined, my point is how do we impersonally determine whether the
Bach St Matthew Passion or the
Brahms German Requiem is the 'greater' work? But now, I believe, you are likely on much the same side of this rhetorical question as am I.
Quote from: 復活交響曲 on December 22, 2007, 06:24:20 PM
Doesn't "objectively" mean personally? Maybe you misunderstood my post because I used the word incorrectly. In that case, I apologize.
Wrong way round. Subjectively means from a personal standpoint. Objectively means not influenced by personal opinion but governed by fact.
Quote from: karlhenning on December 23, 2007, 04:50:26 AM
No worries; objectively actually means impersonally, impartially. (And then, we get into the long discussion over the extent to which artistic matters are ajudged objectively . . . which is to say, neither entirely, nor to no extent at all.)
So, you will now have divined, my point is how do we impersonally determine whether the Bach St Matthew Passion or the Brahms German Requiem is the 'greater' work? But now, I believe, you are likely on much the same side of this rhetorical question as am I.
Ok, sorry for misleading you in the first place, I am on the same boat as you are.
And thanks Great Gable for reminding me of my mistake.
Well you did ask :)
Quote from: 12tone. on December 22, 2007, 04:34:22 PM
Enough about Beethoven already. It's making me sick.
Then stay out of the thread, genius.
Well, that was easy! :)
Quote from: MN Dave on December 24, 2007, 05:37:29 AM
Then stay out of the thread, genius.
Dave is really good at being helpful.
Quote from: 71 dB on December 22, 2007, 12:53:23 PM
I agree about the (surprising) weakness of Mozart's operas but Mozart is still greater composer than Beethoven imo. Händel is above both.
So you agree Mozart's operas are weak. I ask you then to consider the principle formal music genres where the two are comparable - solo, duo and trio sonatas, string quartets, Symphonies, Masses, concertos, etc. After assessing each one in turn you still think Mozart comes out on top?? As I said before, even just considering Beethoven's works before the age of 36, where is Mozart's Kreutzer, Appassionata, Eroica etc etc? As I also said in my opinion Beethoven was on a clearly higher artistic level with works such as these, works that have never been surpassed since by anyone else of any age. And then what about Beethoven's works from the age of 36 onwards! How can Mozart
still be the superior in you mind?? I find this unfathomable.
PS Happy Christmas from all at ClassicalMusicMayhem!
I agree that all other composers are inferior to Beethoven when it comes to Mercury levels in the body. ;D Or was that just a rumor about Mercury poisoning?
Quote from: 71 dB on December 22, 2007, 12:53:23 PM
I agree about the (surprising) weakness of Mozart's operas but Mozart is still greater composer than Beethoven imo. Händel is above both.
Quote from: Rod Corkin on December 25, 2007, 09:17:40 AM
So you agree Mozart's operas are weak. I ask you then to consider the principle formal music genres where the two are comparable - solo, duo and trio sonatas, string quartets, Symphonies, Masses, concertos, ect. After assessing each one in turn you still think Mozart comes out on top?? As I said before, even just considering Beethoven's works before the age of 36, where is Mozart's Kreutzer, Appassionata, Eroica etc etc? As I also said in my opinion Beethoven was on a clearly higher artistic level with works such as these, works that have never been surpassed since by anyone else of any age. And then what about Beethoven's works from the age of 36 onwards! How can Mozart still be the superior in you mind?? I find this unfathomable.
Please pass the popcorn and bubbly water. Karl, did you bring the chips?
(I regard both Mozart and Beethoven as towering musical geniuses whose achievements have been equalled by very few and exceeded by none...and I'm scarcely alone in sharing an opinion nearly as universal as holding the earth to be a spherical body revolving in space around a single star. Anyone who thinks Mozart's operas are weak has by virtue of expressing that one opinion demonstrated unequivocally that he is an utter moron whose views may have entertainment value but otherwise should be completely disregarded.)
Mozart died before reaching the age of 35 and yet left an unexcelled legacy. Where are Beethoven's G minor symphony, his D minor piano concerto, his
Le Nozze, his Requiem, his clarinet concerto? Could Beethoven have achieved what he did in the symphonies, the quartets, the piano sonatas, without Mozart first blazing the trail? None of which is to suggest that Beethoven was less than Mozart, any more than the reverse. Both were artists of the highest order, universal recognition of whose greatness is unlikely to be challenged by the opinions of a couple of dolts with internet access.
Merry Christmas, indeed, and may Santa bring common sense and wit to all in such dire need.
Quote from: longears on December 25, 2007, 10:29:38 AM
Please pass the popcorn and bubbly water. Karl, did you bring the chips?
(I regard both Mozart and Beethoven as towering musical geniuses whose achievements have been equalled by very few and exceeded by none...and I'm scarcely alone in sharing an opinion nearly as universal as holding the earth to be a spherical body revolving in space around a single star. Anyone who thinks Mozart's operas are weak has by virtue of expressing that one opinion demonstrated unequivocally that he is an utter moron whose views may have entertainment value but otherwise should be completely disregarded.)
Mozart died before reaching the age of 35 and yet left an unexcelled legacy. Where are Beethoven's G minor symphony, his D minor piano concerto, his Le Nozze, his Requiem, his clarinet concerto? Could Beethoven have achieved what he did in the symphonies, the quartets, the piano sonatas, without Mozart first blazing the trail? None of which is to suggest that Beethoven was less than Mozart, any more than the reverse. Both were artists of the highest order, universal recognition of whose greatness is unlikely to be challenged by the opinions of a couple of dolts with internet access.
Merry Christmas, indeed, and may Santa bring common sense and wit to all in such dire need.
Well put, and Merry Christmas to
you!
Beethoven's ultimate achievements in the string quartet, choral, and Symphonic genres are truly staggering. Yet I think I would be impossible to fully comprehend a work like the Eroica without hearing how much Mozart (the "Jupiter") and Haydn (the "London"-era Symphonies) permeate it.
And I hear Mozart in
all of Beethoven's Piano Concerto themes...even many of the cadenzas. The 4th movement in LvB's 4th Piano Concerto, and the 4th movement in the 1st Symphony, could most easily fool anyone into believing they were written by Mozart.
Beethoven himself, at a concert playing Mozart's C minor PC, told his fellow composer friend "we'll never write anything like
that, will we?"
He never did, at least in that genre.
Quote from: DavidW on December 25, 2007, 10:13:39 AM
I agree that all other composers are inferior to Beethoven when it comes to Mercury levels in the body. ;D Or was that just a rumor about Mercury poisoning?
Lead.
But Schubert was full of mercury, they used it to try and cure his syphilis. Yikes! :o
8)
----------------
Now playing:
Haydn - Trio 1790 - Hob XV:24 Trio in D 1st mvmt - Allegro
Quote from: longears on December 25, 2007, 10:29:38 AM
Please pass the popcorn and bubbly water. Karl, did you bring the chips?
Soft pretzels!
Quote from: Haffner on December 25, 2007, 11:13:22 AM
Well put, and Merry Christmas to you!
Beethoven's ultimate achievements in the string quartet, choral, and Symphonic genres are truly staggering. Yet I think I would be impossible to fully comprehend a work like the Eroica without hearing how much Mozart (the "Jupiter") and Haydn (the "London"-era Symphonies) permeate it.
And I hear Mozart in all of Beethoven's Piano Concerto themes...even many of the cadenzas. The 4th movement in LvB's 4th Piano Concerto, and the 4th movement in the 1st Symphony, could most easily fool anyone into believing they were written by Mozart.
Beethoven himself, at a concert playing Mozart's C minor PC, told his fellow composer friend "we'll never write anything like that, will we?"
He never did, at least in that genre.
With
Mozart you hear a whole host of other composers!! You think he was beyond influence?? The Beethoven/Mozart connection is totally overplayed, on average he sounds far closer to Haydn the Mozart, which means of course these composers has only a marginal influence on Beethoven. Beethoven's sentiment if anything harks back to an earlier time than these guys.
I fail to see this connection with the Jupiter and the Eroica, in fact I have yet to read any evidence that Beethoven even heard the Jupiter. The Eroica was a natural expansion of the form from Beethoven and is a far more polished piece to my mind. The much vaunted fugue I think is actually the weakest movement, its a bloody awful piece, especially when the repeat is observed the monotony is just too much. Mozart and the observation of repeats are rarely a welcome combination, another reason why Mozart is a totally overrated composer. I have never heard a single movement of any piece of Beethoven that could fool anyone into believe it was a Mozart piece, so I am having serious doubts about your cognitive faculties. I feel no need to discuss Haydn's symphonies in the context of this topic.
Concerning the concerto anyone who thinks that Mozart composed anything of the standard of B's 4th is clearly deluded. Beethoven was being his usual respectful self with that comment. I presume you do not want to read the later comments from Beethoven whereby he stated he no longer believed Mozart was the greatest composer...?
Quote from: Rod Corkin on December 25, 2007, 09:17:40 AM
So you agree Mozart's operas are weak.
Agree? So few agree with me about that! ;D
Quote from: Rod Corkin on December 25, 2007, 09:17:40 AMI ask you then to consider the principle formal music genres where the two are comparable - solo, duo and trio sonatas, string quartets, Symphonies, Masses, concertos, etc. After assessing each one in turn you still think Mozart comes out on top??
Yes, Mozart is above Beethoven who's operatic works are even weaker (Fidelio => yuk!). Mozart is better (brilliant) with Concertos, Beethoven is better (the best) with String Quartets...
Quote from: Rod Corkin on December 25, 2007, 09:17:40 AMAs I said before, even just considering Beethoven's works before the age of 36, where is Mozart's Kreutzer, Appassionata, Eroica etc etc?
What kind of question is that? Where is Beethoven's Mass in C minor or Requiem?
Quote from: Rod Corkin on December 25, 2007, 09:17:40 AMAs I also said in my opinion Beethoven was on a clearly higher artistic level with works such as these, works that have never been surpassed since by anyone else of any age. And then what about Beethoven's works from the age of 36 onwards! How can Mozart still be the superior in you mind?? I find this unfathomable.
You enjoy Beethoven more. I enjoy Mozart more. It's a matter of taste. Anyway, I enjoy Elgar more than these two combined!
You two idiots are a match made in heaven.
Quote from: M forever on December 26, 2007, 02:38:35 AM
You two idiots are a match made in heaven.
They should have their own room, or at least, thread.
I had proposed that a long time ago. Still a good idea. Or rather, not just their own thread - their own forum. So much stupidity really hurts. I actually read both posts to see if there wan't anything of interest in there after all. We don't want to be prejudiced. Now my brain hurts.
Quote from: Rod Corkin on December 26, 2007, 01:50:42 AMMozart is a totally overrated composer. I have never heard a single movement of any piece of Beethoven that could fool anyone into believe it was a Mozart piece, so I am having serious doubts about your cognitive faculties. I feel no need to discuss Haydn's symphonies in the context of this topic.
Concerning the concerto anyone who thinks that Mozart composed anything of the standard of B's 4th is clearly deluded. Beethoven was being his usual respectful self with that comment. I presume you do not want to read the later comments from Beethoven whereby he stated he no longer believed Mozart was the greatest composer...?
How could I have been so blind? Thanks so much, I really learned alot from your post. Please forgive my obtusity.
Mercy, and here I had forgot just how knee-slapping funny the Corkster could be!
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on December 25, 2007, 11:24:30 AM
Lead.
But Schubert was full of mercury, they used it to try and cure his syphilis. Yikes! :o
8)
Poor Schubert, he shouldn't have had that Trout. ;D
The worth of composers like Beethoven, Mozart, Bach, Schubert, etc., has already been determined by generations of performers, composers, scholars, and listeners, and is not likely to be assaulted by a few people posting to an Internet music forum. This isn't the Olympics, and there isn't one composer superior to all others, but so long as any and all of the composers listed above are considered "among the very greatest," I have no problem.
No comment towards the gentlemen who consider Mozart "overrated" and Elgar more interesting than Mozart or Beethoven.
Quote from: Sforzando on December 26, 2007, 07:04:05 AM
The worth of composers like Beethoven, Mozart, Bach, Schubert, etc., has already been determined by generations of performers, composers, scholars, and listeners, and is not likely to be assaulted by a few people posting to an Internet music forum. This isn't the Olympics, and there isn't one composer superior to all others, but so long as any and all of the composers listed above are considered "among the very greatest," I have no problem.
No comment towards the gentlemen who consider Mozart "overrated" and Elgar more interesting than Mozart or Beethoven.
I completely agree, on all points.
Quote from: DavidW on December 26, 2007, 06:30:34 AM
Poor Schubert, he shouldn't have had that Trout. ;D
We
told him to go for the clam strips . . . .
The Clam Strip Quintet. I like it. ;D
Followed by the Red Lobster Symphony in D Minor.
Quote from: M forever on December 26, 2007, 02:38:35 AM
You two idiots are a match made in heaven.
Quote from: M forever on December 26, 2007, 02:52:55 AM
I had proposed that a long time ago. Still a good idea. Or rather, not just their own thread - their own forum. So much stupidity really hurts. I actually read both posts to see if there wan't anything of interest in there after all. We don't want to be prejudiced. Now my brain hurts.
