Beethoven clearly has some sort of message for this work but its been one of my biggest struggles to figure it out. I was finally in the perfect state of mind for the piece 2 nights ago and it made me feel nothing besdies loneliness,
Wait till you come to the Choral bits in the end, Beethoven had second thoughts about that.
Should have changed it in a instrumental ending, instead of all those screaming ladies, only ladies mind! ;D
But apart from that ending, in did not make me sad. :)
It means a lot to me.
Quote from: Harry on May 09, 2007, 07:45:13 AM
Wait till you come to the Choral bits in the end, Beethoven had second thoughts about that.
Should have changed it in a instrumental ending, instead of all those screaming ladies, only ladies mind! ;D
But apart from that ending, in did not make me sad. :)
It means a lot to me.
The ending I always thought was strange, isn't it a fugue or something it doesn't sound very pleasant but it ends in a bang.
Mozart, I think you're generating the loneliness yourself. It is not coming from the 9th. At least not in my experience. :)
Quote from: dtwilbanks on May 09, 2007, 07:49:30 AM
Mozart, I think you're generating the loneliness yourself. It is not coming from the 9th. At least not in my experience. :)
Well I had the feeling like how can anyone else possibly understand how this is matching my mood perfectly?
I think the piece is autobiographical and in the last movement prophetic. After conception, it first plunges into turmoil (youth), then development (middle), and finally, we are confronted with the spiritual calm and acceptance of his last years.
From the fourth movement onward, he is speaking from the heavens (not without facing judgment first, in the instrumental pre-amble), and his message is one of pure brotherly joy and happiness, as you would expect.
My take, at any rate...
Q: What does Beethoven's 9th symphony mean to you?
A: To me, it means a potent infusion of d minor . . . . . .
it's pointless to write symphonies, do you think you can do better than the "Choral"?
Hummel sure was convinced of that.
~
Listening to Ninth today gives me a certain feeling of nostalgia. It was one of the first ten or so recordings of classical music I acquired many, many years ago. I am reminded of friends and our mutual enjoyment of music during my college years.
JS
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on May 09, 2007, 09:52:57 AM
I think the piece is autobiographical and in the last movement prophetic. After conception, it first plunges into turmoil (youth), then development (middle), and finally, we are confronted with the spiritual calm and acceptance of his last years.
From the fourth movement onward, he is speaking from the heavens (not without facing judgment first, in the instrumental pre-amble), and his message is one of pure brotherly joy and happiness, and you would expect.
My take, at any rate...
Yes,
des Prez, I agree with much of what you have said. I would refrain from using the word "acceptance" to describe the final movements; instead I've always fond it to be a testement to the resolve of the human spirit, a sort of final victory over death.
Quote from: dtwilbanks on May 09, 2007, 07:49:30 AM
Mozart, I think you're generating the loneliness yourself. It is not coming from the 9th. At least not in my experience. :)
Well said dtwilbanks.
marvin
Quote from: Mozart on May 09, 2007, 07:40:08 AM
Beethoven clearly has some sort of message for this work but its been one of my biggest struggles to figure it out. I was finally in the perfect state of mind for the piece 2 nights ago and it made me feel nothing besdies loneliness,
This has nothing to do with Beethoven's masterpiece. :)
In all great artworks there are multiple layers of Time and Emotion, and these are fluid, amorphous, yet tangible.
So you might very well feel Loneliness in the face of Beethoven's Beer-Hall Brouhaha for Brotherhood, if you have the present sense of being an Outsider.
Given the caveat above, the "message" in the first 3 movements, and summarized in the fourth's beginning, is that a great struggle is involved in attaining the brotherhood lionized in the final movement: Beethoven himself of course felt cut off from Humanity, both because of his deafness and of his "Beethovenness."
The first Beethoven symphony (or any symphony, for that matter) I owned and it's still very close to my heart. Despite the glorious 4th movement, the 2nd is still my favourite.
What Beethoven's 9th symphony means to me, is a long story.
It begins in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania. A panda, a parrot and a glowworm are in a bar . . . .
Quote from: karlhenning on May 09, 2007, 12:15:20 PM
What Beethoven's 9th symphony means to me, is a long story.
It begins in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania. A panda, a parrot and a glowworm are in a bar . . . .
Is this an endangered panda,
karl? Any PETA pals around? ;D
It means that this is some of the most exciting, moving, compelling music ever written.
Well, there is that story about the bass section... :o
I'm afraid I've lost much of my fondness for the work ... I think I shall avoid it completely for 6 months or so and then revisit it and see what it means to me then.
Quote from: karlhenning on May 09, 2007, 12:15:20 PM
What Beethoven's 9th symphony means to me, is a long story.
It begins in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania. A panda, a parrot and a glowworm are in a bar . . . .
Do tell, signore!
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on May 09, 2007, 09:52:57 AM
I think the piece is autobiographical and in the last movement prophetic. After conception, it first plunges into turmoil (youth), then development (middle), and finally, we are confronted with the spiritual calm and acceptance of his last years.
From the fourth movement onward, he is speaking from the heavens (not without facing judgment first, in the instrumental pre-amble), and his message is one of pure brotherly joy and happiness, as you would expect.
My take, at any rate...
Well said.
For me the 9th is as close to God as I will get before I pass from this world.
Amazingly little.
Quote from: MahlerTitan on May 09, 2007, 10:48:06 AM
it's pointless to write symphonies, do you think you can do better than the "Choral"?
Hummel sure was convinced of that.
Is this serious.
Quote from: 71 dB on May 09, 2007, 03:45:29 PM
Amazingly little.
My feeling too! Kind of anyhow. :-\ It's a fairly nice symphony, the allegro, the molto vivace, the adagio molto e cantabile, but then Ludwig shook his head "There is something missing, it's not quite what I had in mind, it needs something louder, much louder. Got it! I'll hang on all the noise I can get out of a full chorus, that'll wake up the audience, especially the screeching ladies!" ;D
...with the hopes there wouldn't be too many opera goers in the audience as they'd be inured to the screeching ladies...
Quote from: uffeviking on May 09, 2007, 04:03:28 PM
My feeling too! Kind of anyhow. :-\ It's a fairly nice symphony, the allegro, the molto vivace, the adagio molto e cantabile, but then Ludwig shook his head "There is something missing, it's not quite what I had in mind, it needs something louder, much louder. Got it! I'll hang on all the noise I can get out of a full chorus, that'll wake up the audience, especially the screeching ladies!" ;D
That "freedom of speech" thing is out of control... (http://www.millan.net/minimations/smileys/fartysmile1f.gif)
Quote from: oyasumi on May 09, 2007, 04:02:19 PM
Is this serious.
ever heard of "Curse of 9th"? why do you think Bruckner intended to only write 9 symphonies?
Very nice piece of music in the hands of an able conductor and an orchestra
Quote from: MahlerTitan on May 09, 2007, 04:38:34 PM
ever heard of "Curse of 9th"? why do you think Bruckner intended to only write 9 symphonies?
I'd think we'd be over that kind of stuff by now. So some other people wrote great symphonies. That's nice. It's a medium of personal expression, not a means to one-up dead people.
It means very little to me. It's the LvB symphony I rarely listen to, preferring the others much more.
Quote from: Cato on May 09, 2007, 12:04:45 PM
In all great artworks there are multiple layers of Time and Emotion, and these are fluid, amorphous, yet tangible.
So you might very well feel Loneliness in the face of Beethoven's Beer-Hall Brouhaha for Brotherhood, if you have the present sense of being an Outsider.
Given the caveat above, the "message" in the first 3 movements, and summarized in the fourth's beginning, is that a great struggle is involved in attaining the brotherhood lionized in the final movement: Beethoven himself of course felt cut off from Humanity, both because of his deafness and of his "Beethovenness."
To continue: the opinion of member
Josquin given earlier is also on target. People have called the opening of the first movement a type of swirling amorphous primordial moment before creation, with a "Lux fiat!" finally coming forth. Whether or not it represents "youth" is maybe too specific, but certainly not impossible.
Anyway,
Mr. Mozart, what you need to determine is what
Beethoven's Ninth means to
you. You might try just listening to the individual movements, and then listen again to the entire symphony in one sitting. Also, try following the score.
Eventually (I think I am on safe ground here) you will reach some understanding! 0:) Maybe even Enlightenment! 0:)
Quote from: Cato on May 10, 2007, 05:45:25 AM
Eventually (I think I am on safe ground here) you will reach some understanding! 0:) Maybe even Enlightenment! 0:)
I always sing "Om" along with the opening fifth of the first movement.
All of LvB's symphonies bored me. But Liszt's piano
transcriptions, and in particular the 9th.,are just
extraordinary.
Quote from: carlos on May 10, 2007, 06:31:40 AM
All of LvB's symphonies bored me. But Liszt's piano
transcriptions, and in particular the 9th.,are just
extraordinary.
both bore me
Quote from: karlhenning on May 10, 2007, 05:46:48 AM
I always sing "Om" along with the opening fifth of the first movement.
Apparently some people here prefer to open a fifth rather than singing Om!
It means (in no particular order)
1. An orchestras "pension fund" concert
2. The "opening" of a season
3. The "closing" of a season
4. The "closing" of a summer festival
5. The performance of a work audiences want to hear, and never tire of.
6. The "standard" by which any conductor or fledgling music director is measured.
7. I get to listen to one of the greatest orchestral creations in the history of music.
Quote from: 71 dB on May 09, 2007, 03:45:29 PM
Amazingly little.
Not as good as one of the Pomp and Circumstance Marches, eh?
Quote from: Larry Rinkel on May 10, 2007, 08:08:25 AM
Not as good as one of the Pomp and Circumstance Marches, eh?
:-)
Quote from: Larry Rinkel on May 10, 2007, 08:08:25 AM
Not as good as one of the Pomp and Circumstance Marches, eh?
;D ;D
Quote from: Larry Rinkel on May 10, 2007, 08:08:25 AM
Not as good as one of the Pomp and Circumstance Marches, eh?
Prove the following:
Elgar [ P + C] > Beethoven 9 x ?
Somebody link the answer ??? to the
Music and Math topic!
Quote from: oyasumi on May 09, 2007, 07:24:38 PM
I'd think we'd be over that kind of stuff by now. So some other people wrote great symphonies. That's nice. It's a medium of personal expression, not a means to one-up dead people.
It is by no means insignificant when a great composer pays such homage to another. My mind immediately travels to Beethoven and his great respect for the music of Handel and Mozart. While there will never be an objective standard by which we can universally select certain pieces whose greatness is beyond question, there are some works which have drawn so much attention and praise since thier composition that not being familiar with them is unacceptable. Beethoven's 9th is one such work. It is not only a canonical piece, but it is one of the most influential pieces of music to emerge from the Romantic period. That sort of lasting influece, is generally earned. In the case of the 9th, I can't think of a more storied, more spoken about, piece of music in the classical repotoire. It is not simply a 'great symphony' in a sea of others, Beethoven's 9th is in that small ring of works which is often considered the greatest artisitic achievement of humankind by critics. Its not just a great symphony. Its the symphony.
One of the most inspiring influential symphonies ever written.
Since we are singing in Beethoven's 9th on Saturday, May 12, it has struck all of us that the choral parts lie pretty high a lot of the time. Mind you, the choral parts only add up to 10 or 12 minutes or so, depending on the tempo, but they are high. It's not easy. My colleagues in the bass section have complained about all the high E and F notes (I can do them fine, myself, and wouldn't miss doing it for the world) and some of our sopranos have defected to the altos or simply dropped out. The poor sopranos have to hold a high A for pages!
Well, as to the meaning of the mighty Ninth, I have long thought about such themes struggle and triumph over difficulties, the brotherhood and sisterhood of all human kind, and joy in freedom before God.
I have some some sympathy with the legend, adopted by Bernstein in a famous performance, which says Schiller would have preferred Freiheit instead of Freude, but feared censorship. In any case, it's a marvelous work. Richard Freed relates the legend in some program notes.
http://www.kennedy-center.org/calendar/index.cfm?fuseaction=composition&composition_id=2761
There's an interesting article in Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symphony_No._9_(Beethoven)
And, here's a link to the original text by Schiller:
http://www.raptusassociation.org/ode1785.html
Quote from: Xenophanes on May 10, 2007, 04:23:21 PM
Since we are singing in Beethoven's 9th on Saturday, May 12, it has struck all of us that the choral parts lie pretty high a lot of the time. Mind you, the choral parts only add up to 10 or 12 minutes or so, depending on the tempo, but they are high. It's not easy...
Indeed not. I've sometimes thought that the chorus almost has to be in some kind of ecstasy to sing this properly. Or ON ecstasy! :o ;D
Of course, the instrumental parts aren't easy either. When you get done with the Ninth, you know you've played a symphony! :D
You know you've been through the ringer. You wonder why you've been there, but you're in no doubts that that is where you were. ;)
To me, it simply means overplayed and over-rated. :)
Quote from: Michel on May 13, 2007, 10:39:10 AM
To me, it simply means overplayed and over-rated. :)
That hurts. :(
I consider the 9th one of the most magnificent musical creations of all time - almost in Bach's league.
Quote from: Michel on May 13, 2007, 10:39:10 AM
To me, it simply means overplayed and over-rated. :)
I hear this about Beethoven's 5th all the time too. It is because they are so great that these pieces have become a part of popular culture and many have become incapable of recognizing the originality that went into them. The Creation by Michelangelo on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel is disrespected as well by small minds that will never be capable of creating works of such seminal genius.
Quote from: Bunny on May 13, 2007, 12:17:14 PM
I hear this about Beethoven's 5th all the time too. It is because they are so great that these pieces have become a part of popular culture and many have become incapable of recognizing the originality that went into them. The Creation by Michelangelo on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel is disrespected as well by small minds that will never be capable of creating works of such seminal genius.
(http://www.millan.net/minimations/smileys/cheerleader3.gif) (http://www.millan.net/minimations/smileys/cheerleader3.gif) (http://www.millan.net/minimations/smileys/cheerleader3.gif) GO BUNNY !!! (http://www.millan.net/minimations/smileys/cheerleader3.gif) (http://www.millan.net/minimations/smileys/cheerleader3.gif) (http://www.millan.net/minimations/smileys/cheerleader3.gif)
Quote from: Iconito on May 13, 2007, 12:38:38 PM
(http://www.millan.net/minimations/smileys/cheerleader3.gif) (http://www.millan.net/minimations/smileys/cheerleader3.gif) (http://www.millan.net/minimations/smileys/cheerleader3.gif) GO BUNNY !!! (http://www.millan.net/minimations/smileys/cheerleader3.gif) (http://www.millan.net/minimations/smileys/cheerleader3.gif) (http://www.millan.net/minimations/smileys/cheerleader3.gif)
Killer bunny strikes again?
Quote from: Don on May 13, 2007, 10:45:04 AM
I consider the 9th one of the most magnificent musical creations of all time - almost in Bach's league.
:D
For me, it is the work that introduced me to the world of Classical music and remains one of my favorite symphonies. That's all. 8)
Quote from: Bunny on May 13, 2007, 12:17:14 PM
I hear this about Beethoven's 5th all the time too. It is because they are so great that these pieces have become a part of popular culture and many have become incapable of recognizing the originality that went into them. The Creation by Michelangelo on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel is disrespected as well by small minds that will never be capable of creating works of such seminal genius.
I would add the Western canon to that list. :) Small minds, indeed.
Quote from: Michel on May 13, 2007, 10:39:10 AM
To me, it simply means overplayed and over-rated. :)
overplayed- i agree
over-rated- i disagree
Even the best cuisine tasted too often becomes shallow. The secret is to revert to a good hamburger breakfast for at least 3 years with tidbits like the Pomp and Circumstances marches, Hungarian Rhapsodies or suchlike. It you do this long enough who'll crave the real lobster courses in due time.