Just don't try to take them seriously and then they're almost as funny as Victor Borge (only he
knew he was being absurd!). BTW, Corkie has his own site. Maybe Poju will become a frequent visitor there...and to ACD's site, too! They all have so much in common, I bet they'll get along famously!
:-)
Quote from: longears on December 26, 2007, 07:36:01 AM
Just don't try to take them seriously and then they're almost as funny as Victor Borge (only he knew he was being absurd!). BTW, Corkie has his own site. Maybe Poju will become a frequent visitor there...and to ACD's site, too! They all have so much in common, I bet they'll get along famously!
WhhhheeeEEEEEEEeeeeee!!! I just can't wait to miss
that merger!
Just add a pink harpie, some lingerie, and a bowl of fruit punch spiked with Everclear, and these geniuses should cook up a Nobel prize in no time at all!
Quote from: Rod Corkin on December 25, 2007, 09:17:40 AM
So you agree Mozart's operas are weak. I ask you then......
Come on now, it's Christmas...what
is all this? Possibly a clutching at straws; or there again, perhaps more akin to trying to lure some innocent child into your car with a bag of half sucked acid-drops. Leave the boy alone for goodness sake!
As to that lopsided menage a trois proposed by Longears; can you imagine two superegos fighting over a freethinker? It's like that old saw about bald men fighting over a comb, but here the comb has a few teeth missing. It would be tears before bedtime and a divorce with hearings about who is NOT going to get custody.
Keep them all in their separate institutions say I. Poju is too nice for the likes of you Rod Corkin, you just don't mess with his mind, do you hear?
Now, as you were folks; funny hat and balloon time I feel.
Mike
Quote from: knight on December 26, 2007, 09:19:52 AM
Now, as you were folks; funny hat and balloon time I feel.
Laissez les bons temps rouler,
Mike!
Quote from: karlhenning on December 26, 2007, 09:21:18 AM
Laissez les bons temps rouler, Mike!
My life is ruled by it.
Mike
Highly amusing thread, this. ;) Thanks, Dave
Like Karl, I can find no fault with:
Quote from: Sforzando on December 26, 2007, 07:04:05 AM
The worth of composers like Beethoven, Mozart, Bach, Schubert, etc., has already been determined by generations of performers, composers, scholars, and listeners, and is not likely to be assaulted by a few people posting to an Internet music forum. This isn't the Olympics, and there isn't one composer superior to all others, but so long as any and all of the composers listed above are considered "among the very greatest," I have no problem.
This :o, on the other hand, is just bad taste IMHO:
Quote from: Rod Corkin on December 26, 2007, 01:50:42 AM
...The much vaunted fugue I think is actually the weakest movement, its a bloody awful piece....
This is like running across someone who tells you that
Timon of Athens is a stronger play than
King Lear; hard to even know where to begin...
Quote from: jwinter on December 26, 2007, 11:10:33 AM
This is like running across someone who tells you that Timon of Athens is a stronger play than King Lear; hard to even know where to begin...
Don't laugh; in the opinion of G. Wilson Knight, one of the best known of Shakespearean scholars,
Timon was the greatest of his tragedies. I have seen it only once, and it plays abysmally on the stage.
But there's always one . . . .
Quote from: longears on December 25, 2007, 10:29:38 AM
...Could Beethoven have achieved what he did in the symphonies, the quartets, the piano sonatas, without Mozart first blazing the trail?...
And could either of them have gone where they did without "Papa" Haydn? Could he have blazed the trail without Stamitz's or C.P.E. Bach's examples? Could C.P.E. Bach have left the legacy he did without the legacy he received from his Olympian father? Could Sebastian Bach have--? The line goes all the way back to the first monks who dared to chant plainsong in harmony, and probably yet further, into deepest antiquity; and it continues through all the great, innovative composers who have added and are adding to all these legacies.
And the quotes we have from LvB himself show that he was very conscious of the great debt he owed to his forebears.
Music is not a competition where composers are getting eliminated one by one; it's a commune that continuously receives new members.
Quote from: longears on December 26, 2007, 07:36:01 AM
BTW, Corkie has his own site. Maybe Poju will become a frequent visitor there ....
:D
see? remember when someone (was it uffeviking?) said "keep the jokes coming" and then i said that was a jinx.... see, i double jinxed it and the reason Corkins and Poju came onto the thread was really because of me! See, I'm a genius! My Christmas present comedy to you all! :D 8)
Quote from: 僕はグレグ (Greg) on December 26, 2007, 03:23:06 PM
see? remember when someone (was it uffeviking?) said "keep the jokes coming" and then i said that was a jinx.... see, i double jinxed it and the reason Corkins and Poju came onto the thread was really because of me! See, I'm a genius! My Christmas present comedy to you all! :D 8)
Well, maybe somebody can spoof my overly-serious comments above. Hmmm--a commune--probably a very dysfunctional one where no one feeds the chickens. ;D
Quote from: jochanaan on December 26, 2007, 11:35:55 AM
Music is not a competition where composers are getting eliminated one by one; it's a commune that continuously receives new members.
Lookout, Jo! Have you seen this thread? (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,5094.0/topicseen.html)
Quote from: jochanaan on December 26, 2007, 03:57:30 PM
Well, maybe somebody can spoof my overly-serious comments above.
I won't. I agreed with them whole-heartedly.
Quote from: jochanaan on December 26, 2007, 11:35:55 AM
Music is not a competition where composers are getting eliminated one by one; it's a commune that continuously receives new members.
I agree, Jo.
For example, here are members of the Elgar Commune (Finland Sect):
(http://cache.eb.com/eb/image?id=77324&rendTypeId=4)
Quote from: D Minor on December 26, 2007, 04:12:38 PM
I agree, Jo.
For example, here are members of the Elgar Commune (Finland Sect):
(http://cache.eb.com/eb/image?id=77324&rendTypeId=4)
That hurt.
You found my old bus!
Now, let's get serious about the issue at hand and examine the facts:
Beethoven 5' 3 ¾"
Stravinsky 5' 3"
Wagner 5' 2"
Ravel 5' 0"
Rachmaninoff 6' 6"
Aaaaaahhhhh! False. Not all composers are inferior to Beethoven.
Quote from: jwinter on December 26, 2007, 11:10:33 AM
Highly amusing thread, this. ;) Thanks, Dave
It's interesting that it took on a life of its own. When I started it, I was just being cocky.
Quote from: jwinter on December 26, 2007, 11:10:33 AM
This :o, on the other hand, is just bad taste IMHO:
This is like running across someone who tells you that Timon of Athens is a stronger play than King Lear; hard to even know where to begin...
This topic has provided me with good entertainment too! ;D
But over the years I have yet to observe a consensus impression whereby the Jupiter was rated a superior work to the Eroica. The poll I stated at my site has not so far not contradicted this notion. Of course it is possible for the common masses to get things wrong but it means I'm not some kind of cultist in this respect. Also I was not joking that I feel the fugue is the weakest movement of the work. I am not the only person to have realised this, especially when you hear the whole movement with repeats. I know a few naiive people who were surprised the movement lasts circa 12 mins rather than circa 6 or 7. Do these extra minutes add anything? Hell no they only detract. If I want to hear a good orchestral fugue I'd rather hear the Overture to Judas Maccabeus, including the repeat! I am not the first person to have realised this issue with Mozart and repeats, whereas with Beethoven the observation of repeats is essential.
Quote from: MN Dave on December 26, 2007, 06:57:23 PM
It's interesting that it took on a life of its own. When I started it, I was just being cocky.
Don't cop out of it now Dave, have some spine man!!
Quote from: Rod Corkin on December 28, 2007, 11:27:55 AM
I know a few naiive people who were surprised the movement lasts circa 12 mins rather than circa 6 or 7. Do these extra minutes add anything? Hell no it only detracts. If I want to hear a good orchestral fugue I'd rather hear the Overture to Judas Maccabeus, including the repeat! I am not the first person to have realised this issue with Mozart and repeats, whereas with Beethoven the observation of repeats is essential.
I think in the case of the Jupiter you need the repeats, at least I do anyway since the musical ideas are too rich to let it go at one passing. Other places like the 2nd movement of K550 I would rather not hear all the repeats which would stretch the movmement out to an interminable 14 minutes or so.
Quote from: PerfectWagnerite on December 28, 2007, 11:33:38 AM
I think in the case of the Jupiter you need the repeats, at least I do anyway since the musical ideas are too rich to let it go at one passing. Other places like the 2nd movement of K550 I would rather not hear all the repeats which would stretch the movmement out to an interminable 14 minutes or so.
Fair enough. I've heard some renditions of the Jupiter finale go beyond 13 mins. But even at a swifter 11+ mins there was simply not enough in this music to hold my attention for that period of time. But in my opinion even at 6+ mins there are much better fugues available than this. I sometime wonder what people are listening to out there.
I've got nothing per se against this music, it is just the gushing fawning admiration of it that perplexes me. I for one don't believe the hype.
Quote from: Rod Corkin on December 28, 2007, 11:41:10 AM
Fair enough. I've heard some renditions of the Jupiter finale go beyond 13 mins. But even at a swifter 11+ mins there was simply not enough in this music to hold my attention for that period of time. But in my opinion even at 6+ mins there are much better fugues available than this. I sometime wonder what people are listening to out there.
I've got nothing per se against this music, it is just the gushing fawning admiration of it that perplexes me. I for one don't believe the hype.
The finale is not a fugue per se, it's a sonata-form movement with fugal elements (fugati). And I have no idea what all the accusations of "hype" are about. In the coda to the movement (which takes place after the second repeat, by the way), Mozart writes an amazingly intricate fugato in 5-part invertible counterpoint, a truly virtuosic display of musical fireworks. If the objection is made that saying so constitutes "gushing fawning admiration," I'll continue to admire it gushingly and fawningly.
Where is this quote from
"I don't know what sforzando means, though it clearly means something."
Sounds like Simon Rattle.
Quote from: PerfectWagnerite on December 28, 2007, 12:06:56 PM
Where is this quote from
"I don't know what sforzando means, though it clearly means something."
Sounds like Simon Rattle.
I did a search on the word "sforzando" in this forum, and this quotation fit the bill. The original author is one Brian Rein, a participant here.
Quote from: Rod Corkin on December 28, 2007, 11:41:10 AM
Fair enough. I've heard some renditions of the Jupiter finale go beyond 13 mins. But even at a swifter 11+ mins there was simply not enough in this music to hold my attention for that period of time. But in my opinion even at 6+ mins there are much better fugues available than this. I sometime wonder what people are listening to out there.
Me too. You are clearly a musical *, and the fact that you don't realize that suggests you are one in life, too, so what makes you think your limited powers of perception and understanding of music are the standard against which music should be measured? What is it with people like you who don't have anything of substance to say about a particular subject, yet feel the strong desire to publish their strong "opinions"? Have you really not realized yet that more or less everyone here is laughing about you?
edited $:)
uffeviking
Quote from: Sforzando on December 28, 2007, 12:04:12 PM
The finale is not a fugue per se, it's a sonata-form movement with fugal elements (fugati). And I have no idea what all the accusations of "hype" are about. In the coda to the movement (which takes place after the second repeat, by the way), Mozart writes an amazingly intricate fugato in 5-part invertible counterpoint, a truly virtuosic display of musical fireworks. If the objection is made that saying so constitutes "gushing fawning admiration," I'll continue to admire it gushingly and fawningly.
I understand your point, but generally people refer to the finale as 'the fugue' and I'm not going to make an issue of that. I am concerned with dramatically effective symphonic music however, I don't care how many parts and invertibles. I fail to see the fireworks in this piece. But yes the 'hype' refers to the 'fawning admiration' I refer to earlier.
Quote from: M forever on December 28, 2007, 12:22:22 PM
Me too. You are clearly a musical idiot, and the fact that you don't realize that suggests you are one in life, too, so what makes you think your limited powers of perception and understanding of music are the standard against which music should be measured? What is it with people like you who don't have anything of substance to say about a particular subject, yet feel the strong desire to publish their strong "opinions"? Have you really not realized yet that more or less everyone here is laughing about you?
Idiot?? That's not a nice thing to say. Laughing at me?? Laughing about what? That I rate the Eroica above the Jupiter? Most people I know think the same so I'm not sure what the trouble is here. I think the issue for you is that you simply cannot handle this opinion. You think I worry about things like that?
yesssssssss
continue on, you two......
(what a perfect birthday present)
Well I am not going to pit the Jupiter against the Eroica but suffice to say I think the Jupiter is one of the most complex piece of music I have heard. I am not musically educated enough to know whether the fugato section in the finale is invertible or not from hearing but just by listening I can tell there is a lot of stuff happening at once. I can listen to that movement 10x in a roll and yet not absorbed most of the musical ideas. So I don't mind the repeat at all.
Quote from: Rod Corkin on December 28, 2007, 11:27:55 AM
Also I was not joking that I feel the fugue is the weakest movement of the work. I am not the only person to have realised this . . . .