Quote from: max on May 13, 2007, 10:42:18 PM
Even the best cuisine tasted too often becomes shallow. The secret is to revert to a good hamburger breakfast for at least 3 years with tidbits like the Pomp and Circumstances marches, Hungarian Rhapsodies or suchlike. It you do this long enough who'll crave the real lobster courses in due time.
But the lobster is Mahler' 9th, not Beethoven's. :):)
Quote from: Michel on May 13, 2007, 11:10:28 PM
But the lobster is Mahler' 9th, not Beethoven's. :):)
...wouldn't disagree! But you forgot to add Bruckner's 9th and also I would incorporate Schubert's 9th in this triad. 8)
Quote from: Bunny on May 13, 2007, 12:17:14 PM
I hear this about Beethoven's 5th all the time too. It is because they are so great that these pieces have become a part of popular culture and many have become incapable of recognizing the originality that went into them. The Creation by Michelangelo on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel is disrespected as well by small minds that will never be capable of creating works of such seminal genius.
Hear, hear!
Don't get me wrong, it is a great symphony, just like the 5th, and the 7th. But is categorically not, as many seem to claim, some act of genius equalled only by God's creation of the world.
People make such a song and dance of this music; it is good, but then so is lots of other stuff - it isn't the pinnacle of western achievement as many seem to claim. Not least because it shows the symphonic centricity of many of you.
And in that sense it is over-rated, and as a result, over-played.
Quote from: Michel on May 14, 2007, 03:31:37 AM
Don't get me wrong, it is a great symphony, just like the 5th, and the 7th. But is categorically not, as many seem to claim, some act of genius equalled only by God's creation of the world.
Who?
Appreciating the genuine magnificence of nearly all the Beethoven symphonies, is one thing. (Not that folks are doing it, mind you, but) fixating upon them as The Gold Standard by which all subsequent work is evaluated, is quite another (and I speak as a Bostonian, where the name 'Beethoven' is etched into a gilded egg surmounting the stage at Symphony Hall.
So, it's a discussion which can readily chase its own tail: Refusal to ritually bow to Beethoven will seem to some like "disrespect"; raising a permament monument to any giant of the past is to some extent, in some portion of the general consciousness, to petrify art.
Live into and enjoy this tension, folks, because it is not going away.
Quote from: Florestan on May 14, 2007, 03:44:37 AM
Who?
People who are inspired to start threads like this, discuss it and make absurd comments about it that are prevalent across the board. I don't pay enough attention, nor do I have enough time, to start proving my point by listing individual offenders, especially as it is hardly that contentious or inobvious.
Great point brilliantly made, Karl.
Quote from: Michel on May 14, 2007, 04:18:30 AM
I don't pay enough attention
No further questions.
Quote from: Florestan on May 14, 2007, 04:22:05 AM
No further questions.
Pathetic. I see you have also ignored Karl's excellent point.
But then I should expect no better from the hoardes of hero worshippers without a clue.
Quote from: Michel on May 14, 2007, 03:31:37 AM
Don't get me wrong, it is a great symphony, just like the 5th, and the 7th. But is categorically not, as many seem to claim, some act of genius equalled only by God's creation of the world.
People make such a song and dance of this music; it is good, but then so is lots of other stuff - it isn't the pinnacle of western achievement as many seem to claim. Not least because it shows the symphonic centricity of many of you.
And in that sense it is over-rated, and as a result, over-played.
It is as foolish to dismiss Beethoven's importance as it is to over emphasize it. Even if no sensible person thinks of this work as the next best thing to the creation of the world by God, that was not the case in the 19th century when Schubert, Schumann, Brahms, Bruckner, Wagner, and Mahler were all struggling to find their voices. To them, Beethoven was an enormous presence that they all struggled to deal with, and strived to compete with. None of these composers would have ever argued that any of Beethoven's works, especially his great symphonies were over-rated. Mahler certainly recognized the importance of Beethoven's work; I doubt Mahler would have incorporated any songs into his symphonies without the example of Beethoven's 9th. Even the opening bars of the 9th where great sound rises as if from silence have been remembered by Mahler in the opening of his first symphony. If Mahler could pay homage to Beethoven, then what's your problem?
The devaluation of Beethoven's work couldn't happen until the prevalence of recorded music made the music as familiar and banal as processed cheese. In this case familiarity might not have bred contempt, but it did breed less respect.
One might as easily argue that Shakespeare wasn't such a great writer or poet because people spoof the balcony scene from Romeo and Juliet or the soliloquy from Hamlet. Again, familiarity has caused some individuals to devalue his contributions, and fail to understand how deeply he influenced those who came after him.
Quote from: Bunny on May 14, 2007, 06:07:18 AM
Even if no sensible person thinks of this work as the next best thing to the creation of the world by God, that was not the case in the 19th century when Schubert, Schumann, Brahms, Bruckner, Wagner, and Mahler were all struggling to find their voices. To them, Beethoven was an enormous presence that they all struggled to deal with, and strived to compete with.
Yes, of course, we know all that. It does, you realize, say as much about
Schubert,
Schumann,
Brahms,
Wagner and
Mahler themselves, and of their time and culture, as it does of
Beethoven's work, itself.
I'm an American composer in the 21st century; I am not going to see or hear
Beethoven in the same way that (say)
Schumann or
Berlioz did. Someone in my shoes who
does see and hear
Beethoven in the same way that
Berlioz did, is apt to come off as highly affected, don't you think?
Time is a river; we never step into the same stream twice. Even the artistic giants of the past, are not fixed points.
Quote from: Bunny on May 14, 2007, 06:07:18 AM
The devaluation of Beethoven's work couldn't happen until the prevalence of recorded music made the music as familiar and banal as processed cheese. In this case familiarity might not have bred contempt, but it did breed less respect.
That's only one side of it. The boom in music reproduction also expanded
Beethoven's audience to a degree he could never have dreamt of.
to me it doesn't mean anything since it doesn't make me respond emotionally at all.... the only response i got from it was boredom.
i don't get it
Quote from: karlhenning on May 14, 2007, 06:13:33 AM
Yes, of course, we know all that. It does, you realize, say as much about Schubert, Schumann, Brahms, Wagner and Mahler themselves, and of their time and culture, as it does of Beethoven's work, itself.
I'm an American composer in the 21st century; I am not going to see or hear Beethoven in the same way that (say) Schumann or Berlioz did. Someone in my shoes who does see and hear Beethoven in the same way that Berlioz did, is apt to come off as highly affected, don't you think?
Time is a river; we never step into the same stream twice. Even the artistic giants of the past, are not fixed points.
Quote from: karlhenning on May 14, 2007, 06:15:05 AM
That's only one side of it. The boom in music reproduction also expanded Beethoven's audience to a degree he could never have dreamt of.
It's nice to know that you are familiar with Heraclitus to the point of paraphrasing him, but the point I was trying to make is that if you cite the greatness of works that grew from the inspiration of Beethoven's work, how can you then devalue that
seminal work? Better to acknowledge that the stream itself became different after Beethoven set his foot in it. It's impossible to think of how music would have progressed without him because he is a fact, a rock upon which 19th century built it's music, or one which changed the course of that stream you would later put your foot in. That modern composers find him less relevant today does not mean that his works are less great. I doubt most writers living today would cite Shakespeare as their main inspiration either, and yet no one disputes the greatness of his works.
Quote from: greg on May 14, 2007, 06:25:16 AM
to me it doesn't mean anything since it doesn't make me respond emotionally at all.... the only response i got from it was boredom.
i don't get it
Then don't listen to it. If you don't understand French, you aren't going to enjoy Racine.
Bunny's reply to Michel is the case of a strawman. Michel wasn't dismissing Beethoven's importance, he was putting Beethoven back into perspective. This whole every other composer struggled to find their voice after Beethoven is empty rhetoric because it is based on remarks from those composers about the symphony. Take as an example songs. Schubert is one of the greatest song writers that you could imagine. His mastery of the form did not see him struggling in Beethoven's shadow. And even though Beethoven was a pioneer of the piano sonata, Schumann and Chopin piano music far beyond where Beethoven was (don't think progress, think different), and they had a distinct voice completely unlike Beethoven.
Michel made the point that overly praising the great 9th is symphony-centric. Bunny, you reinforced his point by saying that 19th century composers had to struggle to find their own voices. Considering that you start by saying the he dismissed Beethoven's importance means that you simply misread his post.
I think that Beethoven should be appreciated for his superb compositions and his impact on musical culture. I don't think that he should be appreciated for the Romantic image cast on him by his admirers. I like to call this fuzzy thinking about Beethoven "Beethoven the Revolutionary" after the absurd marketing campaign. >:D
That is what I think has happened here to an extent, some people have slipped from talking about Beethoven to talking about the Revolutionary. That does Beethoven an injustice.
Quote from: DavidW on May 14, 2007, 06:34:36 AM
. . . I like to call this fuzzy thinking about Beethoven "Beethoven the Revolutionary" after the absurd marketing campaign. >:D
No marketing campaign which succeeds in dominating a publishing industry, by insuring an average of three new complete symphony sets every year, can truly be dismissed as absurd >:D
Now, if music after Beethoven was different than it was before him, isn't this some kind of revolution? Just asking.
Quote from: DavidW on May 14, 2007, 06:34:36 AM
Bunny's reply to Michel is the case of a strawman. Michel wasn't dismissing Beethoven's importance, he was putting Beethoven back into perspective. This whole every other composer struggled to find their voice after Beethoven is empty rhetoric because it is based on remarks from those composers about the symphony. Take as an example songs. Schubert is one of the greatest song writers that you could imagine. His mastery of the form did not see him struggling in Beethoven's shadow. And even though Beethoven was a pioneer of the piano sonata, Schumann and Chopin piano music far beyond where Beethoven was (don't think progress, think different), and they had a distinct voice completely unlike Beethoven.
Michel made the point that overly praising the great 9th is symphony-centric. Bunny, you reinforced his point by saying that 19th century composers had to struggle to find their own voices. Considering that you start by saying the he dismissed Beethoven's importance means that you simply misread his post.
I think that Beethoven should be appreciated for his superb compositions and his impact on musical culture. I don't think that he should be appreciated for the Romantic image cast on him by his admirers. I like to call this fuzzy thinking about Beethoven "Beethoven the Revolutionary" after the absurd marketing campaign. >:D
That is what I think has happened here to an extent, some people have slipped from talking about Beethoven to talking about the Revolutionary. That does Beethoven an injustice.
Great points David.
And Bunny, nowhere did I "dismiss Beethoven's importance". I have not downplayed his achievements at all. Saying something is over-rated does not mean it is not great, especailly since, as I say, people make out that it is not only great, but the
greatest. As a result, I still think it is relatviely speaking, over-rated.
Quote from: karlhenning on May 14, 2007, 06:37:26 AM
No marketing campaign which succeeds in dominating a publishing industry, by insuring an average of three new complete symphony sets every year, can truly be dismissed as absurd >:D
Ah touche. ;D
Quote from: Florestan on May 14, 2007, 06:38:51 AM
Now, if music after Beethoven was different than it was before him, isn't this some kind of revolution? Just asking.
no, it just means Schoenberg traveled back in time and helped Beethoven to be more innovative, since he wanted music to "hurry up" by the time he started writing his own music.
Revolutionary (http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio3/beethoven/Revolutionary_music.shtml#man)
It never ceases to amaze me how otherwise rational people can get into heated, even venemous debates, over matters of personal preference and taste. As if it is even possible to be right or wrong on this. People who slam each other over what is nothing more than vibrations in the air, completely intangible and devoid of all objectivity. Something you can't eat, or breathe, or drink.
Well, I suppose technically you're kind-of breathing it. I mean, if the air has these waves going through it, doesn't it go into your nose or mouth? I guess it could even reach the lungs. Or even go through your torso, if it's really deep bass. You know, how a lot of young people drive around with their cars vibrating, and you feel it in your chest, maybe even your lungs. But that's not really breathing it. How much do those sound systems cost? I should have invested in hearing aids 10 years ago, that industry is going to make a fortune when these kids get older. Have you ever seen a car vibrate from that? The glass, or the license plate can even shake. In North Carolina, they only have a license plate on the front. I think this is a stupid idea.
Wait! There's venom here, and I missed it? 8)
Quote from: JoshLilly on May 14, 2007, 06:48:49 AM
Well, I suppose technically you're kind-of breathing it. I mean, if the air has these waves going through it, doesn't it go into your nose or mouth? I guess it could even reach the lungs. Or even go through your torso, if it's really deep bass. You know, how a lot of young people drive around with their cars vibrating, and you feel it in your chest, maybe even your lungs. But that's not really breathing it. How much do those sound systems cost? I should have invested in hearing aids 10 years ago, that industry is going to make a fortune when these kids get older. Have you ever seen a car vibrate from that? The glass, or the license plate can even shake. In North Carolina, they only have a license plate on the front. I think this is a stupid idea.
I didn't want to take Beethoven in the mouth, especially deep down the throat, but he was revolutionary! ;D ;)
Quote from: JoshLilly on May 14, 2007, 06:48:49 AM
It never ceases to amaze me how otherwise rational people can get into heated, even venemous debates, over matters of personal preference and taste. As if it is even possible to be right or wrong on this. People who slam each other over what is nothing more than vibrations in the air, completely intangible and devoid of all objectivity. Something you can't eat, or breathe, or drink.
Well, I suppose technically you're kind-of breathing it. I mean, if the air has these waves going through it, doesn't it go into your nose or mouth? I guess it could even reach the lungs. Or even go through your torso, if it's really deep bass. You know, how a lot of young people drive around with their cars vibrating, and you feel it in your chest, maybe even your lungs. But that's not really breathing it. How much do those sound systems cost? I should have invested in hearing aids 10 years ago, that industry is going to make a fortune when these kids get older. Have you ever seen a car vibrate from that? The glass, or the license plate can even shake. In North Carolina, they only have a license plate on the front. I think this is a stupid idea.
so is what you're suggesting that many people find Beethoven tasty and delicious?
they should make Beethoven cereal then!
Beethoveenios
Quote from: Larry Rinkel on May 10, 2007, 08:08:25 AM
Not as good as one of the Pomp and Circumstance Marches, eh?
Considering the place LvB's 9th has in classical music it means amazingly little to me meaning it does not blow me away. In fact I could say only the 6th symphony means something to me. Beethoven's use of orchestra is perfect for a "pastoral" symphony. It really works.
Elgar's marches are awesome! Elgar composed brilliant marches, not only "Pomp and Circumstances." I am always amazed by the quality when I listen to them. So energetic music! Good listening in the morning to get energy level up! For marches Elgar's marches mean amazingly much to me.
Quote from: DavidW on May 14, 2007, 06:34:36 AM
Michel wasn't dismissing Beethoven's importance
But some people are. Infact, i see some who are dismissing Beethoven's altogether. Hard to maintain perspective in the face of this foul and evil avalanche of heresy... ;D
Quote from: 71 dB on May 14, 2007, 07:04:15 AM
So energetic music! Good listening in the morning to get energy level up!
Kind of aerobic gym, right? :D
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on May 14, 2007, 07:09:12 AM
But some people are. Infact, i see some who are dismissing Beethoven's altogether.
That's the revolutionary's risk; the wheel turns some more :)
Quote from: Michel on May 14, 2007, 06:41:00 AM
And Bunny, nowhere did I "dismiss Beethoven's importance". I have not downplayed his achievements at all. Saying something is over-rated does not mean it is not great, especailly since, as I say, people make out that it is not only great, but the greatest. As a result, I still think it is relatviely speaking, over-rated.