Well, you feel what you feel, Rod. None of the four movements of the
K.551 are at all weak. "Realized" is entirely the wrong word. And I am not the only person amused no end by your fatuity in pronouncing anything in the mature
Mozart symphonies "weak."
Quote from: Rod Corkin on December 28, 2007, 12:33:33 PM
Laughing at me??
Oh, yes, yes, indeed.
So sorry this is how you had to find out, Rod.
Quote from: Rod Corkin on December 28, 2007, 12:33:33 PM
Idiot?? That's not a nice thing to say. Laughing at me?? Laughing about what? That I rate the Eroica above the Jupiter? Most people I know think the same so I'm not sure what the trouble is here. I think the issue for you is that you simply cannot handle this opinion. You think I worry about things like that?
Probably not, since idiots live in their very own, very little world (I think that's actually part of the definition of the word). Comparing two pieces of music, such as these two, in that way however is completely idiotic to begin with (that's why I know you are an idiot, it's not an insult, just a simple observation). There is no "opinion" there for me to "handle" or not. But that wasn't my question anyway. My question was, why does a complete musical ignoramus like you feel the need to trumpet out nonsense like that on an internet forum and act the village fool? Don't you have anything better to do?
BTW, did you know that monkeys peel bananas from the other end (not the one with the "handle", but from the end with the tip)?
Since it is impossible to prove that one of these works is musically superior to the other, anyone with in depth knowledge of music wouldn't even waste his time trying. They are simply 2 great pieces of music. :)
8)
----------------
Now playing:
April 5, 1803 - Royal PO / Previn Ax - Bia 337 Op 37 Concerto #3 in c for Piano 3rd mvmt - Rondo: Allegro
Please let's not wade further into personal insult. It is one thing to describe the behaviour, another to apply it to an individual. People can draw their own conclusions; and will.
Mike
Quote from: M forever on December 28, 2007, 02:03:35 PM
Probably not, since idiots live in their very own, very little world (I think that's actually part of the definition of the word). Comparing two pieces of music, such as these two, in that way however is completely idiotic to begin with (that's why I know you are an idiot, it's not an insult, just a simple observation). There is no "opinion" there for me to "handle" or not. But that wasn't my question anyway. My question was, why does a complete musical ignoramus like you feel the need to trumpet out nonsense like that on an internet forum and act the village fool? Don't you have anything better to do?
BTW, did you know that monkeys peel bananas from the other end (not the one with the "handle", but from the end with the tip)?
that was so good, man......
i hope Sydney replies back. Keep it coming! 8)
Quote from: M forever on December 28, 2007, 02:03:35 PM
BTW, did you know that monkeys peel bananas from the other end (not the one with the "handle", but from the end with the tip)?
Yeah, I know that. But I don't get the joke.
Quote from: PerfectWagnerite on December 28, 2007, 03:47:41 PM
Yeah, I know that. But I don't get the joke.
monkeys are stupid so they peel the wrong end and probably get banana pieces all over the place.... he's saying Sydney is a monkey, i guess.
Quote from: 僕はグレグ (Greg) on December 28, 2007, 03:52:08 PM
monkeys are stupid so they peel the wrong end and probably get banana pieces all over the place.... he's saying Sydney is a monkey, i guess.
The person called 'an idiot' here is Rod Corkin, Greg, not Sydney Grew...
I heartily enjoyed the non-sequitor.
Quote from: knight on December 28, 2007, 02:18:58 PM
Please let's not wade further into personal insult.
What about non-personal insults?
Quote from: PerfectWagnerite on December 28, 2007, 12:47:31 PM
suffice to say I think the Jupiter is one of the most complex piece of music I have heard. I am not musically educated enough to know whether the fugato section in the finale is invertible or not
"Trust me," (as they say) it is. But allow me to explain, as it bears on the discussion. I assume you know counterpoint is the art of combining musical lines. In invertible counterpoint, a melody and bass line are designed so that the melody can serve equally well as the bass line and vice versa. This is challenging enough for a composer in itself, but multiple inverted lines are even more difficult. In the last, unfinished fugue from The Art of Fugue, Bach writes passages in quadruple invertible counterpoint. What Mozart does in the celebrated Jupiter fugato is to pluck five of the principal melodic ideas heard already in the finale and show, totally unexpectedly, that each one of them can be used as melody or bass to all the others. Meanwhile the inner parts keep the other three melodic strands in play, so that at any time you're hearing five pieces of melody simultaneously - all sounding both independent and interdependent. If you'd like to see an outline of the various permutations, Google "invertible counterpoint mozart jupiter zaslaw" for a table taken from Neal Zaslaw's "The Compleat Mozart."
That's what I mean by the "fireworks" that I admire gushingly and fawningly.
Quote from: Rod Corkin on December 28, 2007, 11:27:55 AM
But over the years I have yet to observe a consensus impression whereby the Jupiter was rated a superior work to the Eroica.
Consensus is the devil. Isn't that what you've been preaching to us for ages now, Rod? Bach vs. Handel and all that?
But now, suddenly, when it suits you you use it as a crutch to bolster your own position.
Shame...
If I could be serious for just another moment:
Quote from: Rod Corkin on December 28, 2007, 11:41:10 AM
Fair enough. I've heard some renditions of the Jupiter finale go beyond 13 mins. But even at a swifter 11+ mins there was simply not enough in this music to hold my attention for that period of time. But in my opinion even at 6+ mins there are much better fugues available than this. I sometime wonder what people are listening to out there.
Is it possible that you've never heard a great performance of this symphony? I've heard some Jupiter recordings that leave me cold or shaking my head in confusion. However, in my favorite one (Daniel Barenboim leading the English Chamber Orchestra in the 1970s), there's plenty of musical meat to hold my attention. And he takes the repeats in the last movement, obviously finding, with others, that the music is complex enough it needs a second hearing so the audience can grasp it. (I say "obviously" because Barenboim doesn't take the repeats in the first two movements--a clear exhibition of personal taste rather than strict historical authenticity.) I also like the old Fritz Reiner/Chicago Symphony reading, which goes almost at "HIP" tempos, considerably faster than Barenboim's.
But is it better than Beethoven? Is an apple tastier than an orange? :)
Quote from: PerfectWagnerite on December 28, 2007, 03:47:41 PM
Yeah, I know that. But I don't get the joke.
There was no joke there.
Quote from: Sforzando on December 28, 2007, 12:13:45 PM
I did a search on the word "sforzando" in this forum, and this quotation fit the bill. The original author is one Brian Rein, a participant here.
Of course you take "sforzando" in musical terms. Nevertheless, the Italian equivalent of someone nicknamed "sforzando" could be something like Mr. "straining" or "forcing". So not particularly Romantic ;D
Quote from: Jezetha on December 28, 2007, 03:59:18 PM
The person called 'an idiot' here is Rod Corkin, Greg, not Sydney Grew...
It's so easy to get you guys to spout out your usual vitriolic crap I almost get a kick out of it. You guys obviously insult so many people members get confused about who is being insulted next. ::)
Believe me I am laughing at you guys too. You think I have forgotten who you are what what you are? You only get this at unmoderated sites like GMG (and please no-one contradict me on this, have some self respect). But you guys in question are so dim you can't even tell when I am mocking you too. GMG is so stuffed with old cronies it's laughable, you wouldn't last 5 minutes at my site, because people can express any musical opinion they like there without interference from local 'bully boys'. Nobody can say anything here without your mothball stench hanging over it.
But still, none of your moronic bitching will change the fact that Beethoven is simply in a higher artistic league than Mozart. Neither will it degrade the generally accepted place of the Eroica as the greatest ever symphony (if we except the 9th as a genre on its own). It is you guys who are out touch with the popular consensus. I find it odd that for once I find myself towing a 'status quo' line, but hey, the masses don't always get it wrong.
It's New Year soon, don't be so grumpy. Deal with it boys, just deal with it... ;D
Quote from: Rod Corkin on December 29, 2007, 01:00:27 AM
Deal with boys, just deal with it... ;D
I think what you need to deal with; though never will, is that you are generally wrongheaded in your extreme opinions. So often in the past I asked you to say what you think is great about Beethoven and Handel. Give me information I don't have. But your default setting is to trash other equally great composers.
Your GI, (general ignorance), has been fully exposed in your remarks about Mozart's Jupiter Symphony. I learned something there from the poster who took trouble to analyse the music rather than, as you do, just spew over other composers; in the hope that the only ones remaining unbesmirched would be your two favourites.
I remember one of your posts where you proclaimed, 'I put my music where my mouth is.' An excellent idea, since your mouth seems now only capable of spitting out the old mantras and denigration.
Mike
Quote from: Rod Corkin on December 29, 2007, 01:00:27 AM
It's so easy to get you guys to spout out your usual vitriolic crap I almost get a kick out of it. You guys obviously insult so many people members get confused about who is being insulted next. ::)
Don't count me among the 'boys', Rod. I don't like calling people 'idiots'. It's all relative, a gliding scale. One man's idiot is the next man's savant. The only thing I would suggest is that genius, happily for us, is more abundant than you think, and that you're robbing yourself of some extraordinary musical experiences in your single-minded veneration. That's all.
Jez.
Quote from: knight on December 29, 2007, 01:13:10 AM
I think what you need to deal with; though never will, is that you are generally wrongheaded in your extreme opinions. So often in the past I asked you to say what you think is great about Beethoven and Handel. Give me information I don't have. But your default setting is to trash other equally great composers.
Your GI, (general ignorance), has been fully exposed in your remarks about Mozart's Jupiter Symphony. I learned something there from the poster who took trouble to analyse the music rather than, as you do, just spew over other composers; in the hope that the only ones remaining unbesmirched would be your two favourites.
I remember one of your posts where you proclaimed, 'I put my music where my mouth is.' An excellent idea, since your mouth seems now only capable of spitting out the old mantras and denigration.
Mike
As I predicted you only interject when I respond to the vitriol and not before. Moderators are supposed to be impartial Mr Knight, a factor that, with respect, I feel you have yet to fully understand.
Forgive me but I fail to recollect when you have asked me anything about Handel. If you seriously require any information I suggest you join my site, there is loads of Handel stuff going on there. In any case I said plenty in the Bach/Handel topic. and provided many music downloads too. Perhaps these informative posts were lost in the vitriol overload that you allowed to develop in that topic, and then had the audacity to close it because of the chaotic state it had developed into. Believe me that would NOT have happened at my site.
It is a simple fact that at this site if anyone criticises Mozart or Bach they had better watch out. I did attempt to explain some of my reasoning - I started to discuss the problem with Mozart and the observation of repeats but was typically shouted down before I could develop it. You should count yourself lucky I haven't brought up Schubert into the equation!
I always put my music where my mouth is at my site, something I encourage from the other members too. Feel free to join up and hammer me with my own CD collection. I use Savall's recording of the Eroica for my demonstration there.
We are used to your offside claims re moderation; you don't like the way things are moderated here, you are entitled to your opinion. But moderators are perfectly entitled to express their opinions. Had the mods fawned around your absurd ideas and wiped out any discent, no doubt that would have been fine.
As to asking you about Handel and Bach, what a convenient lapse in your memory. Before your self imposed sabbatical I recall post after post where I asked you to describe to me what you liked about Bach and Handel; but what I got was a load of denigration about composers I had not mentioned. Posting snippets is no way of describing how great Beethoven is. I have most of what you post, I can listen to it for myself, what I always asked for was what you got out of it beyond what I can read via a three minute trawl through the Internet.
But, really, I waste time going round in circles with you. I got the impression you returned here merely to advertise and drum up interest in your own Site. We had suggestions that you were spamming GMG, but we decided to let you alone. If you gain interest in your site, fine. I hope it goes well. But as long as you keep coming down the mountain holding the holy tablets and telling us there can be no Gods but the ones you happen to have alighted upon; I have no doubt that people here will be less inclined to take you seriously.
Mike
Quote from: knight on December 29, 2007, 01:49:43 AM
We are used to your offside claims re moderation; you don't like the way things are moderated here, you are entitled to your opinion. But moderators are perfectly entitled to express their opinions. Had the mods fawned around your absurd ideas and wiped out any discent, no doubt that would have been fine.
As to asking you about Handel and Bach, what a convenient lapse in your memory. Before your self imposed sabbatical I recall post after post where I asked you to describe to me what you liked about Bach and Handel; but what I got was a load of denigration about composers I had not mentioned. Posting snippets is no way of describing how great Beethoven is. I have most of what you post, I can listen to it for myself, what I always asked for was what you got out of it beyond what I can read via a three minute trawl through the Internet.
But, really, I waste time going round in circles with you. I got the impression you returned here merely to advertise and drum up interest in your own Site. We had suggestions that you were spamming GMG, but we decided to let you alone. If you gain interest in your site, fine. I hope it goes well. But as long as you keep coming down the mountain holding the holy tablets and telling us there can be no Gods but the ones you happen to have alighted upon; I have no doubt that people here will be less inclined to take you seriously.
Mike
In the topic itself I explained why I prefer Handel over Bach, it is just that you will have to wade through 32 pages of crap before you will make any sense of it. If I did not respond as you requested it must have been because I thought you weren't being serious considering I'd already made over 200 posts on the matter.
There are no snippets at my site, nor did I post any here. They were/are representative extracts from the composers output, and always whole movements. One track says more than a 10 page monologue. I cannot be convinced by a piece of writing alone that a piece of music is good or otherwise. But the music functions as the focal point for discussion, not to replace discussion all together. But this seemed too radical a concept for your boot boys. You can write all you like about the Jupiter and the Eroica, but the best artistic impression is gained when the music is played side by side. There is nothing radical in this concept, to sensible people at least.
I don't come here with a 'holy tablet', I simply responded supporting a topic that even I would not have dared to post. The originator of this topic has now saw fit to try and disassociate himself from his original position, such is the fear the local mafia apparently induces here.
You will see there is a consistency in my approach that goes beyond me simply coming here to promote my site. Remember I have been a member of GMG for a long time before I created my own site but left because of the anarchy that is allowed here. It seems nothing has changed in the meantime. If anything I am doing you a favour as I am demonstrating the flaws that exist in your own forum. If you'd get the mafia to shut up for 5 minutes I'm sure you'd have a lot more interesting debates here. Their incessant whinging I find most pathetic. Harry says at my place that Beethoven's Ode to Joy is crap, did I kick a fuss?? Did I kick him out?? No I smiled and moved on. Though thinking about it, here it seems it is more acceptable to criticise Beethoven than Mozart or Bach or Schubert. An interesting feature that is not unique to this forum. Even Rob Newman's most radical theories pass almost without effect at my site!
I will give you the last word..
Happy New Year 0:)
Quote from: Rod Corkin on December 29, 2007, 01:27:27 AMIt is a simple fact that at this site if anyone criticises Mozart or Bach they had better watch out.
In my opinion many members on this forum have very conservative opinions.
I feel my opinions are ultrafresh and new in comparison and I am almost 37!
:P
Sure sounds as if Rod's site would be more congenial to your ultrafresh freethinking, doesn't it?
Have you ever visited? He's clearly desperate for clicks.
http://classicalmusicmayhem.freeforums.org (http://classicalmusicmayhem.freeforums.org)
Quote from: Sforzando on December 28, 2007, 05:42:19 PM
"Trust me," (as they say) it is. But allow me to explain, as it bears on the discussion. I assume you know counterpoint is the art of combining musical lines. In invertible counterpoint, a melody and bass line are designed so that the melody can serve equally well as the bass line and vice versa. This is challenging enough for a composer in itself, but multiple inverted lines are even more difficult. In the last, unfinished fugue from The Art of Fugue, Bach writes passages in quadruple invertible counterpoint. What Mozart does in the celebrated Jupiter fugato is to pluck five of the principal melodic ideas heard already in the finale and show, totally unexpectedly, that each one of them can be used as melody or bass to all the others. Meanwhile the inner parts keep the other three melodic strands in play, so that at any time you're hearing five pieces of melody simultaneously - all sounding both independent and interdependent. If you'd like to see an outline of the various permutations, Google "invertible counterpoint mozart jupiter zaslaw" for a table taken from Neal Zaslaw's "The Compleat Mozart."
That's what I mean by the "fireworks" that I admire gushingly and fawningly.
Thanks for the explanation. That was cool. I'll listen for it next time. I took harmony and counterpoint class but I didn't do so well...
This thread, though started as joke, was bound to get out of hand at some moment.
Pitting composers and their masterworks against each other for "greatness" is foolish and an utter waste of time. Discounting Bach because he is supposedly "inferior" to Händel and doing the same with Mozart (and Schubert), does make one's musical outlook very narrow indeed - which is not our loss btw.
I also agree with Jezetha that it is rather pointless as well, to respond to this with fulminating and name calling. The modest level of moderation here doesn't make it all right - I feel it degrades the way in which we interact here.
I wouldn't recommend Rod's forum, unless you like discussing with those who fight wind mills. Like a thread with the theory that Mozart did not write the "Gran Partita", but that the piece originates from... "travelling Moravian musicians"!! LOL ;D Naturally, the thought arises that whoever comes up which such a theory might have some ... uhm ... personal issues. Especially when the origins of several other famous Mozart compositions are vigorously put into doubt as well, with the most fantastic theories on their "real" origin. Follies like this are better left alone IMO, but please oblige Rod's request to visit his forum if that kind of thing is to your liking. 8)
Q
Quote from: longears on December 29, 2007, 03:38:30 AM
Sure sounds as if Rod's site would be more congenial to your ultrafresh freethinking, doesn't it?
Have you ever visited? He's clearly desperate for clicks.
http://classicalmusicmayhem.freeforums.org (http://classicalmusicmayhem.freeforums.org)
No I haven't. Only today I realised he has one. I avoid forums because they take all my time (narcotic places!)
Quote from: Rod Corkin on December 29, 2007, 01:00:27 AMYou only get this at unmoderated sites like GMG . . .
Yes, Mr. Corkin, you seem to be correct; but then if it
is as you say unmoderated - which we can now after three days experience of it readily believe - just one question arises: who was it that
deleted our self-introduction (which was - very appropriately we should have thought - all about our own musical interests) from the self-introduction section and copied it to the "anything but music" section? We agree with you - it is really weird and disconcerting.
Quote from: Que on December 29, 2007, 03:52:53 AM
I also agree with Jezetha that it is rather pointless as well, to respond to this with fulminating and name calling. The modest level of moderation here doesn't make it all right - I feel it degrades the way in which we interact here.
I generally agree, too, except that there is nothing to degrade about the nonsense some idiots fling around while at the same time feeling they are misunderstood geniuses. But they do seriously degrade the level of discussion we can have here. Actually, idiots is still too good a word for people like that. Anybody have a better suggestion?
Freethinkers?
Freethinkers, however much some people would like to see themselves as such, is definitely not the right word for people who are incarcerated in the hell of their own stupidity and ignorance. (And yes, I got that you were ;)).
Quote from: M forever on December 29, 2007, 04:48:19 AM
I generally agree, too, except that there is nothing to degrade about the nonsense some idiots fling around while at the same time feeling they are misunderstood geniuses. But they do seriously degrade the level of discussion we can have here. Actually, idiots is still too good a word for people like that. Anybody have a better suggestion?
Rebut his musical misconceptions without making any personal observations.
People use the word idiot in a wrong way. Historically term idiot refers to "layman, person lacking professional skill", "person so mentally deficient as to be incapable of ordinary reasoning". In 19th and early 20th century medicine and psychology, an "idiot" was a person with a very severe mental retardation or a very low IQ level, as a sufferer of cretinism, defining idiots as people whose IQ were below 20 (with a standard deviation of 16). In current medical classification, these people are now said to have profound mental retardation, and the word "idiot" is no longer used as a scientific term.
- Wikipedia
So, real idiots can't even use the internet. We don't have idiots among us. Some of us are perhaps narrow-minded but intelligent nevertheless. On the hometheater forum I read "idiotic" posts about classical music such as "I don't like classical music because they don't use electric guitars." but even those people are not real idiots, just horribly ignorant and preoccupied in music. However, their opinions about subwoofers and hometheater projectors make many of us look like idiots. ;D
Just for the record here; three moderators made recent interventions on this thread.
A) A post calling Rod a fool was censored. Unfortunately, it was quoted by Rod and we did not want to interfere with his posting; as we felt he had the right of reply without removing the word and thereby making people wonder what the word could be. But we had made the point that we did not want insults flying around.
B) Another Mod suggested there was no point arguing one composer up against another, it lead nowhere.
C) I requested that people post without namecalling. Yes talk about the opinions and behaviour in just about any terms you like; but please don't namecall.
I repeat my request...NOW.
To Mr Grew, your thread was not removed, it was moved to the Diner; as the discussions had become remote from the purpose of the introductions thread.
Mike
Quote from: 71 dB on December 29, 2007, 06:01:38 AM
So, real idiots can't even use the internet. We don't have idiots among us. Some of us are perhaps narrow-minded but intelligent nevertheless. On the hometheater forum I read "idiotic" posts about classical music such as "I don't like classical music because they don't use electric guitars." but even those people are not real idiots, just horribly ignorant and preoccupied in music. However, their opinions about subwoofers and hometheater projectors make many of us look like idiots. ;D
I think that is a good point well made. There is a difference between suggesting someone's ideas are idiotic and calling them an idiot. I have now asked for a third time that people do not make personal insults. Without excusing or going along with it; certainly in the UK, 'idiot' is a very mild form of invective. But invective nevertheless.
While I am at it, Greg, we can also live without your various posts from the sidelines cheering on putative pugilists in the hope of seeing some bloodletting. This does not just apply to this thread.
Mike
Quote from: Sforzando on December 29, 2007, 05:46:27 AM
Rebut his musical misconceptions without making any personal observations.
From a musical point of view, the idea that two random pieces can be "objectively compared" and that it can be decided which of the two is "greater" or even "the greatest" is complete nonsense.
There. Rebutted. $:)
People can of course discuss what music means to them and which pieces of music they think had more (or less) influence historically, on other composers, and which pieces have left the deeper impression over time with audiences and performers, but even that is rather vague and not a basis for making such absolute statements.
Quote from: 71 dB on December 29, 2007, 06:01:38 AM
People use the word idiot in a wrong way. Historically term idiot refers to "layman, person lacking professional skill", "person so mentally deficient as to be incapable of ordinary reasoning". In 19th and early 20th century medicine and psychology, an "idiot" was a person with a very severe mental retardation or a very low IQ level, as a sufferer of cretinism, defining idiots as people whose IQ were below 20 (with a standard deviation of 16). In current medical classification, these people are now said to have profound mental retardation, and the word "idiot" is no longer used as a scientific term.
- Wikipedia
Thanks for clarifying that. I meant all of the above. :-* 0:)
Quote from: knight on December 29, 2007, 06:08:44 AM
I think that is a good point well made. There is a difference between suggesting someone's ideas are idiotic and calling them an idiot. I have now asked for a third time that people do not make personal insults. Without excusing or going along with it; certainly in the UK, 'idiot' is a very mild form of invective. But invective nevertheless.
There is some truth in that. However, when people participate in a discussion and prove to be unable to support their wild theses with hard facts based on solid musical knowledge and understanding, and then resort to declaring themselves generally superior to those whose points they could not answer, and declare that they are part of a mental elite whose views are above those who delivered a more solid argumentation based in reality, then that is a personal insult directed at the discussion partners, too. So there are no "victims" here.
Quote from: Jezetha on December 28, 2007, 03:59:18 PM
The person called 'an idiot' here is Rod Corkin, Greg, not Sydney Grew...
lol that is pretty funny i got them confused ;D
Quote from: 71 dB on December 29, 2007, 06:01:38 AM
On the hometheater forum I read "idiotic" posts about classical music such as "I don't like classical music because they don't use electric guitars."
that's funny, too
Quote from: knight on December 29, 2007, 06:02:07 AM
Just for the record here; three moderators made recent interventions on this thread.
A) A post calling Rod a fool was censored. Unfortunately, it was quoted by Rod and we did not want to interfere with his posting; as we felt he had the right of reply without removing the word and thereby making people wonder what the word could be. But we had made the point that we did not want insults flying around.
B) Another Mod suggested there was no point arguing one composer up against another, it lead nowhere.
C) I requested that people post without namecalling. Yes talk about the opinions and behaviour in just about any terms you like; but please don't namecall.
I repeat my request...NOW.
To Mr Grew, your thread was not removed, it was moved to the Diner; as the discussions had become remote from the purpose of the introductions thread.
Mike
you're a pretty good babysitter, Mike, you should get paid for this!
..... continue the thread, please.... this one is pretty fun- Rod, Sydney, 71db, M.... we just need more Karl, Sean, and Eric and this thread would be a masterpiece.
"Hello, hello...*thump thump*...is this mike on?"Quote from: donwyn on December 28, 2007, 06:10:16 PM
Consensus is the devil. Isn't that what you've been preaching to us for ages now, Rod? Bach vs. Handel and all that?
But now, suddenly, when it suits you you use it as a crutch to bolster your own position.
Shame...
Greg.....what am I going to say to you? You say something nice about me, then repeat the very urgings I asked you to forgo. As your babysitter, and my rates are reasonable, go to your room and no TV for the rest of the night.
M, I do see your point; I see the insult in, 'Blah' is the greatest composer, anyone who cannot see this without argument is a mental defective. Yes, but it is more generalist than specific to a person. I am not trying to encourage people to get round the main rule of the site by imaginative generalist insults that really are veiled personal insults.
But we do have a tradition here of robust debate where we can call a spade a spade; but could we stick with that rather than calling it a bloody shovel?
Now....how about discussion of music.
Mike
Quote from: M forever on December 29, 2007, 06:19:55 AM
....
There is some truth in that. However, when people participate in a discussion and prove to be unable to support their wild theses with hard facts based on solid musical knowledge and understanding, and then resort to declaring themselves generally superior to those whose points they could not answer, and declare that they are part of a mental elite whose views are above those who delivered a more solid argumentation based in reality, then that is a personal insult directed at the discussion partners, too. So there are no "victims" here.