Nice to see you going back to clarify your original post which only stated, "Over-played" and "Over-rated." You have gone from an absolute condemnation to a qualified criticism. I guess that's your way of saying that your original post was a bit OTT? Anything that is rated as excellent or great can be said to be "relatively" over rated, especially when the rater is careful (or careless as the case may be) to give no context. Beethoven is over-rated relative to what? Mahler, Brahms, Wagner, Chopin, Schubert, Rimsky-Korsakoff, Rachmaninoff, Schoenberg, Stravinsky, Ives, Hummel, Martinu, Dvorak, Bach, Buxtehude, Pachelbel, et al.? Or Beethoven is over-rated compared to Einstein, Turing, Pascal, Salk, Jenner, Fleming, Bohr, Lavoisier, Edison, Volta, Tesslar, et al.?
The point is that I do not find that Beethoven is over-rated. He is well understood and well appreciated and correctly rated as one of the great musical geniuses ever to live. His ninth symphony is recognized as one of the greatest works of one of the greatest composers, and this stands as an absolute which needs no qualifications. The composers of the 19th century recognized this, and you do not; and that is not a straw argument, but a statement of fact.
Does Beethoven have his insane groupies? Yes, but no one should make judgments about the quality of his work because he inspires rabid fans. The presence of groupies and cult devotees doesn't mean that the composer is over-rated. It means that the music is accessible to many more people than the works of other composers -- and
universality of art is usually a benchmark of greatness because it is that universality that keeps the music fresh and appealing down through the centuries.
Quote from: Bunny on May 14, 2007, 07:32:06 AM
The point is that I do not find that Beethoven is over-rated.
So you think, for example, that the volume of new recordings generated every year of
Betehoven's music is not at all disproportionate in comparison to other composers?
Quote from: DavidW on May 14, 2007, 06:41:16 AM
Ah touche. ;D
Quote from: karlhenning on May 14, 2007, 06:49:26 AM
Wait! There's venom here, and I missed it? 8)
Quote from: karlhenning on May 14, 2007, 06:58:21 AM
Beethoveenios
Quote from: karlhenning on May 14, 2007, 07:05:29 AM
Rah-rah-rah! 8)
Quote from: karlhenning on May 14, 2007, 07:13:13 AM
That's the revolutionary's risk; the wheel turns some more :)
Quote from: karlhenning on May 14, 2007, 07:34:26 AM
So you think, for example, that the volume of new recordings generated every year of Betehoven's music is not at all disproportionate in comparison to other composers?
No.
Karl, all those posts and nothing to say.
To you, perhaps. Sorry.
Quote from: Bunny on May 14, 2007, 07:32:06 AM
Beethoven is over-rated relative to what? Mahler, Brahms, Wagner, Chopin, Schubert, Rimsky-Korsakoff, Rachmaninoff, Schoenberg, Stravinsky, Ives, Hummel, Martinu, Dvorak, Bach, Buxtehude, Pachelbel, et al.? Or Beethoven is over-rated compared to Einstein, Turing, Pascal, Salk, Jenner, Fleming, Bohr, Lavoisier, Edison, Volta, Tesslar, et al.?
The former group. A good example would be Brahms.
QuoteHis ninth symphony is recognized as one of the greatest works of one of the greatest composers, and this stands as an absolute which needs no qualifications.
It is one of the greatest symphonic works, not greatest works. You are yet again showing your symphonic centricity.
Quote...It means that the music is accessible to many more people than the works of other composers -- and universality of art is usually a benchmark of greatness because it is that universality that keeps the music fresh and appealing down through the centuries.
If universality of art is a benchmark of greatness, shouldn't the Eagles be considered be better than Beethoven?
It's looking like 71 dB has Elgar, and Bunny has Beethoven, Michel.
Quote from: karlhenning on May 14, 2007, 07:42:59 AM
It's looking like 71 dB has Elgar, and Bunny has Beethoven, Michel.
No, I have Beethoven as well. Wanna fight? ;D
Quote from: dtwilbanks on May 14, 2007, 07:44:31 AM
No, I have Beethoven as well. Wanna fight? ;D
Me? The so-many-posts-so-little-to-stimulate-Bunny's-Beethoven-center guy? ;D
Quote from: karlhenning on May 14, 2007, 07:45:39 AM
Me? The so-many-posts-so-little-to-stimulate-Bunny's-Beethoven-center guy? ;D
You can bash any composer. But when the bashing is over, Beethoven will be standing at the top of the heap, shaking his mighty fist at Michel and Karl.
I crack myself up.
[Edited for way bad grammar.]
Quote from: karlhenning on May 14, 2007, 07:34:26 AM
So you think, for example, that the volume of new recordings generated every year of Betehoven's music is not at all disproportionate in comparison to other composers?
I don't believe it is. Beethoven is one of, if not the most popular classical composer. So I would expect a very high rate of Beethoven releases. Nothing strange here.
Quote from: karlhenning on May 14, 2007, 07:42:59 AM
It's looking like 71 dB has Elgar, and Bunny has Beethoven, Michel.
I am not a Beethoven ignorant. I value some of his works (String Quartets, Missa Solemnis,...) very high. He just isn't number one for me. He is number 10. That's not bad at all.
Quote from: Don on May 14, 2007, 07:49:05 AM
I don't believe it is. Beethoven is one of, if not the most popular classical composer. So I would expect a very high rate of Beethoven releases. Nothing strange here.
I don't understand what you are saying here. It is his very popularity that I am suggesting is what makes him over-rated; why does your comment negate it?
The key thing to note about Beethoven's popularity is that it is quite seperate from, for example, Puccini's; for people don't go about saying he is a genius on a level unmatched in history. I agree popularity itself doesn't equate to making something over-rated, but Beethoven's popularity does, for with it comes so-called objective arguments suggesting it is something profound and unique, whereas everyone admits they just like Puccini's tunz.
And that is the problem.
Quote from: karlhenning on May 14, 2007, 07:42:59 AM
It's looking like 71 dB has Elgar, and Bunny has Beethoven, Michel.
Each of us has favorites, and I don't think that Bunny shows the over-blown fervor for Beethoven that 71dB shows for Elgar - not even close.
Quote from: Don on May 14, 2007, 07:53:04 AM
Each of us has favorites, and I don't think that Bunny shows the over-blown fervor for Beethoven that 71dB shows for Elgar - not even close.
I like 71dB's overblown fervor. There should be more overblown fervor, I say.
Quote from: dtwilbanks on May 14, 2007, 07:57:15 AMThere should be more overblown fervor, I say.
Even when it's directed against Beethoven? (Not the case on this thread, mind you.)
Quote from: Michel on May 14, 2007, 07:52:47 AM
I don't understand what you are saying here. It is his very popularity that I am suggesting is what makes him over-rated; why does your comment negate it?
We don't seem to be on the same wavelength here. I'm not commenting on the value of Beethoven's music, just that he's likely the most popular composer. With that type of designation comes great exposure, one sign being a slew of recordings on a regular basis.
I don't appreciate Vivadi's music much, but I know he's a very popular composer. So frequent recordings of his music don't surprise me. Do I think Vivaldi is over-rated? Sure, but that's not relevant.
Quote from: Florestan on May 14, 2007, 07:58:47 AM
Even when it's directed against Beethoven? (Not the case on this thread, mind you.)
Oh, no. Only overblown fervor in the positive.
Quote from: Michel on May 14, 2007, 07:52:47 AM
The key thing to note about Beethoven's popularity is that it is quite seperate from, for example, Puccini's; for people don't go about saying he is a genius on a level unmatched in history. I agree popularity itself doesn't equate to making something over-rated, but Beethoven's popularity does, for with it comes so-called objective arguments suggesting it is something profound and unique, whereas everyone admits they just like Puccini's tunz.
And that is the problem.
I think the common view is that Beethoven's music IS profound and Puccini's is not. Again, this has nothing to do with my personal views, simply how I observe these matters.
Quote from: dtwilbanks on May 14, 2007, 07:57:15 AM
I like 71dB's overblown fervor. There should be more overblown fervor, I say.
Thank you David T. Wilbanks! :)
Quote from: Don on May 14, 2007, 08:02:05 AM
I think the common view is that Beethoven's music IS profound and Puccini's is not.
Puccini not profound? ???
Quote from: Michel on May 14, 2007, 07:39:44 AM
The former group. A good example would be Brahms.
It is one of the greatest symphonic works, not greatest works. You are yet again showing your symphonic centricity.
If universality of art is a benchmark of greatness, shouldn't the Eagles be considered be better than Beethoven?
Michel,
Is English not your first language? I wrote:
Quote from: Bunny on May 14, 2007, 07:32:06 AM
His ninth symphony is recognized as one of the greatest works of one of the greatest composers, and this stands as an absolute which needs no qualifications.
Quote from: 71 dB on May 14, 2007, 08:15:40 AM
Puccini not profound? ???
If you feel he is profound, I have no problem with that.
Quote from: Michel on May 14, 2007, 07:52:47 AM
I don't understand what you are saying here. It is his very popularity that I am suggesting is what makes him over-rated; why does your comment negate it?
The key thing to note about Beethoven's popularity is that it is quite seperate from, for example, Puccini's; for people don't go about saying he is a genius on a level unmatched in history. I agree popularity itself doesn't equate to making something over-rated, but Beethoven's popularity does, for with it comes so-called objective arguments suggesting it is something profound and unique, whereas everyone admits they just like Puccini's tunz.
And that is the problem.
Shakespeare is the most produced playwright in the English language. Michelangelo's Creation of Man is one of the most reproduced paintings in the world. Are you also going to suggest that these artists are over-rated? One has nothing to do with the other. You don't understand that popularity does not negate greatness. Popularity doesn't equate to greatness either, otherwise groups like 'N Sync would be considered as great as Beethoven, and it's obvious that they aren't.
Quote from: karlhenning on May 14, 2007, 07:42:59 AM
It's looking like 71 dB has Elgar, and Bunny has Beethoven, Michel.
Quote from: Don on May 14, 2007, 07:53:04 AM
Each of us has favorites, and I don't think that Bunny shows the over-blown fervor for Beethoven that 71dB shows for Elgar - not even close.
Thanks, Don! Saves me the trouble of getting the fly swatter.
Quote from: Don on May 14, 2007, 08:02:05 AM
I think the common view is that Beethoven's music IS profound and Puccini's is not. Again, this has nothing to do with my personal views, simply how I observe these matters.
But that doesn't make his music anymore legitimately popular, thats my point.
Although, and this is a seperate discussion, I hardly think Puccini is just a "decorative triviality".
If we take this logic further, that profound popularity is somehow more legitimate than farcicial popularity, then it follows that we must objectively consider Mozart better than Haydn, which many, including Prokofiev, would disagree with.
Bunny,
When have I in this thread suggested popularity ipso facto equates to over-rated?
Quote from: Don on May 14, 2007, 08:20:12 AM
If you feel he is profound, I have no problem with that.
Puccini is a profound opera composer.
In fact he is my favorite opera composer of the romantic era.
Quote from: Michel on May 14, 2007, 08:45:08 AM
If we take this logic further, that profound popularity is somehow more legitimate than farcicial popularity, then it follows that we must objectively consider Mozart better than Haydn, which many, including Prokofiev, would disagree with.
Mozart IS objectively greater then Haydn, at least to
my eyes ;D. He matured earlier, produced more masterpieces, and was as equally innovative, if not more (Haydn was a master of his own time until the end, but Mozart was already looking farther ahead). In most cases, he just out did Haydn in everything he touched, including the two genres in which Haydn excelled the most: the chamber music and symphonic works.
If he had lived longer, he would have eclipsed the older master beyond all doubt.
Also: Beethoven >>> Puccini.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on May 14, 2007, 09:40:33 AM
In most cases, he just out did Haydn in everything he touched, including the two genres in which Haydn excelled the most: the chamber music and symphonic works.
Thats not so cut-and-dried as you may think.
Quote from: 71 dB on May 14, 2007, 07:49:12 AM
I am not a Beethoven ignorant.
No one said you are.
Quote from: dtwilbanks on May 14, 2007, 07:47:56 AM
You can bash any composer. But when the bashing is over, Beethoven will be standing at the top of the heap, shaking his mighty fist at Michel and Karl.
I crack myself up.
[Edited for way bad grammar.]
I
like that!
Quote from: La moucheQuote from: karlhenning on May 14, 2007, 07:34:26 AM
So you think, for example, that the volume of new recordings generated every year of Beethoven's music is not at all disproportionate in comparison to other composers?
No.
Thank you for demonstrating one method of overrating Beethoven.
(* retires fly-swatter *)
Quote from: 71 dB on May 14, 2007, 09:04:46 AM
Puccini is a profound opera composer.
In fact he is my favorite opera composer of the romantic era.
Elgar's
The Spanish Lady is my favorite incomplete opera, and Elgar is my favorite incomplete opera composer . . . . . .
De Gustibus, as they say. I love and cherish the Ninth, but quite frankly I also love the Sixth and think its just as fine of a masterpiece.
And I'm wondering how some can compare Puccini to Beethoven. Mabye Puccini and Verdi instead?
Quote from: Danny on May 14, 2007, 10:30:42 AM
And I'm wondering how some can compare Puccini to Beethoven.
Puccini was a more successful opera composer 8)
Quote from: karlhenning on May 14, 2007, 09:42:56 AM
Thats not so cut-and-dried as you may think.
It is if you compare either one during the time they actually crossed each other, mainly the 1780s. This is when both composers became more consistent in the works they produced but the older master could hardly keep up with the avalanche of masterpieces poured by his younger colleague. Haydn gained some ground during the 90s, but at that point Mozart was already six feet under.
I think what's really important is that
both composers were pivotal in the development of the high classical style, something which is usually attributed to Haydn alone. Because of this, not many people realize just how revolutionary Mozart really was.
Quote from: karlhenning on May 14, 2007, 10:34:08 AM
Puccini was a more successful opera composer 8)
Where Beethoven was a more successful composer
period. :P
Quote from: karlhenning on May 14, 2007, 10:34:08 AM
Puccini was a more successful opera composer 8)
Haha! Fidelio is a marvellous little piece, though, Dr. Karl. ;D
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on May 14, 2007, 10:34:29 AM
It is if you compare either one during the time they actually crossed each other, mainly the 1780s. This is when both composers became more consistent in the works they produced but the older master could hardly keep up with the avalanche of masterpieces poured by his younger colleague. Haydn gained some ground during the 90s, but at that point Mozart was already six feet under.
I think what's really important is that both composers were pivotal in the development of the high classical style, something which is usually attributed to Haydn alone. Because of this, not many people realize just how revolutionary Mozart really was.
Who doesn't give Mozart his due? ???
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on May 14, 2007, 10:34:29 AM
It is if you compare either composer during the time they actually crossed each other, mainly the 1780s. This is when both composers became more consistent in the works they produced but the older master could hardly keep up with the avalanche of masterpieces poured by his younger colleague. Haydn gained some ground during the 90s, but at that point Mozart was already six feet under.
But, it isn't a horse race.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on May 14, 2007, 10:35:11 AM
Where Beethoven was a more successful composer period. :P
Depends on how you define success; and at any rate, see
But, it isn't a horse race, above.
Puccini's work has never left the stage, practically from the time he wrote it. I don't think he has any occasion to consider any success of
Beethoven's in the light of rivalry, at all.
Quote from: Danny on May 14, 2007, 10:37:02 AM
Haha! Fidelio is a marvellous little piece, though, Dr. Karl. ;D
I have this wicked fantasy of someone standing at
Beethoven's elbow, after all the work and sweat he put into
Fidelio, after all the years and turmoil, and saying in
Beethoven's ear:
Pretty good.