Amen.
And I will add further that those who complain about lack of moderation here need look to themselves to find it. The purpose of moderation is NOT to save you from yourself. If you feel that you can propose any number of absurd theses and do it with impunity on the ill-conceived basis that a mod will save you, then you have, indeed, come to the wrong place. Speaking personally, I derive a good deal of pleasure seeing Twisted Theorists, Ridiculous Revisionists and Bombastic Blowhards get their comeuppance in the face of simple, logical intelligent riposte. And if, occasionally, a spade gets called a spade in the process, then so be it. Self-moderation is the single most important form of moderation. :)
8)
----------------
Now playing:
December 22, 1808 - Zurich Tonhalle Orchestre / Zinman Bronfman - Bia 486 Op 80 Fantasy in c for Orchestra, Piano & Chorus "Choral Fantasy"
oh, here's the next standup:
QuoteIs it wrong for, say, my dog to date a frog even though they are of different species? There's this frog that keeps on coming out on the patio and my dog keeps on licking it- the first time it was in a corner. Then last night, after i brought the dog in, i saw it right by the window, waiting for me to let him out (and they were both staring at each other).
I don't know if this is a friendship or dating, since i've forgotten how to speak Dog and also Frog.
Quote from: knight on December 29, 2007, 06:33:06 AM
Greg.....what am I going to say to you? You say something nice about me, then repeat the very urgings I asked you to forgo. As your babysitter, and my rates are reasonable, go to your room and no TV for the rest of the night.
I am in my room. My little brother is watching TV right next to me, and it's the morning. I'm very confused. ???
QuoteNow....how about discussion of music.
hmmmmm now what were we supposed to discuss here?....
Quote from: knight on December 29, 2007, 06:33:06 AM
M, I do see your point; I see the insult in, 'Blah' is the greatest composer, anyone who cannot see this without argument is a mental defective. Yes, but it is more generalist than specific to a person. I am not trying to encourage people to get round the main rule of the site by imaginative generalist insults that really are veiled personal insults.
Not really veiled at all. And not generalist either, but very specifically directed at all the people who participated in the discussion. Which I didn't. I just tuned in to point that out because it gets on my nerves that people often behave like that but then see themselves as victims when they get called on how they behaved to other people; and not just random other people; people who actually gave them respect enough to invest their time, participate in the discussion and offer arguments; that, I think, is the worst form of insult, and as certified master of the elaborate putdown I know what I am talking about.
Sorry about the long sentences with all the commas and semicolons, BTW. I just re-read parts of "Moby Dick".
Quote from: M forever on December 29, 2007, 06:42:25 AM
Sorry about the long sentences with all the commas and semicolons, BTW. I just re-read parts of "Moby Dick".
And you are still sentient! Congrats. As I did say, you have a point. Anyway, let's move on.
Mike
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on December 29, 2007, 06:35:54 AM
Now playing:
December 22, 1808 - Zurich Tonhalle Orchestre / Zinman Bronfman - Bia 486 Op 80 Fantasy in c for Orchestra, Piano & Chorus "Choral Fantasy"
Is this as good as the same forces' concertos?
There was a nice televised performance on the Kennedy Center Honors show the other night featuring Jonathon Biss and the Peabody orchestra and chorus in a tribute to Leon Fleisher. I realized both that it's a good piece and that I haven't a recording. Didn't know Zinman, et al, had recorded it.
Quote from: longears on December 29, 2007, 06:52:56 AM
Is this as good as the same forces' concertos?
There was a nice televised performance on the Kennedy Center Honors show the other night featuring Jonathon Biss and the Peabody orchestra and chorus in a tribute to Leon Fleisher. I realized both that it's a good piece and that I haven't a recording. Didn't know Zinman, et al, had recorded it.
I have 4 or 5 versions of this, and it is as good as any, better than most. I like Bronfman's playing, and the orchestral accompaniment and choral work is very good. If you like others in this series, then I can easily recommend this one. :)
8)
----------------
Now playing:
February 27, 1814 - Hanover Band / Roy Goodman - Bia 544 Op 92 Symphony #7 in A 1st mvmt - Poco sostenuto - Vivace
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on December 29, 2007, 06:58:59 AM
Now playing:
February 27, 1814 - Hanover Band / Roy Goodman - Bia 544 Op 92 Symphony #7 in A 1st mvmt - Poco sostenuto - Vivace
Goodman again? Why do you do that to yourself? ;D
Quote from: M forever on December 29, 2007, 07:02:09 AM
Goodman again? Why do you do that to yourself? ;D
Self abuse is the greatest form, don'tcha think? :D
Anyway, like I told you the other night, I really do like the performances, despite the horrendous sound deficiencies, which even
I can hear... ::)
8)
----------------
Now playing:
February 27, 1814 - Hanover Band / Roy Goodman - Bia 544 Op 92 Symphony #7 in A 1st mvmt - Poco sostenuto - Vivace
Quote from: M forever on December 29, 2007, 07:02:09 AM
Goodman again? Why do you do that to yourself? ;D
That from the man who is reading Moby Dick! 0:)
Mike
Edit for spelling...there's a surprise.
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on December 29, 2007, 06:58:59 AM
I have 4 or 5 versions of this, and it is as good as any, better than most. I like Bronfman's playing, and the orchestral accompaniment and choral work is very good. If you like others in this series, then I can easily recommend this one. :)
Just checking my catalog and find that I do have at least one recording: Grimaud's with Salonen. Best give this a spin right now!
Quote from: knight on December 29, 2007, 07:05:57 AM
That from the man who is reading Mobey Dick! 0:)
Ack! Mike (Knight)!
Moby Dick is one of the greats! An American
Don Quixote! And almost as funny. Plus it has cooking tips!
Quote from: longears on December 29, 2007, 07:09:04 AM
Ack! Mike (Knight)! Moby Dick is one of the greats! An American Don Quixote! And almost as funny. Plus it has cooking tips!
Boil that blubber down, boys,
pass that ho'cake 'round
The only song I ever did sing was
boil that blubber down...:D
8)
----------------
Now playing:
February 27, 1814 - Hanover Band / Roy Goodman - Bia 544 Op 92 Symphony #7 in A 2nd mvmt - Allegretto
As I recall Moby Dick also contains an explanation of how to make an apron out of the foreskin of a whale, not something you encounter in very many books. I read it a very long time ago, now I think it unlikely I will plough through it a second time. I probably need the Readers Digest edition in my dotage; but for sure they would cut out the apron making.
Mike
A Moby Dick-Dick apron.
wow.
wait..... wasn't this thread about Beethoven?
Quote from: knight on December 29, 2007, 07:14:43 AM
As I recall Moby Dick also contains an explanation of how to make an apron out of the foreskin of a whale, not something you encounter in very many books. I read it a very long time ago, now I think it unlikely I will plough through it a second time. I probably need the Readers Digest edition in my dotage; but for sure they would cut out the apron making.
Mike
Crikey, I forgot that! :o The
Mohel would need a saber! Anyway, I don't know about an apron, but as a Texan, my first thought is "that would make a hell of a pair of boots". :D
8)
----------------
Now playing:
February 27, 1814 - Hanover Band / Roy Goodman - Bia 544 Op 92 Symphony #7 in A 2nd mvmt - Allegretto
Quote from: 僕はグレグ (Greg) on December 29, 2007, 07:17:15 AM
wait..... wasn't this thread about Beethoven?
Let him get his own apron... >:(
8)
----------------
Now playing:
February 27, 1814 - Hanover Band / Roy Goodman - Bia 544 Op 92 Symphony #7 in A 3rd mvmt - Presto - Assai meno presto
Quote from: M forever on December 29, 2007, 06:19:55 AM
...However, when people participate in a discussion .... and then resort to declaring themselves generally superior to those whose points they could not answer, and declare that they are part of a mental elite whose views are above those who delivered a more solid argumentation based in reality, then that is a personal insult directed at the discussion partners, too...
Yes, good point,
M.
Quote from: longears on December 29, 2007, 07:09:04 AM
Ack! Mike (Knight)! Moby Dick is one of the greats! An American Don Quixote! And almost as funny. Plus it has cooking tips!
"Don Quixote", very appropriate for this thread. ;D
Q
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on December 29, 2007, 07:19:17 AM
Let him get his own apron... >:(
It was bound to happen on this thread, sooner or later: through the nose, Gurn, through the nose.... (http://www.buzzlife.com/forums/images/smilies/hysterical.gif)
Quote from: 71 dB on December 29, 2007, 06:01:38 AM
Historically term idiot refers to "layman, person lacking professional skill"
No comment.
Nope, not a one.
Quote from: donwyn on December 29, 2007, 06:29:40 AM
"Hello, hello...*thump thump*...is this mike on?"
Hey,
I noticed this the first time! 8)
Quote from: longears on December 29, 2007, 07:09:04 AM
Ack! Mike (Knight)! Moby Dick is one of the greats! An American Don Quixote! And almost as funny. Plus it has cooking tips!
Any novel where the author maintains that the whale is a fish, has something for nearly everyone . . . .
What, talking to myself again?
But then, to repeat, I like Moby-Dick!
8)
Quote from: donwyn on December 28, 2007, 06:10:16 PM
Consensus is the devil.
As a collective whole, we GMGer's unanimously agree with this thesis.
And, BTW, an excellent point. (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,4935.msg123434.html#msg123434)
When I went to Virginia to gain my Master's, I had spent a year in a kind of desert in Oklahoma. Two of the authors who had helped me keep a grip on what seems to serve me for sanity, were Washington Irving and P.G. Wodehouse.
UVa was much more congenial to me, but I still made a point of keeping my toes damp in literature (so to speak). Three books I read then, which I have frequently re-read in the years since, just got right in amongst me, for whatever passel of reasons:
Melville's Moby-Dick
Whitman's Leaves of Grass
Henry Fielding's Tom Jones
Quote from: D Minor on December 29, 2007, 07:01:46 PM
As a collective whole, we GMGer's unanimously agree with this thesis.
Cute... :D
To my mind Melville is the american Shakespeare. Aside from his poetic power another aspect where Melville could be compared to no other is in his use of metaphor. There was hardly anyone in the English language who could be compared to these two in those respects.
They're both music to my ears!
Quote from: karlhenning on December 29, 2007, 07:03:45 PM
And, BTW, an excellent point. (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,4935.msg123434.html#msg123434)
When I went to Virginia to gain my Master's, I had spent a year in a kind of desert in Oklahoma. Two of the authors who had helped me keep a grip on what seems to serve me for sanity, were Washington Irving and P.G. Wodehouse.
UVa was much more congenial to me, but I still made a point of keeping my toes damp in literature (so to speak). Three books I read then, which I have frequently re-read in the years since, just got right in amongst me, for whatever passel of reasons:
Melville's Moby-Dick
Whitman's Leaves of Grass
Henry Fielding's Tom Jones
Likewise, a little Steven Spielberg from time to time is good for my disposition...
Quote from: donwyn on December 29, 2007, 09:57:44 PM
Likewise, a little Steven Spielberg from time to time is good for my disposition...
As when it's a drizzly November in your soul?
Jaws comes promptly to mind: the search for the great white shark, with Robert Shaw as the most memorable Ahab in film.
And, gosh darn it! --I enjoy the company of youse guys!
Quote from: max on December 29, 2007, 07:25:43 PM
To my mind Melville is the american Shakespeare. Aside from his poetic power another aspect where Melville could be compared to no other is in his use of metaphor. There was hardly anyone in the English language who could be compared to these two in those respects.
They're both music to my ears!
Melville, however, is almost a 1-book author. In respect to Moby-Dick, which I must have read some 4-5 times, I couldn't agree more with you, and quite obviously Melville is basing both his sense of language and characterization on Shakespearean tragedy. But not much else by Melville attains the same level. There are some superb stories like Bartleby, Benito Cereno, I and my Chimney, and Billy Budd, but a lot of Melville has been in my experience nearly unreadable. Books like Pierre, Israel Potter, The Confidence Man - I read them all once in grad school, but I have no interest in ever picking them up again, and I gave up on the long poem Clarel after a dozen pages. Of the pre-MD books, I think the greatest success is Redburn (I never read Mardi), whose theme of innocence betrayed by unspeakable evil has much in common with Billy Budd. Yet like the short stories, even Redburn does not have the overwhelming imaginative power of Moby-Dick.
Shakespeare, on the other hand, has enormous range both in tragedy and comedy, which is a major reason I would rate him as a more significant figure to literature overall than Melville.
Quote from: Rod Corkin on December 28, 2007, 11:27:55 AM
This topic has provided me with good entertainment too! ;D
But over the years I have yet to observe a consensus impression whereby the Jupiter was rated a superior work to the Eroica. The poll I stated at my site has not so far not contradicted this notion. Of course it is possible for the common masses to get things wrong but it means I'm not some kind of cultist in this respect. Also I was not joking that I feel the fugue is the weakest movement of the work. I am not the only person to have realised this, especially when you hear the whole movement with repeats. I know a few naiive people who were surprised the movement lasts circa 12 mins rather than circa 6 or 7. Do these extra minutes add anything? Hell no they only detract. If I want to hear a good orchestral fugue I'd rather hear the Overture to Judas Maccabeus, including the repeat! I am not the first person to have realised this issue with Mozart and repeats, whereas with Beethoven the observation of repeats is essential.