Now, how about writing another? ;D
Quote from: karlhenning on May 14, 2007, 10:44:38 AM
I have this wicked fantasy of someone standing at Beethoven's elbow, after all the work and sweat he put into Fidelio, after all the years and turmoil, and saying in Beethoven's ear: Pretty good.
Now, how about writing another?
;D
This time in Eye-talien. :D
Quote from: D Minor on May 14, 2007, 09:47:23 AM
Elgar's The Spanish Lady is my favorite incomplete opera, and Elgar is my favorite incomplete opera composer . . . . . .
I suppose Mozart is your favorite incomplete Requiem composer?
Quote from: 71 dB on May 14, 2007, 10:52:58 AM
I suppose Mozart is your favorite incomplete Requiem composer?
He did have time to finish his operas, though.
Quote from: karlhenning on May 14, 2007, 10:40:29 AM
But, it isn't a horse race.
Maybe, maybe not, but i think competition is a salutary attitude to have for an artist. If Beethoven hadn't felt the need to out do either Haydn or Mozart he would have never pushed himself to reach such an elevated summit. As an admirer and supporter of great music, i'm compelled to respect and acknowledge such efforts. If everybody is simply going to gloss over every degree of artistic achievement and claim that every musical work is as great as the next one (in it's own unique way, of course) then why even bother?
The pervasive relativism of contemporary discourse is too disengaging, almost feminine in nature. Anything that fosters empathy at the expense of achievement seems pretty boring to me.
My take on things, at any rate... :-\
Quote from: Michel on May 14, 2007, 08:46:38 AM
Bunny,
When have I in this thread suggested popularity ipso facto equates to over-rated?
Excuse me, you have said that Beethoven's popularity is proof that he's over-rated:
Quote from: Michel on May 14, 2007, 07:52:47 AM
I don't understand what you are saying here. It is his very popularity that I am suggesting is what makes him over-rated; why does your comment negate it?
The key thing to note about Beethoven's popularity is that it is quite seperate from, for example, Puccini's; for people don't go about saying he is a genius on a level unmatched in history. I agree popularity itself doesn't equate to making something over-rated, but Beethoven's popularity does, for with it comes so-called objective arguments suggesting it is something profound and unique, whereas everyone admits they just like Puccini's tunz.
And that is the problem.
I am merely trying to point out that while popularity is no way to assess the greatness of anything, the fact that something is "popular" does not mean that it is not great. Frequently, great things are of such quality that great masses of people recognize the quality. Your main reason for believing Beethoven is over-rated is his popularity, and that is a ridiculous premise.
I've seen Leonardo's Mona Lisa used as the basis for cartoons and jokes all over the world. It is one or the most reproduced works of art around. The fact that Leonardo's Last Supper is also one of the most reproduced paintings in the world, and was the basis for a specious novel, doesn't make it less than a masterpiece either. You may not prefer to listen to Beethoven if given a choice between Beethoven and Brahms. Don might prefer to listen to Bach and 71dB (formerly known as Elgar) would prefer to listen to Elgar. That cannot change the fact that Beethoven was one of the greatest composers who ever lived and that his Choral Symphony is one of the greatest and most important works composed in the annals of Western muisic. The work is not over-rated. It is what it is.
Quote from: Danny on May 14, 2007, 10:38:19 AM
Who doesn't give Mozart his due? ???
You'd be surprised to learn just how miss understood this composer really is.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on May 14, 2007, 11:32:53 AM
Maybe, maybe not, but i think competition is a salutary attitude to have for an artist. If Beethoven hadn't felt the need to out do either Haydn or Mozart he would have never pushed himself to reach such an elevated summit. As an admirer and supporter of great music, i'm compelled to respect and acknowledge such efforts. If everybody is simply going to gloss over every degree of artistic achievement and claim that every musical work is as great as the next one (in it's own unique way, of course) then why even bother?
The pervasive relativism of contemporary discourse is too disengaging, almost feminine in nature. Anything that fosters empathy at the expense of achievement seems pretty boring to me.
My take on things, at any rate... :-\
Actually, I think that Beethoven had a huge ego. He resisted comparisons to both Haydn (whom he didn't want to acknowledge as having taught him anything) and especially Mozart. The comparison with Mozart would have been extremely odious to him because his drunk and abusive father dragged him around Europe as a child prodigy, always describing him as the "new" Mozart. I think that Beethoven accomplished what he did because he was a unique genius when it came to music, finding a way to touch the emotional core of the human psyche through the use of pure sound.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on May 14, 2007, 11:32:53 AM
Maybe, maybe not, but i think competition is a salutary attitude to have for an artist.
Can be.
QuoteIf Beethoven hadn't felt the need to out do either Haydn or Mozart he would have never pushed himself to reach such an elevated summit.
My crystal ball is not so clear on this as yours seems :-)
I don't see building upon the example of the past, as "outdoing" the past. I don't know that we can limit the possible motivations for an artist to achieve greatness, to this way of viewing things.
QuoteIf everybody is simply going to gloss over every degree of artistic achievement and claim that every musical work is as great as the next one (in it's own unique way, of course) then why even bother?
Oh, has someone been doing that? 8)
Every musical genius, is a unique genius.
Beethoven is not unique in that ;)
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on May 14, 2007, 11:34:43 AM
You'd be surprised to learn just how miss understood this composer really is.
I happen to agree with this statement. I think Mozart is appreciated by the masses for the sheer beauty of his sound, and undervalued for his innovations which for the most part only very musically sophisticated listeners understand. He's the perfect example of the genius whose work functions on two levels -- an accessible one and a deeper, less accessible intellectual level as well.
Quote from: Michel on May 14, 2007, 08:45:08 AM
But that doesn't make his music anymore legitimately popular, thats my point.
Bringing the notion of "legitimate" into the mix opens up a can of worms. Popularity has a definition, and legitimate is not an element of the definition.
Quote from: 71 dB on May 14, 2007, 09:04:46 AM
Puccini is a profound opera composer.
In fact he is my favorite opera composer of the romantic era.
If he's your favorite, he must be profound.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VCn6CZ4d24k
Quote from: Don on May 14, 2007, 11:51:23 AM
If he's your favorite, he must be profound.
Exactly, my taste is profound. ;D
Beethoven's 9th symphony means:
(http://www.usask.ca/art/digital/2000/hildebrand/alex.jpg)
Quote from: karlhenning on May 14, 2007, 12:00:54 PM
Beethoven's 9th symphony means:
(http://www.usask.ca/art/digital/2000/hildebrand/alex.jpg)
That's how I discovered it. ;D
Quote from: 71 dB on May 14, 2007, 11:54:10 AM
Exactly, my taste is profound. ;D
With that settled, let's just say that both Beethoven and Puccini wrote profound music. Every composer's music is recorded just the right number of times, and popularity is nothing more than an indication of popularity. Is everyone happy now?
Is everybody happy?
(http://www.gadgetrank.com/files/images/clockwork_orange_got_milk_alex_0.thumbnail.jpg)
Quote from: karlhenning on May 14, 2007, 12:00:54 PM
Beethoven's 9th symphony means:
(http://www.usask.ca/art/digital/2000/hildebrand/alex.jpg)
LOL!
;D
Viddy well, little brother. Viddy well....
Quote from: karlhenning on May 14, 2007, 10:44:38 AM
I have this wicked fantasy of someone standing at Beethoven's elbow, after all the work and sweat he put into Fidelio, after all the years and turmoil, and saying in Beethoven's ear: Pretty good.
Now, how about writing another?
;D
Fidelio demonstrates Beethoven's concern in excelling in all forms, even those he had absolutely no interest in, such as opera. If this doesn't actually point to a competitive nature, i don't know what to say... ;)
Quote from: karlhenning on May 14, 2007, 12:10:20 PM
Is everybody happy?
(http://www.gadgetrank.com/files/images/clockwork_orange_got_milk_alex_0.thumbnail.jpg)
Only for those not discontented.
Quote from: jochanaan on May 12, 2007, 01:09:52 PM
Indeed not. I've sometimes thought that the chorus almost has to be in some kind of ecstasy to sing this properly. Or ON ecstasy! :o ;D
Of course, the instrumental parts aren't easy either. When you get done with the Ninth, you know you've played a symphony! :D
For trained singers with the appropriate voice ranges, the choral parts of the Ninth are quite doable. For example, the soprano sections on the recordings I have seem to be able to sail through the most difficult parts. And it's only about 11-12 minutes of singing for the chorus in a movement 22-26 minutes long. Once I learned the bass parts and figured out what to do with them vocally, the high E-flats, E-naturals and F-naturals gave me no difficulties, although at first I began to wonder if I weren't getting too old for this sort of thing. It's just that I seldom have to stay up there that long singing several words. Handel's "The Trumpet Shall Sound" will demand a high E on a single word like "sound" and "raised," which is rather less difficult than doing "Über Sternen muß er wohnen" on an E-flat and "Überm Ster-nen-zelt on a high F! But most in our group are not trained singers and it was a challenge to do it well. But I think everyone felt it was just wonderful doing the Ninth. It's such an awe-inspiring work.
I didn't talk to many of the instrumentalists. The young lady who played the tympani allowed that the marvelous section with the drum rolls about 9 minutes into the first movement made her arms tired, and the flutist remarked how difficult he found one of the high flute parts But I think the orchestra was quite pleased as well.
Quote from: Bunny on May 14, 2007, 11:33:21 AM
Excuse me, you have said that Beethoven's popularity is proof that he's over-rated:
I am merely trying to point out that while popularity is no way to assess the greatness of anything, the fact that something is "popular" does not mean that it is not great. Frequently, great things are of such quality that great masses of people recognize the quality. Your main reason for believing Beethoven is over-rated is his popularity, and that is a ridiculous premise.
I've seen Leonardo's Mona Lisa used as the basis for cartoons and jokes all over the world. It is one or the most reproduced works of art around. The fact that Leonardo's Last Supper is also one of the most reproduced paintings in the world, and was the basis for a specious novel, doesn't make it less than a masterpiece either. You may not prefer to listen to Beethoven if given a choice between Beethoven and Brahms. Don might prefer to listen to Bach and 71dB (formerly known as Elgar) would prefer to listen to Elgar. That cannot change the fact that Beethoven was one of the greatest composers who ever lived and that his Choral Symphony is one of the greatest and most important works composed in the annals of Western muisic. The work is not over-rated. It is what it is.
You are not reading what I am writing. I never said popularity in general equates to being over-rated; I categorically explained that earlier. I am saying the
nature of Beethoven's popularity is what makes him overated for, and here I repeat myself, it isn't a simple matter of liking his "tunes", as is the case of Puccini's popularity, but it is a popularity fuelled by the premise that there is something inherently special and profound to his music, and that is something that pretends to be objective in its hierarchising of what constitutes both good music and what is a good composer.
Its not simple popularity; it is an elitist and bent view that Beethoven is more profound than, lets say, Haydn, which makes his works, particularly the 9th, better. And that is why he is over-rated.
And the simple fact is that Puccini fan's don't go about weilding a baseball bat claiming he had something special to say like Beethovians and Wagnerians do is why we have this problem; silly hierarchising of great compoers and great music which is entirely fruitless.
As Nigel once said, when discussing who was better, Mozart or Beethoven..."At that level, who cares?" ;D
Quote from: Michel on May 15, 2007, 01:39:53 AM
You are not reading what I am writing. I never said popularity in general equates to being over-rated; I categorically explained that earlier. I am saying the nature of Beethoven's popularity is what makes him overated for, and here I repeat myself, it isn't a simple matter of liking his "tunes", as is the case of Puccini's popularity, but it is a popularity fuelled by the premise that there is something inherently special and profound to his music, and that is something that pretends to be objective in its hierarchising of what constitutes both good music and what is a good composer.
Its not simple popularity; it is an elitist and bent view that Beethoven is more profound than, lets say, Haydn, which makes his works, particularly the 9th, better. And that is why he is over-rated.
And the simple fact is that Puccini fan's don't go about weilding a baseball bat claiming he had something special to say like Beethovians and Wagnerians do is why we have this problem; silly hierarchising of great compoers and great music which is entirely fruitless.
As Nigel once said, when discussing who was better, Mozart or Beethoven..."At that level, who cares?" ;D
Fully agreed, thank you.
The impression I get from a certain kind of criticism (and Beethoven is more or less always involved, even if it's not his fault) is a sort of worthless musical network way of thinking.
"Why do you like strawberries?"
"Because they're more red than bananas and not as salty as fried chips."
Does that make sense to you?
???
Quote from: Scriptavolant on May 15, 2007, 03:44:08 AM
"Why do you like strawberries?"
"Because they're more red than bananas and not as salty as fried chips."
That's it in a nutshell!
Though I still reserve the right to quarrel with a fruit stall dedicated 30% to strawberries (
Beethoven), 25% to bananas (
Mozart), 15% to kiwis (
Carmina burana), 15% to Red Delicious apples (
The Planets) . . . and all other varieties of fruit vie for the remaining 15% of the shelf ;D
I guess the fried chips on the fruiterer's cart would be The Yo-Yo Ma Crossover Collection ;D ;D ;D
Quote from: Michel on May 15, 2007, 01:39:53 AM
but it is a popularity fuelled by the premise that there is something inherently special and profound to his music, and that is something that pretends to be objective in its hierarchising of what constitutes both good music and what is a good composer.
I don't get what you are saying. There IS something special and profound about his music. You'd have to be stone death not to hear it.
Quote from: Michel on May 15, 2007, 01:39:53 AM
Its not simple popularity; it is an elitist and bent view that Beethoven is more profound than, lets say, Haydn, which makes his works, particularly the 9th, better.
There's nothing elitist about it. It's the truth.
Quote from: Michel on May 15, 2007, 01:39:53 AM
And the simple fact is that Puccini fan's don't go about weilding a baseball bat claiming he had something special to say like Beethovians and Wagnerians do is why we have this problem
Perhaps it's because there's nothing inherently as special about Puccini in the first place. ;D
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on May 15, 2007, 05:47:19 AM
Quote from: MichelIts not simple popularity; it is an elitist and bent view that Beethoven is more profound than, lets say, Haydn, which makes his works, particularly the 9th, better.
There's nothing elitist about it. It's the truth.
Artistic truth is generally nothing so flat-lined. Remind me again exactly what "musical profundity" means? And remind me again exactly why that is weightier in the evaluation of music than other factors?
Quote from: karlhenning on May 15, 2007, 05:50:57 AM
Remind me again exactly what "musical profundity" means?
That's like trying to explain what it is to be in love. Certain things are beyond what mere words can express. This doesn't mean the feeling isn't there.
Quote from: karlhenning on May 15, 2007, 05:50:57 AM
And remind me again exactly why that is weightier in the evaluation of music than other factors?
First, i'd like to know why Michel thinks there is no weight in that at all...
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on May 15, 2007, 05:47:19 AM
I don't get what you are saying. There IS something special and profound about his music. You'd have to be stone death not to hear it.
You can't see it yourself but you have brainwashed yourself to think that way. You have teached yourself that Beethoven defines what is profound without realising there could be any other great composer instead of Beethoven. Beethoven is one of the greatest but he IS also overrated.
Puccini's popularity is based on his music. People really enjoy it.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on May 15, 2007, 06:02:47 AM
That's like trying to explain what it is to be in love. Certain things are beyond what mere words can express. This doesn't mean the feeling isn't there.
Thank you for agreeing that, since we cannot quantify what musical profundity is, we can readily agree that
Beethoven's Seventh Symphony is more profound than "Love Me Do," and that
Tosca is more profound than
Cats, but we cannot effectively argue that either of
Beethoven or
Puccini is necessarily more profound than the other.
Quote from: karlhenning on May 15, 2007, 05:50:57 AM
There's nothing elitist about it. It's the truth.
Artistic truth is generally nothing so flat-lined. Remind me again exactly what "musical profundity" means? And remind me again exactly why that is weightier in the evaluation of music than other factors?
Aesthetics! Emotional sensitivity! Worship Debussy's P&M!! ;D ;)
It all comes back to wubba-wubba! ;D
Ah, how I miss the old forum... At least there the things were settled once and for all by "G-d" himself: Mendelssohn was the greatest composer ever, period.
Here reigns the anarchy.
Saul, brother, where art thou? :D
Quote from: 71 dB on May 15, 2007, 06:05:26 AM
You can't see it yourself but you have brainwashed yourself to think that way.
Precisely what i sensed Michel was getting at. Sorry for being crass, but you have to be out of your mind to truly believe that filth. Conspiracy theorists are so much fun. ::)
Quote from: 71 dB on May 15, 2007, 06:05:26 AM
You have teached yourself that Beethoven defines what is profound without realising there could be any other great composer instead of Beethoven.
Except i'm well aware there are other great composers besides Beethoven, i'm just confident enough about my feelings and what my hears can discern to be able to determine which i consider to be the greater artist. Why do you think that would prevent me from enjoying the music of other composers is beyond me.
Quote from: Florestan on May 15, 2007, 06:18:08 AM
Ah, how I miss the old forum... At least there the things were settled once and for all by "G-d" himself: Mendelssohn was the greatest composer ever, period.
Many composers will be declared the greatest one after another before the final truth: Elgar is the greatest.
Quote from: 71 dB on May 15, 2007, 06:23:22 AM
Many composers will be declared the greatest one after another before the final truth: Elgar is the greatest.
Do you have the Gramophone magazine with Elgar on the cover, 71dB?
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on May 15, 2007, 06:21:56 AM
Except i'm well aware there are other great composers besides Beethoven, i'm just confident enough about my feelings and what my hears can discern to be able to determine which i consider to be the greater artist.
Well, and since you sensibly make it a matter of your own considerations, there is no argument. For if you hear more profundity in
Beethoven than in
Puccini, how can I tell you, "No, you don't"?
Myself, I hear two different manners of rich music, and I really couldn't call one more profound than the other.
Quote from: 71 dB on May 15, 2007, 06:23:22 AM
Many composers will be declared the greatest one after another before the final truth: Elgar is the greatest.
Thanks for the smile,
71 dB! :D
Quote from: karlhenning on May 15, 2007, 06:13:26 AM
Thank you for agreeing that, since we cannot quantify what musical profundity is
We cannot qualify it with
words, but my gut instinct sure feels very strong about it. ;D
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on May 15, 2007, 06:27:59 AM
We cannot qualify it with words, but my gut instinct sure feels very strong about it. ;D
Good guts.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on May 15, 2007, 06:27:59 AM
We cannot qualify it with words, but my gut instinct sure feels very strong about it. ;D
Use the Force, Josquin ;D
To answer the original question, what does Beethoven's 9th mean to me:
It's the only symphony ever written which occupies that universe known as Late Beethoven, and that alone is enough to insure it a unique place in the symphonic repertory. Yes, I've heard it thousands of times, but it's still a profound spiritual experience somehow, especially the adagio, and the vocal quartet at meas. 832 in the last movement.
Quote from: karlhenning on May 15, 2007, 06:30:17 AM
That response was unexpected 0:)
:)
Well, it's a well known fact Beethoven had really bad guts. Maybe it's just envy... :P
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on May 15, 2007, 06:21:56 AM
Precisely what i sensed Michel was getting at. Sorry for being crass, but you have to be out of your mind to truly believe that filth. Conspiracy theorists are so much fun. ::)
There is no conspiracy. Free thinkers only try to correct twisted writing of history. Beethoven has nothing to worry about, he will always be one of the greatest.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on May 15, 2007, 06:21:56 AMExcept i'm well aware there are other great composers besides Beethoven, i'm just confident enough about my feelings and what my hears can discern to be able to determine which i consider to be the greater artist. Why do you think that would prevent me from enjoying the music of other composers is beyond me.
It's good you enjoy Beethoven (just like I enjoy many of his works) and other composers but don't let that blind you from seeing how history has raisen some composer to a divine pedestal not fully explained by their music. This happens everyday. It's human nature. If someone is 1 % better than someone else he/she is a god and others are losers. This does not make any sense but we are so used to it we don't even see it.
Quote from: dtwilbanks on May 15, 2007, 06:24:17 AM
Do you have the Gramophone magazine with Elgar on the cover, 71dB?
No, unfortunately.
Quote from: karlhenning on May 15, 2007, 06:27:12 AM
Thanks for the smile, 71 dB! :D
You're welcome
karl!
Quote from: 71 dB on May 15, 2007, 06:05:26 AM
You can't see it yourself but you have brainwashed yourself to think that way. You have teached yourself that Beethoven defines what is profound without realising there could be any other great composer instead of Beethoven. Beethoven is one of the greatest but he IS also overrated.
Then I will continue overrating him, for the simple and frank reason that after some 45 years of hearing, playing, and studying his greatest works I remain continually flabbergasted by the degree of musical genius shown therein. None of which means I don't recognize flaws and awkwardnesses in some of Beethoven, or that I don't value many other composers very highly as well. But as far as I'm concerned, an unwillingness to recognize Beethoven as being very close to the summit of Western music tells me more about the person making that statement about Beethoven himself. As you can learn if you read Scott Burnham's seminal study "Beethoven Hero," Beethoven's importance goes beyond his musical works in themselves; to a large degree Beethoven has come to stand for Western concepts of what music actually is.
Quote from: 71 dB on May 15, 2007, 06:36:55 AM
Free thinkers only try to correct twisted writing of history.
I think they call that revisionism. It must be nice to rewrite history based on your own biases to substitute perceived biases.
Quote from: 71 dB on May 15, 2007, 06:36:55 AM
It's good you enjoy Beethoven (just like I enjoy many of his works) and other composers but don't let that blind you from seeing how history has raisen some composer to a divine pedestal not fully explained by their music.
It's good see you talk as if that's an absolute certainty. Maybe the reason those composers have been raised to a divine pedestal is self evident, and you just can't see it. Ever thought of that?
Quote from: 71 dB on May 15, 2007, 06:36:55 AM
This happens everyday. It's human nature. If someone is 1 % better than someone else he/she is a god and others are losers. This does not make any sense but we are so used to it we don't even see it.
Makes perfect sense to me. If somebody is better then the rest (whether objectively or subjectively), why should i bother with the others? The whole point of listening to music is to enjoy it. If some artist wrote music which i enjoy more then the rest, it's only natural i'm going to focus on that artist above everybody else.
When did I say profundity is not something good? I am just questioning whether it is "the best", in sync with my logic throughout this thread.
I have nothing else to add to Karl's points, which I believe yet to be refuted.
Quote from: 71 dB on May 15, 2007, 06:36:55 AM
Free thinkers only try to correct twisted writing of history.
I have now to thank you not for a smile only, but for a hearty laugh! :)
Quote from: Larry Rinkel on May 15, 2007, 06:46:55 AM
Then I will continue overrating him, for the simple and frank reason that after some 45 years of hearing, playing, and studying his greatest works I remain continually flabbergasted by the degree of musical genius shown therein. None of which means I don't recognize flaws and awkwardnesses in some of Beethoven, or that I don't value many other composers very highly as well. But as far as I'm concerned, an unwillingness to recognize Beethoven as being very close to the summit of Western music tells me more about the person making that statement about Beethoven himself. As you can learn if you read Scott Burnham's seminal study "Beethoven Hero," Beethoven's importance goes beyond his musical works in themselves; to a large degree Beethoven has come to stand for Western concepts of what music actually is.
Excellent post,
Larry.
Quote from: 71 dB on May 15, 2007, 06:39:52 AM
No, unfortunately.
It's quite recent. I'd mail it to you, but you're, like, in Finland, dude. ;D
Quote from: Michel on May 15, 2007, 06:55:25 AM
When did I say profundity is not something good? I am just questioning whether it is "the best", in sync with my logic throughout this thread.
I have nothing else to add to Karl's points, which I believe yet to be refuted.
That's it then. Karl wins the championship series and gets to pick the musical program for the grand feast tonight. Anyone looking forward to Wuorinen?
Quote from: Don on May 15, 2007, 07:31:16 AM
That's it then. Karl wins the championship series and gets to pick the musical program for the grand feast tonight. Anyone looking forward to Wuorinen?
:'(
;)
Quote from: Michel on May 15, 2007, 06:55:25 AM
I have nothing else to add to Karl's points, which I believe yet to be refuted.
They have yet to proved, as well...
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on May 15, 2007, 07:35:18 AM
They have yet to proved, as well...
Oh,
now you're just being contentious! :D
Quote from: 71 dB on May 15, 2007, 06:23:22 AM
Many composers will be declared the greatest one after another before the final truth: Elgar is the greatest.
He did compose the greatest Enigma Variations I've ever heard.
I guess no-one ever tried to challenge or doubt Beethoven's greatness. As I've said in the past, anyway, it would be very interesting to check who, amongst the apparaisers, knew his greatness directly to the source, or by experience (maybe Larry), and who just read a lot of books. Reading books has no correlation with alleged musical intelligence, in my opinion, because it's easy to be smart with someone else's brain.
In this world, if you show yourself a bit tired because of the sometime redundant and rethorical amount of legend built on that man, you're authomatically labeled as a "revisionist", "anarchist", "false free thinker" "there's a conspiracy going on" "modern relativism" and so on; maybe you've just acknowledged his greatness, but don't feel the need to repeat it recursively till the end of time. No? Maybe you're just looking somewhere else. Maybe you don't believe in heroes or "cases" and just go for the music.
Quote from: Scriptavolant on May 15, 2007, 07:48:57 AM
I guess no-one ever tried to challenge or doubt Beethoven's greatness. As I've said in the past, anyway, it would be very interesting to check who, amongst the apparaisers, knew his greatness directly to the source, or by experience (maybe Larry), and who just read a lot of books. Reading books has no correlation with alleged musical intelligence, in my opinion, because it's easy to be smart with someone else's brain.
In this world, if you show yourself a bit tired because of the sometime redundant and rethorical amount of legend built on that man, you're authomatically labeled as a "revisionist", "anarchist", "false free thinker" "there's a conspiracy going on" "modern relativism" and so on; maybe you've just acknowledged his greatness, but don't feel the need to repeat it recursively till the end of time. No? Maybe you're just looking somewhere else. Maybe you don't believe in heroes or "cases" and just go for the music.
I'm not sure I understand everything you're saying, but the phrase "Maybe you don't believe in heroes" may get to the core of the problem. Much of Beethoven's mythic status depends on his position as a "hero": the solitary deaf genius overcoming all kinds of physical, psychological, and social barriers to emerge triumphant and transcendent. But I think there's a lot more to Beethoven than that; there's more to his music than the tragedy-to-triumph arc we hear in the 5th and 9th symphonies, and one could toy with the idea of writing a book called "Beethoven Anti-Hero." Since words like profundity and greatness are getting tossed around a lot here, I find someone like Puccini falls short in those areas because I feel he's so endlessly manipulative of my reactions as a member of the audience; Puccini's goal seems so often to elicit a good cry, and his chosen subjects frequently emphasize sadism and self-pity. I find the emotion in Beethoven, for whatever reason, comes across as more authentic. I also love Puccini's work immensely.
Quote from: Scriptavolant on May 15, 2007, 07:48:57 AM
I guess no-one ever tried to challenge or doubt Beethoven's greatness. As I've said in the past, anyway, it would be very interesting to check who, amongst the apparaisers, knew his greatness directly to the source, or by experience (maybe Larry), and who just read a lot of books. Reading books has no correlation with alleged musical intelligence, in my opinion, because it's easy to be smart with someone else's brain.
In this world, if you show yourself a bit tired because of the sometime redundant and rethorical amount of legend built on that man, you're authomatically labeled as a "revisionist", "anarchist", "false free thinker" "there's a conspiracy going on" "modern relativism" and so on; maybe you've just acknowledged his greatness, but don't feel the need to repeat it recursively till the end of time. No? Maybe you're just looking somewhere else. Maybe you don't believe in heroes or "cases" and just go for the music.
Or maybe if those so called 'free thinkers' weren't so vehemently obsessed with shoving their anarchism down our throats or referring to anybody who doesn't accept their bias as 'brainwashed', we wouldn't be having this argument right now.
Modern relativism sounds about right to me. I see no indication of the contrary.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on May 15, 2007, 06:54:12 AM
I think they call that revisionism. It must be nice to rewrite history based on your own biases to substitute perceived biases.
I am not rewriting anything. I try to open the eyes of people so the rewiting could be done collectively.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on May 15, 2007, 06:54:12 AMIt's good see you talk as if that's an absolute certainty. Maybe the reason those composers have been raised to a divine pedestal is self evident, and you just can't see it. Ever thought of that?
Typical words from a narrow-minded person. "
We have believed in this for centuries so why should we believe something else?".Quote from: Josquin des Prez on May 15, 2007, 06:54:12 AMMakes perfect sense to me. If somebody is better then the rest (whether objectively or subjectively), why should i bother with the others? The whole point of listening to music is to enjoy it. If some artist wrote music which i enjoy more then the rest, it's only natural i'm going to focus on that artist above everybody else.
It's okay if you enjoy Beethoven more than others but "not bothering" the others is plain ignorance.
Quote from: 71 dB on May 15, 2007, 10:06:39 AM
I am not rewriting anything. I try to open the eyes of people so the rewiting could be done collectively.
You would make a great socialist. Ever thought of getting into politics?. I hear that kind of stuff is all the rage this days.
Quote from: 71 dB on May 15, 2007, 10:06:39 AM
"We have believed in this for centuries so why should we believe something else?".
We believed in this for centuries for a reason, and that reason is self evident. According to you, one is narrow-minded unless he rejects the past completely. Tell me how that isn't revisionist.
Quote from: 71 dB on May 15, 2007, 10:06:39 AM
It's okay if you enjoy Beethoven more than others but "not bothering" the others is plain ignorance.
It depends. I like Brahms less then i do Beethoven, but i still love his music very much. On the other end, you'll understand if i never bother listening to a Boccherini symphony ever again...
Quote from: Michel on May 15, 2007, 01:39:53 AM
You are not reading what I am writing. I never said popularity in general equates to being over-rated; I categorically explained that earlier. I am saying the nature of Beethoven's popularity is what makes him overated for, and here I repeat myself, it isn't a simple matter of liking his "tunes", as is the case of Puccini's popularity, but it is a popularity fuelled by the premise that there is something inherently special and profound to his music, and that is something that pretends to be objective in its hierarchising of what constitutes both good music and what is a good composer.
Its not simple popularity; it is an elitist and bent view that Beethoven is more profound than, lets say, Haydn, which makes his works, particularly the 9th, better. And that is why he is over-rated.
And the simple fact is that Puccini fan's don't go about weilding a baseball bat claiming he had something special to say like Beethovians and Wagnerians do is why we have this problem; silly hierarchising of great compoers and great music which is entirely fruitless.
As Nigel once said, when discussing who was better, Mozart or Beethoven..."At that level, who cares?" ;D
You are the first person I have ever seen use the word "hierarchising." Much easier and more understandable to say "ranking." Then the sentence begins to make sense.