This is only the opinion of a ridiculous, naive, middle aged guitar teacher in Burlington, Vermont:
for me the Eroica is supremely top-heavy; I do agree that Mozart goes way overboard on repeats, but I'll stand up Mozart's 35 to 41st Symphonies (on an overall/4 movement basis) to Beethoven's 3rd (again, on an overall basis) any day. And I'll also include Mahler's 2nd, 3rd, 6th, and 9th in this angle as well. Perhaps also Shostakovich's 10th (ready to be assaulted by raw eggs, bomb away!).
Now, LvB's
9th....
But that's just my opinion, so there.
Quote from: Rod Corkin on December 28, 2007, 12:33:33 PM
Idiot?? That's not a nice thing to say. Laughing at me?? Laughing about what? That I rate the Eroica above the Jupiter? Most people I know think the same so I'm not sure what the trouble is here. I think the issue for you is that you simply cannot handle this opinion. You think I worry about things like that?
There are polls on the internet which rank the Jupiter below the 9th and 5th and above the 3rd. No surprise, really. I still hear predominant Mozart all over LvB's 1st Symphony...forgive me, but I'd be a bit skeptical in regard to your future posts if you didn't hear that massive influence. It's borderline imitation.
Please understand that I love LvB's 1st...and the Eroica.
Quote from: Sforzando on December 30, 2007, 06:48:24 AM
Melville, however, is almost a 1-book author. In respect to Moby-Dick, which I must have read some 4-5 times, I couldn't agree more with you, and quite obviously Melville is basing both his sense of language and characterization on Shakespearean tragedy. But not much else by Melville attains the same level. There are some superb stories like Bartleby, Benito Cereno, I and my Chimney, and Billy Budd, but a lot of Melville has been in my experience nearly unreadable. Books like Pierre, Israel Potter, The Confidence Man - I read them all once in grad school, but I have no interest in ever picking them up again, and I gave up on the long poem Clarel after a dozen pages. Of the pre-MD books, I think the greatest success is Redburn (I never read Mardi), whose theme of innocence betrayed by unspeakable evil has much in common with Billy Budd. Yet like the short stories, even Redburn does not have the overwhelming imaginative power of Moby-Dick.
Shakespeare, on the other hand, has enormous range both in tragedy and comedy, which is a major reason I would rate him as a more significant figure to literature overall than Melville.
I don't disagree with you on anything you said. It's obvious you know your Melville! I consider him as one of the great tragedies of literature. Had there been a little more appreciation of his work, especially by Hawthorne, his great friend - most of whose works I've also read many moons ago - there may have been more on the table. Consider how long it took to just acknowledge MD as the greatest American novel which was also the European view!
Of course Shakespeare's range was greater. He also wrote for an appreciative audience and became successful. There is no greater encouragement to the creative impulse, literature, music, whatever! Indifference was never a catalyst to creativity.
Shakespeare's influence on the work was certainly considerable but one at least as great was Milton's Paradise Lost especially in the affinities between Ahab and Satan.
...anyways, I can't imagine any works after Shakespeare or Milton that would have an equal measure of their verbal brilliance and insight except Moby Dick!
...now back to Beethoven!
Regarding Mozart's 41st symphonie and Beethoven's Eroica, I remember having read somewhere - probably in a liner note - something to the effect that the Jupiter was the end of an era, the final word on the 2nd half of the 18th century almost impossible to be surpassed. Since it couldn't be even by the likes of Beethoven - though he'd never admit it - a different direction had to be announced.
That break-through work was obviously the Eroica a thoroughly Byronic, heroic work of the 19th century ME generation - Napoleon being its poster child - and all of its subsequent psychological complexities reflected even in Beethoven's own later works. Affinities with the 'previous age' persisted of course especially with Beethoven and Schubert who were still the children of that age.
The real mystery is how would Mozart have developed had he lived longer and would Beethoven even have composed an Eroica if Mozart had been a contemporary. Many of Mozart's works, especially his operas, are already more reminiscent of the 19th century!
Quote from: max on December 31, 2007, 08:21:56 PM
...anyways, I can't imagine any works after Shakespeare or Milton that would have an equal measure of their verbal brilliance and insight except Moby Dick!
...now back to Beethoven!
Why not? but have you read Elias Canetti's 'Auto da Fe'?
Quote from: max on December 31, 2007, 08:21:56 PM
...anyways, I can't imagine any works after Shakespeare or Milton that would have an equal measure of their verbal brilliance and insight except Moby Dick!
Try Gene Wolfe. :D
This gets my vote as the "Most Meandering Thread of 2007"
Cool!
Quote from: max on December 31, 2007, 08:21:56 PM
Melville! I consider him as one of the great tragedies of literature.
Just shows to go ya how much our worlds are shaped by attitude. The guy was a hack writing cheesy adventure stories for mass consumption. He grew with commercial success and aimed higher. He hit the target smack in the black.
And if he had never risen higher than Omoo, he'd never have been a source for any Britten opera, for instance.
Quote from: Rod Corkin on December 28, 2007, 11:32:26 AM
Don't cop out of it now Dave, have some spine man!!
Oh, I have spine, but little time.
And unlike Rod, Dave has thought faculties at the upper end of his spine.
Quote from: jochanaan on January 01, 2008, 08:16:42 PM
Try Gene Wolfe. :D
Gene Wolfe is awesome. I got to interview him once. I was not worthy. 0:)
Quote from: karlhenning on January 02, 2008, 05:00:20 AM
And unlike Rod, Dave has thought faculties at the upper end of his spine.
Yeah, they're somewhere around there, though sometimes I think the connection is faulty.
Quote from: D Minor on January 01, 2008, 09:42:22 PM
This gets my vote as the "Most Meandering Thread of 2007"
It's 2008. And in response to anyone who has an issue with digressions, may I quote the following from The Catcher in the Rye, when Holden is telling his old teacher Mr. Antolini about a boy who was ridiculed in class for his continual digressions:
QuoteThere was this one boy, Richard Kinsella. He didn't stick to the point too much, and they were always yelling "digression" at him. ...He got a D plus because they kept yelling Digression at him all the time. For instance, he made this speech about this farm his father bought in Vermont. They kept yelling Digression at him the whole time he was making it, and this teacher, Mr. Vinson, gave him an F on it because he hadn't told what kind of animals and vegetables and stuff grew on the farm and all. What he did was, Richard Kinsella, he'd start telling you all about that stuff--then all of a sudden he'd start telling you about this letter his mother got from his uncle, and how his uncle got polio and all when he was forty-two years old, and how he wouldn't let anybody come to see him in the hospital because he didn't want anybody to see him with a brace on. It didn't have much to do with the farm--I admit it--but it was nice... I mean it's dirty to keep yelling Digression at him when he's all nice and excited.
So no dirt, please, when people get all nice and excited. :D
Quote from: Sforzando on January 02, 2008, 05:05:36 AM
It's 2008.
True, but we got some good meandering in in 2007.
Quote from: SforzandoAnd in response to anyone who has an issue with digressions . . . .
D Minor is quite an aficionado of fine digressions . . . .
Quote from: karlhenning on January 02, 2008, 05:10:20 AM
D Minor is quite an aficionado of fine digressions . . . .
Do you mean he
modulates considerably?
Quote from: Sforzando on January 02, 2008, 05:16:53 AM
Do you mean he modulates considerably?
He doesn't just go to related keys...sometimes he changes to frequencies only dogs can hear!
Quote from: longears on January 02, 2008, 05:21:33 AM
He doesn't just go to related keys...sometimes he changes to frequencies only dogs can hear!
Ah. So he's going to the dogs. A sad requiem for a fine tonality.
Quote from: longears on January 02, 2008, 04:50:53 AM
Just shows to go ya how much our worlds are shaped by attitude. The guy was a hack writing cheesy adventure stories for mass consumption. He grew with commercial success and aimed higher. He hit the target smack in the black.
Or smack in the white! There is a whole chapter on "the whiteness of the whale". I thought MD was really deep though :D Although it lacks pictures. Pictures would have been good ;D
Quote from: M forever on January 02, 2008, 06:31:01 AM
Or smack in the white! There is a whole chapter on "the whiteness of the whale". I thought MD was really deep though :D Although it lacks pictures. Pictures would have been good ;D
There was a wonderfully campy picture starring Richard Basehart, Orson Welles, and Gregory Peck as Ahab. And then a remake starring Patrick Stewart.
I cannot bring myself to watch either movie.
Read a wonderfully insightful (and not unsympthetic) review which pinned the look of Gregory Peck in that one as "a stock-company Abraham Lincholn."
Just a little nostalgia here . . . . (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,1031.msg25898.html#msg25898)
MN Dave,
I love Beethoven but the qualities that I value most in music are exquisiteness, sophistication, charm and 'seductiveness'..... not exactly Beethoven's strengths.
Cheers,
OH
Quote from: Operahaven on January 02, 2008, 09:52:13 AM
I love Beethoven but the qualities that I value most in music are exquisiteness, sophistication, charm and 'seductiveness'..... not exactly Beethoven's strengths.
Oh, I don't know about that last bit.
Quote from: karlhenning on January 02, 2008, 09:57:16 AM
Oh, I don't know about that last bit.
Yeah, I guess you're right... Let's stick to the first three.
Quote from: Operahaven on January 02, 2008, 09:59:07 AM
Yeah, I guess you're right... Let's stick to the first three.
By
the last bit, I meant "not exactly Beethoven's strengths."
Sophistication, charm and exquisiteness abound in the
Beethoven oeuvre.
And Beethoven isn't so much 'seductive' (leave that to Wagner) as 'gripping' or 'attention-grabbing'.
Methinks some of the previous posters are taking the composer more from the clichéd image of "Beethoven the Thunderer" than from a well-rounded appreciation of his total output. For urbanity, sophistication, and exquisite charm, I doubt you can find anything in Mozart or Mendelssohn to rival the third movement of the Op. 130 quartet, or the gossamer codas to the Op. 127 or the Diabelli Variations. For deft comedy, I can think of little music that matches many of the variations in that set, or many of the piano Bagatelles. I'm bringing up only the late music for the moment, simply because these aspects of Beethoven's music personality only grew stronger with increasing experience. But they're present in the early and middle periods as well. Consider, for instance, the urbanity of the middle movement of the G major violin sonata, 30/3. Or the deft rhythmic displacements in the scherzo to the Bb major quartet, 18/6. Or the comedy in the 2/4 scherzo from the E flat piano sonata, 31/3.
Would you judge all of Sousa by the "Washington Post March"?
(All right: bad example . . . .)
Quote from: Sforzando on January 02, 2008, 10:44:40 AM
Methinks some of the previous posters are taking the composer more from the clichéd image of "Beethoven the Thunderer" than from a well-rounded appreciation of his total output. For urbanity, sophistication, and exquisite charm, I doubt you can find anything in Mozart or Mendelssohn to rival the third movement of the Op. 130 quartet, or the gossamer codas to the Op. 127 or the Diabelli Variations. For deft comedy, I can think of little music that matches many of the variations in that set, or many of the piano Bagatelles. I'm bringing up only the late music for the moment, simply because these aspects of Beethoven's music personality only grew stronger with increasing experience. But they're present in the early and middle periods as well. Consider, for instance, the urbanity of the middle movement of the G major violin sonata, 30/3. Or the deft rhythmic displacements in the scherzo to the Bb major quartet, 18/6. Or the comedy in the 2/4 scherzo from the E flat piano sonata, 31/3.
Nice post Sforzando. Thanks.
Perhaps I've been too absorbed in Debussy's
Pelleas et Melisande and
Prelude to The Afternoon of A Faun for too many years...
It is these works (and sections of
La Mer) that I've always considered the ultimate in exquisiteness and sophistication.
Cheers,
Operahaven
Quote from: Operahaven on January 02, 2008, 10:52:24 AM
Perhaps I've been too absorbed in Debussy's Pelleas et Melisande and Prelude to The Afternoon of A Faun for too many years...
Perhaps. If you've been neglecting the
Images pour orchestre and
Jeux, yes, you've been too absorbed in these earlier works 8)
Quote from: OHIt is these works (and sections of La Mer) that I've always considered the ultimate in exquisiteness and sophistication.
But that makes the highly personal decision of gauging the qualities of "exquisiteness" (barbarous word, but for that very reason deliciously ironic in this discussion) and sophistication by
La mer (lovely work, of course), and then finding other music more or less exquisite or sophisticated according to how it "matches" the
Debussy work.
So, yes, you should try getting out more ;D
Edit :: corrected a definite article
Quote from: karlhenning on January 02, 2008, 10:57:54 AMSo, yes, you should try getting out more ;D
Thanks, that happens to be my New Year's resolution !