I'm not ranking Beethoven above every other composer. I am stating that Beethoven must be ranked as
one of the greatest composers who ever lived, and to dispute that is to under-rate him. To agree is not to over-rate him, but to recognize his place in the history of music. The fact that zillions of people all over the world when asked who is the greatest composer who ever lived answer Beethoven is not proof that they are merely reflecting the "corporate line" of elitists with a "bent view" of musical composers (who ever these unnamed elitists might be). It merely reflects the fact that more people like Beethoven than, say, Haydn; and more people feel emotionally connected to his music than another composer's works. The fact that Beethoven appeals on this level to multitudes of people who know next to nothing about music and wouldn't know one of your elitists from a hobo does not negate the greatness of the music. Stating that Beethoven's popularity is a result of an elitist conspiracy to brainwash humanity into believing that Beethoven is more profound than Haydn or Vivaldi or Bach or even Elgar is probably the craziest theory I've heard since the
Da Vinci Code.
Quote from: Bunny on May 15, 2007, 10:54:47 AMStating that Beethoven's popularity is a result of an elitist conspiracy to brainwash humanity into believing that Beethoven is more profound than Haydn or Vivaldi or Bach or even Elgar is probably the craziest theory I've heard since the Da Vinci Code.
It's not a conspiracy trying to brainwash people. It's what happen's in history. The importance of some composers (Beethoven, Mozart, Haydn, etc.) is emphasized while other composers are almost forgotten (Dittersdorf, Vanhal, Hofmann, etc.) It's about cumulative errors in musical literature. Perhaps Beethoven ja Mozart are colorful enough to become mystified? Perhaps Dittersdorf is hard to sell? Considering how respected Dittersdorf were in his time it's odd how forgotten and ignored he is these days. Am I the only one asking these questions?
Beethoven is played everywhere. The first symphonies people hear in their life is Beethoven, not Dittersdorf. No wonder people learn to think Beethoven's style is the right one. That is bullshit.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on May 15, 2007, 08:57:38 AM
Or maybe if those so called 'free thinkers' weren't so vehemently obsessed with shoving their anarchism down our throats or referring to anybody who doesn't accept their bias as 'brainwashed', we wouldn't be having this argument right now.
Modern relativism sounds about right to me. I see no indication of the contrary.
What the hell does "modern relatvism" mean -- you are just using a phrase to sling mud.
There is nothing relativistic about what I am saying; I am merely making the point that I think Beethoven is over-rated, that is not implying nothing is better than anything else, that is relativistic. It is also interesting you use the word "modern"; that god awful thing we all wish the end of, and return back to "traditional" sensible opinions....what a load of tosh.
Quote from: 71 dB on May 15, 2007, 11:27:22 AM
Beethoven is played everywhere. The first symphonies people hear in their life is Beethoven, not Dittersdorf. No wonder people learn to think Beethoven's style is the right one. That is bullshit.
Fair enough. Name one single symphony by Dittersdorf (110 to chose from) that is as great as Beethoven's 9th.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on May 15, 2007, 11:30:38 AM
Fair enough. Name one single symphony by Dittersdorf (110 to chose from) that is as great as Beethoven's 9th.
Dittersdorf is lesser composer to Beethoven but
not much. Perhaps Beethoven's best symphonies are better than Dittersdorf's best but on the other hand I find many Dittersdorf symphonies (Ovid) superior to Beethoven first 2.
Symphonies better than Beethoven's 9th were composed in the late romantic era.
Quote from: Bunny on May 15, 2007, 10:54:47 AM
You are the first person I have ever seen use the word "hierarchising." Much easier and more understandable to say "ranking." Then the sentence begins to make sense.
I'm not ranking Beethoven above every other composer. I am stating that Beethoven must be ranked as one of the greatest composers who ever lived, and to dispute that is to under-rate him. To agree is not to over-rate him, but to recognize his place in the history of music. The fact that zillions of people all over the world when asked who is the greatest composer who ever lived answer Beethoven is not proof that they are merely reflecting the "corporate line" of elitists with a "bent view" of musical composers (who ever these unnamed elitists might be). It merely reflects the fact that more people like Beethoven than, say, Haydn; and more people feel emotionally connected to his music than another composer's works. The fact that Beethoven appeals on this level to multitudes of people who know next to nothing about music and wouldn't know one of your elitists from a hobo does not negate the greatness of the music. Stating that Beethoven's popularity is a result of an elitist conspiracy to brainwash humanity into believing that Beethoven is more profound than Haydn or Vivaldi or Bach or even Elgar is probably the craziest theory I've heard since the Da Vinci Code.
I am not sure I have said in any of my points that Beethoven is not a great composer, and I haven't even said that he isn't one of the greatest. What I was actually originally saying, if you pay attention, is a comment not about him, but his 9th. And yes, I agree, Beethoven is one of the greatest - but who else is? Since it isn't obvious if we were to use new recording output as the yardstick. The very fact we can argue about everyone else being "truly great", but not Beethoven is absurd.
And if you want to be democratic and start asking people questions to judge artisitic merit, which you consider a strength of Beethoven, I refer back to my previous analogy; that is, given that the Eagles have the highest selling album of all time, then they should surely be considered the greatest pop act, or more contentious, the greatest act ever, across all genres. But I think we can both admit that is patently absurd.
Now, I certainly haven't suggested there is any intentional conspiracy theory to promote Beethoven, but I am saying we are misguided in our current view, however, through whatever historical circumstance caused it, in giving him the position he does within classical music. And I don't know why yet again, you also are slinging mud, by calling this view elitist, since I haven't really expressed my opinion on what the greatest could be considered as if I think Beethoven is not it; after all, my answer could be (though it isn't) Tchaikovsky.
Quote from: 71 dB on May 15, 2007, 11:27:22 AM
Beethoven is played everywhere.
Love is in the air . . . .Quote from: 71 dBThe first symphonies people hear in their life is Beethoven, not Dittersdorf. No wonder people learn to think Beethoven's style is the right one. That is bullshit.
Actually, I think I heard
Mozart and
Dvorak symphonies before I'd heard any
Beethoven. For sure, though, I heard
Beethoven years before I'd heard any
Elgar symphony! ;D
Do you really suppose that if people were simply exposed to
Dittersdorf's music first, they would think
Dittersdorf better than
Beethoven?
To quote a Finn of my virtual acquaintance,
that is bullshit ::)
O FREUNDE !!!!!!!!!! ;D
A musically powerful piece that was a first step to discovering classical music... I don't necessary listen to it that often anymore, with all the pieces i have discovered since, but i still get shaken by those openings notes (and the rest) as much as the first time i heard them !!
Quote from: Bunny on May 15, 2007, 10:54:47 AM
Stating that Beethoven's popularity is a result of an elitist conspiracy to brainwash humanity into believing that Beethoven is more profound than Haydn or Vivaldi or Bach or even Elgar is probably the craziest theory I've heard since the Da Vinci Code.
Beethoven is (you say) the most popular composer for a serie of reasons, one of them the hegemony of Romantic poetics and principles in both elitist and - by osmosis - popular culture.
To say that a certain kind of cultivated/accademical criticism (most philosophical, I'm not talking about musical analysis) is responsible of imposing canons which in many cases are assimilated without previous reasoning by people is absolutely plausible. In this way I agree with the statement that Beethoven is over-rated; I mean: inflated.
All these considerations have nothing to do with music, the same way myths have nothing to do with it.
From a pure musical point of view, Beethoven represents a pinnacle (I'm waiting to verify this statement by acquiring the tools), but once again I see no reason in turning this objective observation into normative value to export or remind over and over again, since I believe art and music are - far beyond objective analysis - complete individual and personal experiences.
Quote from: Scriptavolant on May 15, 2007, 12:26:32 PM
From a pure musical point of view, Beethoven represents a pinnacle
I'll buy that. I just don't see him as
the pinnacle, nor as necessarily
the highest pinnacle.
Quote from: karlhenning on May 15, 2007, 12:30:15 PM
I'll buy that. I just don't see him as the pinnacle, nor as necessarily the highest pinnacle.
I'm ok with that. My opposition is geared towards the idea he represents
no pinnacle.
And Karl, I buy this one:
Quote from: karlhenning on May 14, 2007, 11:42:39 AM
Every musical genius, is a unique genius.
Beethoven is not unique in that ;)
Quote from: karlhenning on May 15, 2007, 11:43:03 AM
Do you really suppose that if people were simply exposed to Dittersdorf's music first, they would think Dittersdorf better than Beethoven?
If people were exposed to
Dittersdorf more they would keep him in much higher esteem, near
Beethoven.
It's possible the history went so that
Dittersdorf was the praised composer here and my "free thinker obligation" was to tell how good the String Quartets of this forgotten
Beethoven are. ;)
^ Impossible. Sorry, but you are wrong. Utterly so. Beethoven made history, not the other way around...
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on May 15, 2007, 12:54:02 PM
^ Impossible. Sorry, but you are wrong. Utterly so...
Impossible only in your mind would Yoda say...
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on May 15, 2007, 12:43:35 PM
I'm ok with that. My opposition is geared towards the idea he represents no pinnacle.
When did anyone say that he did not represent a pinnacle, of some kind.
(even it it is a pinnacle of overatedness) :)
Quote from: 71 dB on May 15, 2007, 11:27:22 AM
It's not a conspiracy trying to brainwash people. It's what happen's in history. The importance of some composers (Beethoven, Mozart, Haydn, etc.) is emphasized while other composers are almost forgotten (Dittersdorf, Vanhal, Hofmann, etc.) It's about cumulative errors in musical literature. Perhaps Beethoven ja Mozart are colorful enough to become mystified? Perhaps Dittersdorf is hard to sell? Considering how respected Dittersdorf were in his time it's odd how forgotten and ignored he is these days. Am I the only one asking these questions?
Beethoven is played everywhere. The first symphonies people hear in their life is Beethoven, not Dittersdorf. No wonder people learn to think Beethoven's style is the right one. That is bullshit.
I've heard plenty of Dittersdorf, Vanhal and Hofmann. They are 2nd tier composers at best - they entertain and possess mastery of technique. But their inspiration is limited, at least compared to the likes of Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven. If I had to listen to steady diet of 2nd tier composers, I'd stop listening to classical music totally.
Quote from: Michel on May 15, 2007, 11:35:21 AM
I am not sure I have said in any of my points that Beethoven is not a great composer, and I haven't even said that he isn't one of the greatest. What I was actually originally saying, if you pay attention, is a comment not about him, but his 9th. And yes, I agree, Beethoven is one of the greatest - but who else is? Since it isn't obvious if we were to use new recording output as the yardstick. The very fact we can argue about everyone else being "truly great", but not Beethoven is absurd.
And if you want to be democratic and start asking people questions to judge artisitic merit, which you consider a strength of Beethoven, I refer back to my previous analogy; that is, given that the Eagles have the highest selling album of all time, then they should surely be considered the greatest pop act, or more contentious, the greatest act ever, across all genres. But I think we can both admit that is patently absurd.
Now, I certainly haven't suggested there is any intentional conspiracy theory to promote Beethoven, but I am saying we are misguided in our current view, however, through whatever historical circumstance caused it, in giving him the position he does within classical music. And I don't know why yet again, you also are slinging mud, by calling this view elitist, since I haven't really expressed my opinion on what the greatest could be considered as if I think Beethoven is not it; after all, my answer could be (though it isn't) Tchaikovsky.
Okay, you admit that Beethoven is one of the greatest composers, but then insist that one of his greatest works is over-rated? The 9th symphony may not be the absolute greatest symphony or musical work ever written but it is, without dispute, among the greatest musical works by Beethoven. (Or perhaps you believe that the 9th Symphony is one of Beethoven's lesser works?) If it is true that the symphony is one of the greatest works by one of the greatest composers, then the symphony is not over-rated, but properly recognized for its true worth, or perhaps even under-rated! The fact that millions recognize its quality, and understand that others so value it also galls you, otherwise you would never have made its popularity a negating factor of its quality. The only way you can support the statement that the symphony is over-rated is by positing that it is not one of the greater works of a composer you have conceded to be one of the greatest, or and here is where I have the most dificulty,
that the majority of those who esteem it are not capable of making this judgment.
I really am having great difficulty with your reasoning. If you are not expressing this view, then please explain more fully exactly how the symphony is over-rated.
Quote from: 71 dB on May 15, 2007, 12:51:16 PM
If people were exposed to Dittersdorf more they would keep him in much higher esteem, near Beethoven.
Don said it. I've heard plenty of Dittersdorf, Pleyel, Cimarosa, Paisiello and other 2nd-raters from the Classical era. They're not even close to Mozart or Beethoven. If you want to discuss this subject in a musically intelligent way, I strongly suggest a reading of Edward Lowinsky's superb essay, "On Mozart's Rhythm," where he analyzes the styles of Dittersdorf and Mozart and demonstrates why Mozart is a far more imaginative, less predictable musical mind. It's not "provable" in the sense of a mathematical theorem but it is demonstrable according to such aesthetic criteria as originality, balance, flexibility, and so forth.
Occasionally you do find a neglected, less-known composer. From that era, I'll defend passionately the Symphony in D by Vorisek, and perhaps less passionately some of the work of JM Kraus. But overall the judgments of history - that is, the cumulative assessments of generations of composers, performers, listeners, and musicologists - are harder to deny than you "free-thinkers" seem to realize.
To answer briefly, and succinctly, I think the following works by Beethoven supercede the 9th symphony:
3rd, 4th and 5th Piano Concertos
String Quartets
Piano Sonatas
I think these are more significant in the history of music than the 9th, most certainly. Beethoven's symphonic output was of course hugely significant for the development of the symphony, but there is probably more advancement and progression from what preceded him in his earlier symphonies, such as the 2nd or 3rd. They were amazing; the 9th was really just the last in a long string of amazing work. And that point, more so than the works I consider superior above, is really why I think it is over-rated; for even if you consider him the greatest symphonist of all time, there is nothing to say that the 9th is his best symphony.
I notice that in this discussion an important ingredient has been completely neglected... I have to explain so, hold on...
The individual listener is biased, but so is the audience as a whole.
We, the contemporary audience, are not neutral receivers of classical music. We do not listen to music unbiased. To say that Beethoven is the most popular today is not to say that Beethoven has been and will always be the most popular. The same goes for any well received composer today.
The reason that I say this is because that we have our own aesthetic taste. I'm not talking about individual taste, I mean as a collective group what we desire in music is different from the audience in the past and the audience of future generations.
We see and remark here on gmg all the time how the aesthetic aims of composers is a moving target, but completely neglect the other side of music. We, the audience, evolve in taste. Bach is popular today, in the beginning of the 20th century he wasn't. Why is that? Why did Hindemith's popularity dwindle? Why did Mahler's grow?
Why is the popularity of Beethoven today a measure of his greatness? He might be forgotten later if the audience's tastes change! :D If it happened to Bach it could happen to anybody. You might say, no Beethoven will always be very popular, and I would say that is not a fact, that is a belief.
I also see from Larry a remark about Beethoven as a symbol of triumph = greatness. Well his story, and what it stands for, is certainly infatuating, but doesn't seem to me to be dependent on his music.
Quote from: Larry Rinkel on May 15, 2007, 01:12:25 PM
Don said it. I've heard plenty of Dittersdorf, Pleyel, Cimarosa, Paisiello and other 2nd-raters from the Classical era. They're not even close to Mozart or Beethoven. If you want to discuss this subject in a musically intelligent way, I strongly suggest a reading of Edward Lowinsky's superb essay, "On Mozart's Rhythm," where he analyzes the styles of Dittersdorf and Mozart and demonstrates why Mozart is a far more imaginative, less predictable musical mind. It's not "provable" in the sense of a mathematical theorem but it is demonstrable according to such aesthetic criteria as originality, balance, flexibility, and so forth.
Occasionally you do find a neglected, less-known composer. From that era, I'll defend passionately the Symphony in D by Vorisek, and perhaps less passionately some of the work of JM Kraus. But overall the judgments of history - that is, the cumulative assessments of generations of composers, performers, listeners, and musicologists - are harder to deny than you "free-thinkers" seem to realize.
Mozart, Haydn and Beethoven are all in my top 10 of greatest composers. Dittersdorf isn't. The problem is almost all people know who Beethoven is even if they don't listen to classical music but Dittersdorf is known only by classical music enthusiast.
This difference is too large. This is why Michel and I are telling Beethoven is overrated.
One thing one can say about Beethoven is that contemporary composers and musicians took notice of his works and, if they could, acquired the manuscripts. However, there was no orchestra in Berlin capable of performing his 9th symphony, so it could only be grasped from the written notes or playing at the piano from the full score. This is how Fanny Hensel learned it and did not hear it performed in concert until 1836 under the direction of her brother Felix. Her impressions are quite interesting:
"This colossal Ninth Symphony, so vast and, in places, so terrifying, was performed as though by one person. The subtlest nuances and most hidden meanings came to light; textures were differentiated and made comprehensible; and then it became on the whole sublimely beautiful. A gigantic tragedy, whose finale is intended to be exalted but capsizes at its climax and slides into the opposite extreme, into burlesque."
Could it represent a foretaste of Mahler?
Quote from: Michel on May 15, 2007, 01:16:54 PM
To answer briefly, and succinctly, I think the following works by Beethoven supercede the 9th symphony:
3rd, 4th and 5th Piano Concertos
String Quartets
Piano Sonatas
I think these are more significant in the history of music than the 9th, most certainly. Beethoven's symphonic output was of course hugely significant for the development of the symphony, but there is probably more advancement and progression from what preceded him in his earlier symphonies, such as the 2nd or 3rd. They were amazing; the 9th was really just the last in a long string of amazing work. And that point, more so than the works I consider superior above, is really why I think it is over-rated; for even if you consider him the greatest symphonist of all time, there is nothing to say that the 9th is his best symphony.
Clearly, by your own words, the 9th symphony is not over-rated. It is a great symphony by a great composer, his last in a "long string of amazing work," which had a great role in the development of the symphony. The fact that other of his works are in your opinion even greater, if less accessible to the ordinary man, than this symphony doesn't mean that the symphony is not also an incredible work of art. It is mere quibbling to say that it's over-rated because it isn't in your personal opinion the greatest of his symphonies. It doesn't have to be the absolute greatest of his symphonies or works to be judged as one of the greatest works of Western Music. At this point you are arguing that the Mona Lisa is not as great as Leonardo's painting of St. John the Baptist. The one does not negate the other. Each individual listener must decide for himself which part of Beethoven's works he connects with most deeply. When there is so much of uniformly high quality, the danger is that certain works will be taken for granted and under-valued, not that any of them are over-rated.
Quote from: 71 dB on May 15, 2007, 02:00:38 PM
Mozart, Haydn and Beethoven are all in my top 10 of greatest composers. Dittersdorf isn't. The problem is almost all people know who Beethoven is even if they don't listen to classical music but Dittersdorf is known only by classical music enthusiast. This difference is too large. This is why Michel and I are telling Beethoven is overrated.
Haydn isn't in my top ten, but likely top 30. Dittersdorf wouldn't make my top 100. By the way, why all the talk about Dittersdorf?
Quote from: 71 dB on May 15, 2007, 02:00:38 PM
Mozart, Haydn and Beethoven are all in my top 10 of greatest composers. Dittersdorf isn't. The problem is almost all people know who Beethoven is even if they don't listen to classical music but Dittersdorf is known only by classical music enthusiast. This difference is too large. This is why Michel and I are telling Beethoven is overrated.
The reason Mozart, Haydn and Beethoven are better known than Dittersdorf is because he's in no one's top 10 list. He is of little interest to even many classical music enthusiasts. This is not a matter of unfairness. It's absolutely fair that greater artists receive more recognition. They receive the greater recognition because they are greater artists. What's so hard to understand about this? If, for instance, someone told me that Hummel was the greatest composer for piano of the 19th century, then I would say that he's over-rated, and Beethoven, Schubert, and Chopin and so many other giants were in comparison under-rated. Popularity or mass appeal cannot guarantee greatness, but it cannot negate it either.
Quote from: 71 dB on May 15, 2007, 12:51:16 PM
If people were exposed to Dittersdorf more they would keep him in much higher esteem, near Beethoven.
No, exposure to an obscure composer by no means guarantees that the vegetable of a listener whom you posit, would therefore hold
Dittersdorf in higher esteem.
And any notion of
Dittersdorf enjoying esteem "near
Beethoven," is the duller sort of science-fiction.
That's what I say, as a freethinker!
Quote from: Ten thumbs on May 15, 2007, 02:03:33 PM
. . . Could it represent a foretaste of Mahler?
Gustav would have thought so 8)
And BTW, 71 dB, if you disagree with my ideas, it's because people like you have always been slow to accept the thoughts of freethinkers like me! Hah!
Quote from: karlhenning on May 15, 2007, 02:36:33 PM
No, exposure to an obscure composer by no means guarantees that the vegetable of a listener whom you posit, would therefore hold Dittersdorf in higher esteem.
And any notion of Dittersdorf enjoying esteem "near Beethoven," is the duller sort of science-fiction.
That's what I say, as a freethinker!
My view is that increased exposure to 2nd rate composers only confirms why they're 2nd rate.
Fortunately for me, and my free-thinking intellectual style, I don't subscribe to any rating system whatsoever. The preponderance of disks by Beethoven, Mozart and Haydn in my collection is a simple result of me really liking their music, not because of any perception of "greatness" on their part. A rating system implies a comparison of one to the other, so greatness is only relative. I prefer my composers sui generis. Each has his/her merits, and I enjoy them on that basis alone. If I want a race, I'll watch The Preakness Saturday... ;)
8)
Quote from: karlhenning on May 15, 2007, 02:36:33 PM
No, exposure to an obscure composer by no means guarantees that the vegetable of a listener whom you posit, would therefore hold Dittersdorf in higher esteem.
And any notion of Dittersdorf enjoying esteem "near Beethoven," is the duller sort of science-fiction.
That's what I say, as a freethinker!
Dittersdorf
did enjoy very high esteem in his lifetime. Why? Perhaps because he was good? It's
our ignorance he is ignored! I don't believe every note Mozart and Beethoven wrote are superior to those of Dittersdorf, Vanhal, Hofmann and others.
If Beethoven was so great why did any composer bother compose any new music? Isn't it kind of useless? Beethoven already wrote unbeatable music!
Quote from: Larry Rinkel on May 15, 2007, 01:12:25 PM
Don said it. I've heard plenty of Dittersdorf, Pleyel, Cimarosa, Paisiello and other 2nd-raters from the Classical era. They're not even close to Mozart or Beethoven. If you want to discuss this subject in a musically intelligent way, I strongly suggest a reading of Edward Lowinsky's superb essay, "On Mozart's Rhythm," where he analyzes the styles of Dittersdorf and Mozart and demonstrates why Mozart is a far more imaginative, less predictable musical mind. It's not "provable" in the sense of a mathematical theorem but it is demonstrable according to such aesthetic criteria as originality, balance, flexibility, and so forth.
Occasionally you do find a neglected, less-known composer. From that era, I'll defend passionately the Symphony in D by Vorisek, and perhaps less passionately some of the work of JM Kraus. But overall the judgments of history - that is, the cumulative assessments of generations of composers, performers, listeners, and musicologists - are harder to deny than you "free-thinkers" seem to realize.
Of all the so-called obscure composers I have heard, Kraus is one I think had he lived another 20 years might be a composer as good as Haydn. His symphonies DO resemble those of early to middle Haydn. But since he died so early this is all speculative.
How does anyone knock Mozart anyway? So his early works probably aren't all masterpieces but the lad was in his teens ! Give him a break already. To suggest that Dittersdorf is even in the same stratosphere as Mozart is lunacy. The beginning of the development section of Mozart's K550 is without a doubt unprecedented in its dissonance and boldness. Now I forced myself to listen to all of the so-called
Metamorphesis symphonies and there is NOTHING there that is even remarkable. Please tell me why these works are any better than the various hackjobs that Dittersdorf's contemporaries wrote ???
Quote from: 71 dB on May 15, 2007, 04:01:26 PM
Dittersdorf did enjoy very high esteem in his lifetime. Why? Perhaps because he was good? It's our ignorance he is ignored! I don't believe every note Mozart and Beethoven wrote are superior to those of Dittersdorf, Vanhal, Hofmann and others.
That is nonsense. I am specifically thinking of an F# written by Mozart than is considerably superior to an F# written by Vanhal.
Quote from: PerfectWagnerite on May 15, 2007, 05:31:16 PM
Now I forced myself to listen to all of the so-called Metamorphesis symphonies and there is NOTHING there that is even remarkable. Please tell me why these works are any better than the various hackjobs that Dittersdorf's contemporaries wrote ???
After having listened to all the Haydn and Mozart symphonies more times than I can count, I never had to force myself to listen to Dittersdorf. He definitely had his own style and I find them quite remarkable. Admittedly the music is not as great as the more famous works of H & M but nevertheless find it equally entertaining. Neither Mozart or Haydn would have objected to their works described as
entertaining especially Haydn.
These 1st tier composers had allot more respect for their 2nd tier cousins and sometimes almost considered them their equals. Haydn seemingly had as much respect for the works of JM Kraus as he did for Mozart himself and what I find really amazing is that Beethoven seems to have regarded Cherubini as a greater composer than Mozart. He certainly considered Cherubini's requiems in that light. Where is Cherubini now!
The point being, preferences are only that and nothing more but I would be more inclined to grant credibility to the opinions of those who ruled at THAT time than anybody writing on internet forums.
Quote from: max on May 15, 2007, 07:07:04 PM
Haydn seemingly had as much respect for the works of JM Kraus as he did for Mozart himself and what I find really amazing is that Beethoven seems to have regarded Cherubini as a greater composer than Mozart.
I read several biographies for each of those composers and i never even heard of those facts. Got any good source?
Beethoven was a great admirer of Cherubini, he once said "If I was to compose a requiem, Cherubini would be my only model". The mass was also performed at Beethoven's funeral.
I don't and it's unlikely I would remember the exact sources since I don't specifically study the subject. But I do read all liner notes and some articles if not too long. The Haydn re. JM Kraus I got from one of these inserts of Kraus symphonies. I don't remember the quote word for word I only recall being amazed at the opinion he expressed of Kraus subsuming he would only praise Mozart in this manner.
As for Beethoven's high regard for Cherubini and Mehul, that's hardly a secret. What surprises me – and here I stand to be corrected – is that he seldom expressed any real appreciation for Mozart. But then the characters of the two were at opposite poles. Can't know for sure obviously, but maybe this nonchalance was more character related than music related.
...also, from what I've read it was Mozart's requiem that was played at Beethoven's funeral but I'm sure he would have preferred Cherubini!
I am quite sure it was Cherubini's requiem that was played. I have read it several times in various articles. I think it was the one with male voices only.
Quote from: AB68 on May 15, 2007, 08:15:50 PM
I am quite sure it was Cherubini's requiem that was played. I have read it several times in various articles. I think it was the one with male voices only.
It's quite possible. One can't always depend on 'witnesses'. Certainly if Beethoven had announced any preference it would not have been Mozart's requiem.
Quote from: Don on May 15, 2007, 02:44:22 PM
My view is that increased exposure to 2nd rate composers only confirms why they're 2nd rate.
Concur!
Quote from: max on May 15, 2007, 07:56:30 PM
I don't and it's unlikely I would remember the exact sources since I don't specifically study the subject. But I do read all liner notes and some articles if not too long. The Haydn re. JM Kraus I got from one of these inserts of Kraus symphonies. I don't remember the quote word for word I only recall being amazed at the opinion he expressed of Kraus subsuming he would only praise Mozart in this manner.
As for Beethoven's high regard for Cherubini and Mehul, that's hardly a secret. What surprises me – and here I stand to be corrected – is that he seldom expressed any real appreciation for Mozart. But then the characters of the two were at opposite poles. Can't know for sure obviously, but maybe this nonchalance was more character related than music related.
...also, from what I've read it was Mozart's requiem that was played at Beethoven's funeral but I'm sure he would have preferred Cherubini!
Actually that doesn't surprise me at all. When ever Baryshnikov was asked to name the dancer he most admired, he cited Fred Astaire, someone with whom he could not directly compete. This is frequently the case with the most competitive creative personalities. They profess to esteem most those whom they cannot themselves be directly compared with. Mozart would have been a ghostly presence, the 900 lb. gorilla in the salon, for Beethoven whose childhood was spent touring as the "new Mozart." And how should he have compared himself to Mozart? Should he have said that he aspired to be as great? His contemporaries rightly would have recognized that as false modesty. He could not then say that he is as great or greater than Mozart because then he would be guilty of bragging and self-aggrandizement. Hence, Beethoven said very little about the dead composer. It is more telling that when he published his first pieces in Vienna, he refused to put down that he was the "pupil of Haydn" because he felt his music owed very little to Haydn. By bringing Cherubini, Mehul and Clementi to the attention of his admirers as composers whom he admired, he demonstrated at once humility (if Beethoven could ever have been described as humble) and generousity to contemporaries (or near contemporaries) less celebrated than himself, while never looking like a lesser light in the process; a winning solution for him.
Bunny ~
This makes perfect sense. It was also Mozart that gave Vienna a bad conscience that Beethoven capitalized on.
Quote from: 71 dB on May 15, 2007, 04:01:26 PM
If Beethoven was so great why did any composer bother compose any new music? Isn't it kind of useless? Beethoven already wrote unbeatable music!
And yet another strawman from Finland!
I don't know where these "facts" are coming from that Beethoven seldom expressed appreciation for Mozart. Of the Mozart C minor piano concerto, for example, "there is the unsubstantiated report that Beethoven told his pupil Ries that he (Beethoven) would never be able to think of a melody as great as a certain one in the third movement" (from Wikipedia). But more than that, one of the Op. 18 quartets - no 3, IIRC, is modelled on one of Mozart's. The main theme of the slow movement of the Pathetique Sonata clearly recalls a passage from Mozart's C minor piano sonata. The canon in Act One of Fidelio is modelled on the one in the second finale of Cosi fan Tutte, though it is known Beethoven found the libretto to that opera frivolous and preferred The Magic Flute. And these are just a few examples off the top of my head. But even if we were to pore over all the known documentation concerning Beethoven's attitudes towards Mozart, there are undoubtedly sentiments he expressed that have not survived. What does seem true is that there was no personal tension between Beethoven and Mozart as there was between Beethoven and Haydn.
Quote from: max on May 15, 2007, 07:07:04 PM
The point being, preferences are only that and nothing more but I would be more inclined to grant credibility to the opinions of those who ruled at THAT time than anybody writing on internet forums.
That would depend considerably on who is writing on such forums, n'est-ce pas?
Quote from: Larry Rinkel on May 15, 2007, 05:54:42 PM
That is nonsense. I am specifically thinking of an F# written by Mozart than is considerably superior to an F# written by Vanhal.
I can't believe this idiotism! How difficult is it understand that Dittersdorf, Vanhal, Hofmann and others were respected composers in their lifetime and unjustinly forgotten? Do you think the 18th century Vienese music life sucked so badly only Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven were able to compose good music? Dittersdorf was Haydn's most important competitor! He was elevated to noble rank!