;D
Quote from: Operahaven on January 02, 2008, 10:52:24 AM
Perhaps I've been too absorbed in Debussy's Pelleas et Melisande and Prelude to The Afternoon of A Faun for too many years...
It is these works (and sections of La Mer) that I've always considered the ultimate in exquisiteness and sophistication.
Cheers,
Operahaven
Good heavens - Pink Harp, is that you? 8)
Q
Mais oui.
Quote from: karlhenning on January 02, 2008, 05:10:20 AM
True, but we got some good meandering in in 2007.
Let's give that
Meander-o-meter a workout in 2008 ........
Beethoven wants nothing to do with this Debussy fellow, whoever he his. 0:)
Quote from: Operahaven on January 02, 2008, 09:52:13 AMI love Beethoven but the qualities that I value most in music are exquisiteness, sophistication, charm and 'seductiveness'..... not exactly Beethoven's strengths.
And none of which are qualities in music, but rather evaluative descriptors referring to the "listener's" subjective experience.
Pinky's back, older but no wiser.
Howdy, Eric...just keep trying and one day you might get Beethoven.
Quote from: longears on January 03, 2008, 04:37:04 AM
And none of which are qualities in music, but rather evaluative descriptors referring to the "listener's" subjective experience.
Pinky's back, older but no wiser.
Howdy, Eric...just keep trying and one day you might get Beethoven.
Longears,
FYI, one of the first masterworks I fell in love with at age 16 was the
Missa Solemnis and the
Hammerklavier, not to mention the symphonies and concertos. So yes, I do "get" Beethoven...
Liking two pieces at an early age is one thing.
An error in judgement such as considering Beethoven supposedly lacking in sophistication, charm or exquisite sound, is another. Infatiation at 16 with the Missa solemnis doesn't "forgive" such a gaffe :-)
Hey Eric!
Quote from: karlhenning on January 03, 2008, 06:52:21 AM
Liking two pieces at an early age is one thing.
An error in judgement such as considering Beethoven supposedly lacking in sophistication, charm or exquisite sound, is another. Infatiation at 16 with the Missa solemnis doesn't "forgive" such a gaffe :-)
True. At age 15 I was obsessed with the
Ninth Symphony, listening to it daily, following along with the Kalmus Miniature Score. (I still have that score, somewhat the worse for wear. 8)) Exquisite--charming--sophisticated--along with its other superb qualities, and I recognized that even at the time. My subsequent discovery of Mahler, Wagner, Debussy, Varèse, and many others has done nothing to diminish my appreciation of Beethoven, especially his "thorny" late works.
Quote from: karlhenning on January 03, 2008, 06:52:21 AM
Liking two pieces at an early age is one thing.
An error in judgement such as considering Beethoven supposedly lacking in sophistication, charm or exquisite sound, is another. Infatiation at 16 with the Missa solemnis doesn't "forgive" such a gaffe :-)
Just so you know, it wasn't 'infatuation'.... I mean how can someone be simply 'infatuated' with a work as profound and moving as Beethoven's masterwork,
Missa Solemnis ?
Quote from: Jezetha on January 02, 2008, 10:19:32 AM
And Beethoven isn't so much 'seductive' (leave that to Wagner) as 'gripping' or 'attention-grabbing'.
Yes I believe that Wagner's music is quite possibly the most "seductive" music of them all 0:). I will concede however that Beethoven greatly influenced Wagner and in a sense Wagner liked to associate himself with Beethoven, most notably with the 9th Symphony, which Wagner claimed to be the genesis of his music dramas. Oh yes, Wagner and Beethoven, two composers who are inseparable whichever way you look at it. One brilliant composer succeeding the other.
marvin
Quote from: Operahaven on January 06, 2008, 07:11:42 PM
Just so you know, it wasn't 'infatuation'.... I mean how can someone be simply 'infatuated' with a work as profound and moving as Beethoven's masterwork, Missa Solemnis ?
Very true--which makes it all the more mystifying that you seem not to recognize Beethoven's music as possessing exquisite sound, charm, and sophistication in full measure. ???
Quote from: jochanaan on January 07, 2008, 09:05:49 AM
Very true--which makes it all the more mystifying that you seem not to recognize Beethoven's music as possessing exquisite sound, charm, and sophistication in full measure. ???
He does recognize this ........ just not to the same degree as with
Wagner's Tristan and
Debussy's Pelleas ......
Quote from: marvinbrown on January 07, 2008, 04:30:18 AM
Yes I believe that Wagner's music is quite possibly the most "seductive" music of them all 0:). I will concede however that Beethoven greatly influenced Wagner and in a sense Wagner liked to associate himself with Beethoven, most notably with the 9th Symphony, which Wagner claimed to be the genesis of his music dramas. Oh yes, Wagner and Beethoven, two composers who are inseparable whichever way you look at it. One brilliant composer succeeding the other.
marvin
Actually, I have no problem at all separating them. :)
8)
----------------
Now playing: Wiener Philharmoniker / Riccardo Muti - D 417 Symphony #4 in c - 2nd mvmt - Andante
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on January 07, 2008, 01:51:25 PM
Actually, I have no problem at all separating them. :)
8)
I often think of Wagner as having taken the harmonic-daredevil approach of LvB's late SQs further; searching to attain an even more personal form of expression. It's up to the individual listener to determine whether he succeeded.
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on January 07, 2008, 01:51:25 PM
Actually, I have no problem at all separating them. :)
8)
----------------
Now playing: Wiener Philharmoniker / Riccardo Muti - D 417 Symphony #4 in c - 2nd mvmt - Andante
Ok but in terms of musical development, if not Wagner then what's the next step after Beethoven's 9th Symphony? Surely you do not believe that Beethoven's 9th Symphony is as far as Western music progressed? Part of the problem that I am having with the title of this thread "all other composers are inferior to Beethoven" is Wagner's and other composers' undeniable contribution to Western music. In addition if we were to take the title of this thread seriously it disturbingly implies that Beethoven is as good as it gets and in a sense Beethoven represents the end of musical development as we know it. This is simply not true. If it had not been for Wagner, atonality (Wagner's Tristan Cord) in music might not have been conceived as soon as it has, Wagner also pre-empted cinema music which is a very big part of our western music culture and so on. How can one argue that Wagner is inferior to Beethoven! And let's not forget about R. Strauss who found his own musical voice, contributed to dissonance (ELEKTRA) in music and others as well.
marvin
Quote from: marvinbrown on January 08, 2008, 01:37:50 AM
Ok but in terms of musical development, if not Wagner then what's the next step after Beethoven's 9th Symphony? Surely you do not believe that Beethoven's 9th Symphony is as far as Western music progressed? Part of the problem that I am having with the title of this thread "all other composers are inferior to Beethoven" is Wagner's and other composers' undeniable contribution to Western music. In addition if we were to take the title of this thread seriously it disturbingly implies that Beethoven is as good as it gets and in a sense Beethoven represents the end of musical development as we know it. This is simply not true. If it had not been for Wagner, atonality (Wagner's Tristan Cord) in music might not have been conceived as soon as it has, Wagner also pre-empted cinema music which is a very big part of our western music culture and so on. How can one argue that Wagner is inferior to Beethoven! And let's not forget about R. Strauss who found his own musical voice, contributed to dissonance (ELEKTRA) in music and others as well.
marvin
Of course you have very valid points,
Marvin. I most definitely see Wagner as being probably the most significant composer since LvB...but I feel kind of
dumb rating things this way, Certainly, Russia and Austria continued to contribute monumentally important composers. Maybe I should shut up now (I may already be too late).
Death to Tiger Beat threads!
Quote from: Haffner on January 08, 2008, 01:45:39 AM
Of course you have very valid points, Marvin. I most definitely see Wagner as being probably the most significant composer since LvB...but I feel kind of dumb rating things this way, Certainly, Russia and Austria continued to contribute monumentally important composers. Maybe I should shut up now (I may already be too late).
Death to Tiger Beat threads!
I agree this thread has gone far enough! This will be my last post on this thread!
marvin
Quote from: marvinbrown on January 08, 2008, 02:43:55 AM
I agree this thread has gone far enough! This will be my last post on this thread!
marvin
Marvin,
Who is your favorite opera composer?
Quote from: marvinbrown on January 08, 2008, 01:37:50 AM
Ok but in terms of musical development, if not Wagner then what's the next step after Beethoven's 9th Symphony? Surely you do not believe that Beethoven's 9th Symphony is as far as Western music progressed? Part of the problem that I am having with the title of this thread "all other composers are inferior to Beethoven" is Wagner's and other composers' undeniable contribution to Western music. In addition if we were to take the title of this thread seriously it disturbingly implies that Beethoven is as good as it gets and in a sense Beethoven represents the end of musical development as we know it. This is simply not true. If it had not been for Wagner, atonality (Wagner's Tristan Cord) in music might not have been conceived as soon as it has, Wagner also pre-empted cinema music which is a very big part of our western music culture and so on. How can one argue that Wagner is inferior to Beethoven! And let's not forget about R. Strauss who found his own musical voice, contributed to dissonance (ELEKTRA) in music and others as well.
(a) The title of this thread is not intended seriously but wryly, to attract and promote discussion.
(b) Have others noticed the inverse relation between Wagner worship and a sense of humor?
(c) Next you guys will be claiming that Wagner also invented Lederhosen, peanut butter, and the drive-up fast-food window.
(d) One needn't argue that Wagner is inferior to Beethoven; it's self evident.
(e) It's great that you guys enjoy those interminally ponderous and self-important "music dramas" (drama? where?). Others prefer Rogers & Hammerstein--but they don't usually go around beating the drum for their heroes as the greatest thing since Beethoven...or sliced bread.
LOL! Post of the day :)
QuoteIn addition if we were to take the title of this thread seriously it disturbingly implies that Beethoven is as good as it gets and in a sense Beethoven represents the end of musical development as we know it.
What a revoltin' development. ;D
Quote(d) One needn't argue that Wagner is inferior to Beethoven; it's self evident.
Indeed.
Quote from: longears on January 08, 2008, 04:55:20 AM
(c) Next you guys will be claiming that Wagner also invented Lederhosen, peanut butter, and the drive-up fast-food window.
No, but he did invent the stun gun.
Quote from: longears on January 08, 2008, 04:55:20 AM
(a) The title of this thread is not intended seriously but wryly, to attract and promote discussion.
(b) Have others noticed the inverse relation between Wagner worship and a sense of humor?
(c) Next you guys will be claiming that Wagner also invented Lederhosen, peanut butter, and the drive-up fast-food window.
(d) One needn't argue that Wagner is inferior to Beethoven; it's self evident.
(e) It's great that you guys enjoy those interminally ponderous and self-important "music dramas" (drama? where?). Others prefer Rogers & Hammerstein--but they don't usually go around beating the drum for their heroes as the greatest thing since Beethoven...or sliced bread.
::)
Quote from: Don on January 08, 2008, 12:01:34 PM
No, but he did invent the stun gun.
Really? I thought making someone sit through
Parsifal without a sandwich would be punishment enough.
Quote from: PerfectWagnerite on January 08, 2008, 12:20:20 PM
Really? I thought making someone sit through Parsifal without a sandwich would be punishment enough.
Well, I don't need to eat every two or three hours. No ulcers on this guy.
I thought if you have ulcers, you can't eat. Please clarify.
Quote from: M forever on January 08, 2008, 12:27:58 PM
I thought if you have ulcers, you can't eat. Please clarify.
I can only speak for the ulcer I had in my 20's. Relatively frequent eating of small amounts per session was my doctor's advice and it served me pretty well. Funny thing, the ulcer vanished when my daughter was born; it returned when she became a teenager.
Quote from: PerfectWagnerite on January 08, 2008, 12:20:20 PM
Really? I thought making someone sit through Parsifal without a sandwich would be punishment enough.
I would remove the "without a sandwich" part.
Quote from: marvinbrown on January 08, 2008, 01:37:50 AM
...If it had not been for Wagner, atonality (Wagner's Tristan Cord) in music might not have been conceived as soon as it has,
Wagner got all his best ideas from Liszt. :o 8) Even the Tristan chord occurred in Liszt first.
Quote from: marvinbrown on January 08, 2008, 01:37:50 AM
Wagner also pre-empted cinema music which is a very big part of our western music culture and so on.
I would argue that Rossini, Berlioz, and Meyerbeer preceded him.
Quote from: marvinbrown on January 08, 2008, 01:37:50 AM
How can one argue that Wagner is inferior to Beethoven! And let's not forget about R. Strauss who found his own musical voice, contributed to dissonance (ELEKTRA) in music and others as well.
Aren't you forgetting those crazy Jews Mahler and Schoenberg? ;D
However, since I sense you're being serious, I feel I must respond seriously to some of your assertions. It would be very difficult to assert seriously that Wagner was inferior to Beethoven (except in symphonic form ;)), and I for one am not doing so. But without Beethoven, I'm sure that Wagner would have been a different composer. (So would Berlioz, Mendelssohn, Liszt, Brahms and every other major 19th-century composer except possibly Chopin, Glinka and the Russian Five. They all "stood on Beethoven's shoulders.") This is not to lessen Wagner's remarkable synthesis of his predecessors' methods, nor his deep impact on contemporary and later musicians. But Beethoven's synthesis is equally remarkable, and far deeper in its impact.