Quote from: 71 dB on May 16, 2007, 05:14:02 AM
Dittersdorf was Haydn's most important competitor! He was elevated to noble rank!
And Beethoven wasn't! Next thing I know, you'll be telling me Elgar was made a knight!
I retire from this fray, bloodied and defeated!
This thread is turning nutty. Although maybe some will argue that I started it... ;D
Quote from: max on May 15, 2007, 07:56:30 PM
As for Beethoven's high regard for Cherubini and Mehul, that's hardly a secret.
I know that, but you specifically said he regarded Cherubini higher then Mozart. That's a bit different..
Quote from: max on May 15, 2007, 07:56:30 PM
and here I stand to be corrected – is that he seldom expressed any real appreciation for Mozart
Yet, Mozart's music exerted a colossal influence on Beethoven's work. Care to explain that one?
Quote from: max on May 15, 2007, 07:56:30 PM
I don't and it's unlikely I would remember the exact sources since I don't specifically study the subject. But I do read all liner notes and some articles if not too long. The Haydn re. JM Kraus I got from one of these inserts of Kraus symphonies. I don't remember the quote word for word I only recall being amazed at the opinion he expressed of Kraus subsuming he would only praise Mozart in this manner.
"The symphony he wrote here in Vienna especially for me will be regarded as a masterpiece for centuries to come; believe me, there are few people who can compose something like that"
This is what Haydn said regarding Kraus's symphony in c minor. How did you jump from this, to claiming he considered him to be the equal of Mozart?
Quote from: 71 dB on May 16, 2007, 05:14:02 AM
I can't believe this idiotism! How difficult is it understand that Dittersdorf, Vanhal, Hofmann and others were respected composers in their lifetime and unjustinly forgotten?
I can't believe this idiocy! How difficult is it to understand that no one contests that Dittersdorf, Vanhal, Hofmann, to say nothing of a hundred artistic mediocrities, were respected in their lifetime, but that the question of the justice of their obscurity is open to vigorous debate and opinion?
Quote from: 71 dB on May 16, 2007, 05:14:02 AM
I can't believe this idiotism! How difficult is it understand that Dittersdorf, Vanhal, Hofmann and others were respected composers in their lifetime and unjustinly forgotten?
They're not forgotten now, as you keep bringing their names up on this thread.
Quote from: 71 dB on May 16, 2007, 05:14:02 AM
Dittersdorf was Haydn's most important competitor! He was elevated to noble rank!
Quote from: Larry Rinkel on May 16, 2007, 05:35:25 AM
And Beethoven wasn't! Next thing I know, you'll be telling me Elgar was made a knight!
I retire from this fray, bloodied and defeated!
Actually Beethoven was believed to come from aristocratic background because the aristocracy of Vienna thought that the "van" in Beethoven's name was equivalent to the "von" in German names. His less than noble origins weren't revealed until he sued his sister-in-law for custody of his nephew, at which time his family background came to light. Beethoven may have been an egalitarian, but he wasn't above taking advantage of the mistaken perception that he was of more aristocratic birth.
Quote from: 71 dB on May 16, 2007, 05:14:02 AM
I can't believe this idiotism! How difficult is it understand that Dittersdorf, Vanhal, Hofmann and others were respected composers in their lifetime and unjustinly forgotten? Do you think the 18th century Vienese music life sucked so badly only Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven were able to compose good music? Dittersdorf was Haydn's most important competitor! He was elevated to noble rank!
Mediocrity abounds; greatness is rare. The great art of the world always overshadows the less great. If it didn't it wouldn't be great. Get over it.
Quote from: Larry Rinkel on May 15, 2007, 01:12:25 PM
But overall the judgments of history - that is, the cumulative assessments of generations of composers, performers, listeners, and musicologists - are harder to deny than you "free-thinkers" seem to realize.
I think that's right, but history itself could and should be judged from this point of view. Cumulative assessments are not monolithic and definitive systems of values; they tend to vary a lot throughout history, and afterall they're just the expression of a circumscribed and relative (historically) weltanschauung.
I do not agree with 71b, since I sense his arguments are a bit too "behaviourist"; greatness of a composer is not the product of repeated mechanical listening, but there's something true in the suggestion that cultural environment, and all the literature accumulated on a theme, may influence or drive individual judgements.
QuoteThe point being, preferences are only that and nothing more
I think preferences make the musical world go round; people do not like music because a lot of books say that music is elevated, good, or the best; rational and irrational judgements are always merged in individual taste, and you cannot always quantify them.
Quote from: Don on May 16, 2007, 06:07:10 AM
They're not forgotten now, as you keep bringing their names up on this thread.
Yes, these fine composers are found again. Recorded and played more. That's good!
Quote from: Scriptavolant on May 16, 2007, 06:13:32 AMbut there's something true in the suggestion that cultural environment, and all the literature accumulated on a theme, may influence or drive individual judgements.
That's EXACTLY what I am trying to say! Thank you
Scriptavolant for putting it right as my English is clumsy.
Quote from: 71 dB on May 16, 2007, 06:16:35 AM
Yes, these fine composers are found again. Recorded and played more. That's good!
Yes, it is good. There's much enjoyable music that isn't at the top echelon. I'm currently revewing for MusicWeb a 2-SACD Capriccio set titled "Symphonies of the Mozart Era" containing works of Vanhal, Dittersdorf, J.C. Bach, Gossec, Reicha, Kraus and Mahaut. Not one of the programmed works is a masterpiece, but each is highly rewarding with a fine blend of exuberance and grace.
Quote from: Don on May 16, 2007, 06:07:10 AM
They're not forgotten now, as you keep bringing their names up on this thread.
Unjustly, too.
The Beethoven 9th means really long threads. 0:)
Quote from: dtwilbanks on May 16, 2007, 06:25:36 AM
The Beethoven 9th means really long threads. 0:)
Post of the Day! :)
Quote from: dtwilbanks on May 16, 2007, 06:25:36 AM
The Beethoven 9th means really long threads. 0:)
It's a long symphony.
Quote from: Larry Rinkel on May 16, 2007, 06:57:16 AM
It's a long symphony.
And the length of this symphony determined the capacity of a CD. 0:)
It means very little to me, as I rarely listen to it. But I do enjoy it, especially in concert.
Beethoven's music means alot to me, but his symphonies is not what I listen to the most.
I love him first and foremost for his piano music.
Quote from: dtwilbanks on May 16, 2007, 08:43:20 AM
And the length of this symphony determined the capacity of a CD. 0:)
You mean, mostly up to the 19th century? 8)
What is the capacity of a a regular audio CD nowadays anyway? I have CDs that are 83 minutes long already.
Quote from: PerfectWagnerite on May 16, 2007, 09:01:43 AM
What is the capacity of a a regular audio CD nowadays anyway? I have CDs that are 83 minutes long already.
I thought it was 80 minutes. 83? That's interesting. Since they made it long enough to contain the 9th, I assume they could make it even longer if they wanted.
Quote from: dtwilbanks on May 16, 2007, 10:52:54 AM
I thought it was 80 minutes. 83? That's interesting. Since they made it long enough to contain the 9th, I assume they could make it even longer if they wanted.
I think they get the extra minutes with a particular setting in the software, so that there are no margins or space between tracks is compressed.
Quote from: dtwilbanks on May 16, 2007, 10:52:54 AM
I thought it was 80 minutes. 83? That's interesting. Since they made it long enough to contain the 9th, I assume they could make it even longer if they wanted.
Yes, they can play around with the burning software and squeeze more on there, as Bunny says. Just try to make yourself a copy for backup though! Not happening.
Yes, the 9th was chosen by SONY as the standard for CD length. Wiener Philharmoniker/Böhm pretty well pushed it to the limit, pretty sure it is 79 minutes and change. :)
8)
PS - Anyone know how many 78's in a box to record a complete 9th, back in the day? Just curious...
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on May 16, 2007, 02:10:41 PM
Yes, they can play around with the burning software and squeeze more on there, as Bunny says. Just try to make yourself a copy for backup though! Not happening.
Yes, the 9th was chosen by SONY as the standard for CD length. Wiener Philharmoniker/Böhm pretty well pushed it to the limit, pretty sure it is 79 minutes and change. :)
8)
PS - Anyone know how many 78's in a box to record a complete 9th, back in the day? Just curious...
If you use EAC or another program like that or NERO, they let you fit it on a single disc. Otherwise, you have to back it up to dvd or use 2 cds so backing up is possible. It's just not convenient. >:(
Quote from: Bunny on May 16, 2007, 04:12:20 PM
If you use EAC or another program like that or NERO, they let you fit it on a single disc. Otherwise, you have to back it up to dvd or use 2 cds so backing up is possible. It's just not convenient. >:(
That's it. I have the 3 disk set of Gardiner "Haydn's Late Masses", and 2 of the 3 disks were over 80 minutes. I nearly always put my originals away and take copies with me, and I ended up breaking them up into 5 disks in order to keep an entire work on a single disk. >:( is right! :)
8)
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on May 16, 2007, 04:26:31 PM
That's it. I have the 3 disk set of Gardiner "Haydn's Late Masses", and 2 of the 3 disks were over 80 minutes. I nearly always put my originals away and take copies with me, and I ended up breaking them up into 5 disks in order to keep an entire work on a single disk. >:( is right! :)
8)
That's a DG trick. They did the same thing with the Reinhard Goebel/Musica Antiqua Köln box set. It really got me P'ed off.
Now that you mentioned it, the few CDs that I have that are over 80 minutes are all by DG. Of the top of my head the Thielemann Bruckner 5th clocks in at over 80 minutes. I guess they feel bad charging you two CDs for such a mediocre performance huh ?
Quote from: PerfectWagnerite on May 17, 2007, 07:12:19 AM
Now that you mentioned it, the few CDs that I have that are over 80 minutes are all by DG. Of the top of my head the Thielemann Bruckner 5th clocks in at over 80 minutes. I guess they feel bad charging you two CDs for such a mediocre performance huh ?
2 of the discs in the Chailly Mahler symphony boxset (Decca) are over 80 mins, and there is a Rattle Strauss disc (EMI), but the Thielemann B5 at 82.34 is the longest I know of.
It would be fascinating to know the exact length of Mendelssohn's rendering.
Quote from: Ten thumbs on May 22, 2007, 12:58:38 PM
It would be fascinating to know the exact length of Mendelssohn's rendering.
I think the dimension of
Mendelssohn's rendering is volume rather than length (http://images.acclaimimages.com/_gallery/_TN/0463-0610-3014-1750_TN.jpg)
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on May 16, 2007, 02:10:41 PM
PS - Anyone know how many 78's in a box to record a complete 9th, back in the day? Just curious...
Don't know about B9, but Mahler's Second came on 11 discs (the Oskar Fried recording). :o
It's the existential musings of a human soul reproduced by human made instruments which are then transmitted through the air by sound waves which resonate in the mind and body of other human souls.
It means to me sitting 23 storeys up in flats in springtime 1991, playing it loud with the windows open (Karajan, 62 on Vinyl) and learning the words to the Ode.
Quote from: 71 dB on May 16, 2007, 05:14:02 AM
I can't believe this idiotism! How difficult is it understand that Dittersdorf, Vanhal, Hofmann and others were respected composers in their lifetime and unjustinly forgotten? Do you think the 18th century Vienese music life sucked so badly only Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven were able to compose good music? Dittersdorf was Haydn's most important competitor! He was elevated to noble rank!
Britney Spears did (maybe still does) also enjoy high esteem in her lifetime. We'll let time decide in 50 years.
In short: Life's too short.
You know what I think is also a masterpiece??
THIS THREAD!!
I just spent the last 1.5 hours reading every post and enjoyed every second of this Classical-music-forum soap opera. Props to the guy who started it!
Let's now start one asking the same question about Mozart's No.41..... ;D
Since when does music mean anything? Sounds pitched at certain intervals. Where's the "meaning"?
My comment is not merely facetious. It's also deeply philosophical.
Quote from: Jupiter on February 10, 2011, 04:18:19 PM
Since when does music mean anything? Sounds pitched at certain intervals. Where's the "meaning"?
My comment is not merely facetious. It's also deeply philosophical.
Well, while in general I would agree with you, I have to make the point that those comments only apply (and have ever applied throughout the history of musical philosophy) to solely instrumental music.
The 'meaning' such as it is, that is attached to the 9th is clearly focused on the final movement, Schiller's
An die Freude. The previous 3 movements, although they are instrumental, are not 'absolute music' in that they are most definitely composed as an aid to the 4th movement. They are more than a prologue, they are an illustration of the point that the composer is trying to make.
The 3rd symphony, and the 5th, both of which have been heavily invested with 'meanings' for the last 200 years are well deserving of your attempt to clear up the trash. As Toscanini told his orchestra while rehearsing the first movement of the Eroica "To some this is about Napoleon; to some it is Alexander the Great; to some it is philosophical struggle. To me it is
Allegro con brio". :)
Further, I would add that if any work (not simply the greatest work of all time) has a
personal meaning to someone, which is not necessarily a 'meaning' of the music, but an association with something extra-musical whenever one hears it, then there is no philosophy involved. It is more simply (for example) "whenever I hear the 9th, I remember back to Sunday's listening with my father while my mother went to church, and it was great". So that has meaning too. The reason that I bring this point up is that when this thread was first started, that is what I thought the thread starter was asking about. POV got switched about some since then, but I will say that this work is exceptional since it is vocal, thus immune from the scourge of extra-musical attachments. :)
8)
----------------
Now playing:
Quatuor Festetics - Hob 03 37 Op 33 #1 Quartet in b 3rd mvmt - Andante
Mmm, a thoughtful reply. Much to ponder.
Sure, when I hear the conclusion to the 9th I imagine something glorious and uplifting. I suppose I was questioning the inherent meaning behind a note or series of notes. Sure, these have associated meaning - a deep bass suggests melancholy, or a series of soaring high notes suggests uplift, for example. We are merely ascribing meaning via association. It's like trying to establish the meaning of a colour! What meaning does red have, beyond the usual cultural markers such as love, danger, fire, etc? None. It is part of the sprectrum.
Anyway, this is too deep for me at the moment. I'm going to go away and listen to Bartoli sing Vivaldi. To hell with meaning! ;D
Quote from: Jupiter on February 10, 2011, 06:48:29 PM
Mmm, a thoughtful reply. Much to ponder.
Sure, when I hear the conclusion to the 9th I imagine something glorious and uplifting. I suppose I was questioning the inherent meaning behind a note or series of notes. Sure, these have associated meaning - a deep bass suggests melancholy, or a series of soaring high notes suggests uplift, for example. We are merely ascribing meaning via association. It's like trying to establish the meaning of a colour! What meaning does red have, beyond the usual cultural markers such as love, danger, fire, etc? None. It is part of the sprectrum.
Anyway, this is too deep for me at the moment. I'm going to go away and listen to Bartoli sing Vivaldi. To hell with meaning! ;D
:)
Well, inherent meaning is a tough nut to crack. For example, if a piece of (pre-1830) music in the key of F major has a prominent lyrical flute part, you or I would say "hey, that symphony in F has a prominent lyrical flute part, very pretty!". But the composer or any of his contemporaries would have automatically known beyond question that this was a pastoral scene, and adjusted their thinking accordingly. "Ah, a shepherd!". So while notes do indeed have no meaning beyond the tone indicated, and duration of it, we (our predecessors, I should say) have given them a meaning that has a universally shared symbolic association. You might be interested in this book:
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41V3IM176RL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA300_SH20_OU01_.jpg) which delves into that issue. I found it quite compelling. :)
8)