Quote from: jochanaan on January 08, 2008, 01:48:51 PM
Wagner got all his best ideas from Liszt. :o 8) Even the Tristan chord occurred in Liszt first.
In Mozart earlier (E flat Quartet)! Where is it in Liszt?
Quote from: lukeottevanger on January 08, 2008, 01:51:22 PM
In Mozart earlier (E flat Quartet)! Where is it in Liszt?
Actually, I mis-typed. The Tristan chord itself does not occur in Liszt's song
Ich möchte hingehn, but except for the D# being a D in the first chord, the notes in one bar of the song are exactly the same as in bars 2-3 of the Tristan prelude. (Information from Harold C. Schonberg, The Great Conductors.)
And I hadn't known about the Mozart occurrence! Thanks. I suspect that the chord itself occurred many times before Wagner chose to put it in such a prominent position. ;D
Quote from: jochanaan on January 08, 2008, 02:07:32 PM
Actually, I mis-typed. The Tristan chord itself does not occur in Liszt's song Ich möchte hingehn, but except for the D# being a D in the first chord, the notes in one bar of the song are exactly the same as in bars 2-3 of the Tristan prelude. (Information from Harold C. Schonberg, The Great Conductors.)
And I hadn't known about the Mozart occurrence! Thanks. I suspect that the chord itself occurred many times before Wagner chose to put it in such a prominent position. ;D
Thank you
Jochanaan, I learned something new today from you. Thank you for your intelligent posts and for bringing me back into this thread :).
marvin
Quote from: jochanaan on January 08, 2008, 02:07:32 PM
Actually, I mis-typed. The Tristan chord itself does not occur in Liszt's song Ich möchte hingehn, but except for the D# being a D in the first chord, the notes in one bar of the song are exactly the same as in bars 2-3 of the Tristan prelude. (Information from Harold C. Schonberg, The Great Conductors.)
That's interesting - I was unaware of that. Liszt prefigures the general idea of the Tristan chord in the third book of Annees (opening of Aux cypres de la Villa d'Este II), but, the chord itself being different, the effect, whilst impressive, is much less subtle - it doesn't have that entirely new sense of 'endless yearning' that Wagner obtains.
Quote from: jochanaan on January 08, 2008, 02:07:32 PMAnd I hadn't known about the Mozart occurrence! Thanks. I suspect that the chord itself occurred many times before Wagner chose to put it in such a prominent position. ;D
Mozart's resolution is actually very similar to Wagner's, but of course he glides over it, doesn't spotlight it, so one is hardly aware of it.
I also remember my friend the composer Huw Watkins once bounding up to my room at university to tell me in 'great [mock] excitement' that he had discovered that the Spice Girls new single (this was in 1996) had a Tristan chord in it. ;D ;D ;D ;D He proceeded to play it to me - a very convincing demonstration, and the best the Spice Girls have ever sounded, I am sure, though I imagine their harmonisation was slightly less interesting than his.
Quote from: longears on January 08, 2008, 04:55:20 AMOne needn't argue that Wagner is inferior to Beethoven; it's self evident.
Self-evident ?
Do you seriously believe that Wagner's finest music cannot stand alongside Beethoven's ?
Excuse me, but his best music is among the most sublime ever written...
Quote from: Operahaven on January 08, 2008, 04:57:49 PM
Self-evident ?
Do you seriously believe that Wagner's finest music cannot stand alongside Beethoven's ?
Excuse me, but his best music is among the most sublime ever written...
Not even close. Your praise should clinch the argument, Eric. You and music are like George Costanza and life choices.
Beethoven and Wagner the two greatest composers of the 19th century and still not equalled. There is Nothing 'self-evident' about who is greater! One thing is self-evident that listening to classical music DOES NOT make one smarter.
For me, I'll gladly take one of each instead of two of the same!
Quote from: longears on January 08, 2008, 05:18:18 PMNot even close. Your praise should clinch the argument, Eric. You and music are like George Costanza and life choices.
Son, you really need to get over your prejudice and open your heart to the superlative beauty and power of Wagner...
Just a suggestion; we'll leave it there.
Quote from: max on January 08, 2008, 05:25:20 PM
Beethoven and Wagner the two greatest composers of the 19th century and still not equalled...
Still not? But don't count your chickens - another 19th century composer who equals them could spring up at any time....
Quote from: lukeottevanger on January 08, 2008, 11:04:06 PM
Still not? But don't count your chickens - another 19th century composer who equals them could spring up at any time....
Is that how it works? Composers just "spring up" ? .........
Quote from: Dm on January 09, 2008, 02:12:21 AM
Is that how it works? Composers just "spring up" ? .........
Ya never heard of the "Rite of Spring Up"?
Quote from: Sforzando on January 09, 2008, 02:20:07 AM
Ya never heard of the "Rite of Spring Up"?
No composer after Beethoven and Wagner has the right to spring up.
(Just joking.)
Quote from: Jezetha on January 09, 2008, 02:25:26 AM
No composer after Beethoven and Wagner has the right to spring up.
(Just joking.)
I am not! :)
Quote from: marvinbrown on January 08, 2008, 02:25:26 PM
Thank you Jochanaan, I learned something new today from you. Thank you for your intelligent posts and for bringing me back into this thread :).
marvin
Marvin, I too am hugely "into" Richard Wagner's life and especially his works. So I'm always really happy to have you on
any thread!
Quote from: Jezetha on January 09, 2008, 02:25:26 AM
No composer after Beethoven and Wagner has the right to spring up.
(Just joking.)
Gustav Mahler (one of the handful of composers since Wagner and Beethoven whom often came close to their level) would have agreed.
Quote from: Haffner on January 09, 2008, 02:50:35 AM
Gustav Mahler (one of the handful of composers since Wagner and Beethoven whom often came close to their level) would have agreed.
Yes it is quite astonishing that Mahler said "there was only Beethoven and Wagner..." the respect he must have had for these two composers in certainly noteworthy and the influence both Beethoven and Wagner had on him is undeniable. I seriously doubt based on his quote that Mahler thought Wagner inferior to Beethoven!
Going back to the title of this thread, all other composers are inferior to Beethoven (I just can't quit this thread as I find it awfully disturbing), what of Brahms? No one has come to Brahms' defence :o. Sure, much like Wagner he too stood on Beethoven's shoulders and I would very much like to hear from Brahms experts what they thought of Brahms' contributions to Western music vis-a-vis it being "inferior to Beethoven"- which I seriously doubt! I ask this as I am relatively new to Brahms and find his "conservative romanticism" quite appealing! and that says alot seeing as how I am a diehard Wagnerian!
marvin
No one is coming to Brahms's defense because with one or two exceptions everyone recognizes that this thread is not to be taken seriously. Its heading is a joke, intentionally making fun of those who earnestly claim that Wagner or Mahler or Elgar or Hoagy Carmichael is numero uno anywhere but in their hearts. Of course Brahms was a great 19th Century composer. There were others, too!
None of them hold a candle to Beethoven, however.... ;)
Quote from: longears on January 09, 2008, 04:30:35 AM
None of them hold a candle to Beethoven, however.... ;)
Getting serious, longears? ;)
Quote from: Jezetha on January 09, 2008, 04:35:57 AM
Getting serious, longears? ;)
I'm feeling all warm and fuzzy inside...it's nice to be appreciated. Rock on, dude!
Quote from: longears on January 09, 2008, 04:30:35 AM
No one is coming to Brahms's defense because with one or two exceptions everyone recognizes that this thread is not to be taken seriously. Its heading is a joke, intentionally making fun of those who earnestly claim that Wagner or Mahler or Elgar or Hoagy Carmichael is numero uno anywhere but in their hearts. Of course Brahms was a great 19th Century composer. There were others, too!
None of them hold a candle to Beethoven, however.... ;)
Likewise making fun of those who actually believe that Beethoven is superior to all others ;)!
marvin
Quote from: longears on January 09, 2008, 04:30:35 AM
...None of them hold a candle to Beethoven, however.... ;)
But they may have held a canon to his head. ;D (No, that's not a typo, nor a Type-O. ;))
Quote from: jochanaan on January 09, 2008, 11:54:20 AM
But they may have held a canon to his head. ;D (No, that's not a typo, nor a Type-O. ;))
I think he would have heard that!
Quote from: marvinbrown on January 09, 2008, 03:52:23 AM
Yes it is quite astonishing that Mahler said "there was only Beethoven and Wagner..." the respect he must have had for these two composers in certainly noteworthy and the influence both Beethoven and Wagner had on him is undeniable. I seriously doubt based on his quote that Mahler thought Wagner inferior to Beethoven!
Going back to the title of this thread, all other composers are inferior to Beethoven (I just can't quit this thread as I find it awfully disturbing), what of Brahms? No one has come to Brahms' defence :o. Sure, much like Wagner he too stood on Beethoven's shoulders and I would very much like to hear from Brahms experts what they thought of Brahms' contributions to Western music vis-a-vis it being "inferior to Beethoven"- which I seriously doubt! I ask this as I am relatively new to Brahms and find his "conservative romanticism" quite appealing! and that says alot seeing as how I am a diehard Wagnerian!
marvin
In pure - if you can call it that - 19th century terms the two halves were dominated by B & W. Having said that, the sound bistros of Brahms and Berlioz have a flavor just as unique as the two anointed ones! 0:) Also, Wagner had more competition than Beethoven who had the field mostly to himself...EXCEPT for Schubert - though it wasn't noticed at the time - but whose choral works, sonatas and quartets easily stand comparison to Beethoven's own.
But poor Wagner, he had to put up allot more from others with what he himself possessed namely genius in spades! Wagner did not have an inferiority complex [yes! I know an oxymoron] but why was it that certain names were never allowed to be mentioned in the Wagner household?
Nevertheless, who else could be 'Master & Commander' in the 2nd half of the 19th century based on works like Tristan, the Ring and Parsifal which in Drama and sound are tinged with Buddhistic urges toward resolution à la Schopenhauer completely in character with Wagner's own. It compelled music into a yearning and redemption mode incorporating an awareness in advance of Jung and Freud. The Last Four Songs of Strauss and the Lieder of Mahler come to mind. Even Bruckner - whom I regard as 2nd to NONE - experienced that same kind of revelation in Wagner's music but music only not the drama itself which seemed to be beyond Bruckner's interest or comprehension. In this sense Bruckner was the opposite of Wagner for to him drama was the vessel which contained the music while to Bruckner music existed only as a hymn to the greater glory of God and the Mass was the drama if any were needed.
What was unresolved in Wagner's Parsifal, Tristan and even Götterdämmerung was resolved in Bruckner's 8th an 9th symphonies, at least that's how I 'hear' that relationship. There couldn't be a more glorious response to Wagner's unresolved yearnings. They both permeate space and time, the question and its resolution.
As for Beethoven! There is very little I hear in him that I don't also hear in Wagner only in a more extended dramatic psychologically permeated form. After all, he DID grind myth and legend into music which is a far more intense experience than reincarnating another Shakespeare play into opera. In short, I can't hear one to the exclusion of the other.
...and when it comes down 'only and merely' to the sublime of the 1st order, both B & W have their equals in Brahms and Berlioz.
It is interesting that as of today, the "Composer Elimination Game" has narrowed the field down to five composers, and these five composers just happen to be the names which are almost universally held to be the greatest in classical music. Of course Beethoven is one of them.
So save this select handful of composers, it is pretty safe to say that "All other composers are inferior to Beethoven".
But what of it? All other mountains are smaller than Everest. All other oceans are smaller than the Pacific. This is actually a pretty banal premise for a thread.
And it doesn't change the fact that there are many other tall mountains to climb or admire (or whatever one feels like doing with mountains). Their majesty remains undiminished.
Wonderful post, Mark! :-*
This thread is just one of many other totally useless ones cluttering up GMG, a classical music forum for the discussion, not banal comparisons.
Guys, consider renting a sense of humor if you don't own one ;D. Dave was being flip when he started this way back on page one. Not to put words in his mouth, but I imagine that he did it to get a rise out of people, and to try to start a little conversation on a slow day. A pretty successful thread by those standards, I think, even if it doesn't tell us a heck of a lot about Beethoven.
Yes they are, and I would say the same for Bach and Mozart.
Beethoven has lost out to Bach and Brahms. It will all be over shortly.
Quote from: Anne on January 11, 2008, 09:18:42 AM
Beethoven has lost out to Bach and Brahms. It will all be over shortly.
They're both losing to Bruckner and Mahler. ;)
Quote from: jwinter on January 10, 2008, 10:52:07 AM
Guys, consider renting a sense of humor if you don't own one ;D. Dave was being flip when he started this way back on page one. Not to put words in his mouth, but I imagine that he did it to get a rise out of people, and to try to start a little conversation on a slow day. A pretty successful thread by those standards, I think, even if it doesn't tell us a heck of a lot about Beethoven.
Indeed.