All other composers are inferior to Beethoven

[karlhenning]

OTOH, if there were a 'French Beethoven', his name is Berlioz.

[Josquin des Prez]

^ Speaking of which, how strange so many non-Germans (Barlioz, Chopin, Liszt) were able to escape this Germanocentric conspiracy that kept the Teutonic masters on top while brushing everybody else under the carpet. This is why Joachim Raff, one of the most popular German composers of the times was also left forgotten after his death.

[(poco) Sforzando]

Onslow is better regarded in France, where ironically enough he is known as the 'French Beethoven'. I don't regard him as a Beethoven by any means but we do listen to other composers besides the greatest. Beethoven remains the greatest until we know otherwise. My point about his date of birth was that twenty years later he would not have been in a position to lead the changes that were taking place in music, although I have no doubt he would still have made great music. If the Germans had had their way, Mendelssohn would be in much the same plight as Onslow, because he was a Jew. Louise Farrenc is little performed because she was a woman - and you say there is no prejudice? That's cloud-cuckoo land.

Of course we listen to other composers besides the greatest. Beethoven remains the greatest until we know otherwise, but what is the likelihood of that? Mendelssohn's talent was recognized from his youth, and he remained popular in England. The Germans couldn't do much with that. The issue of women composers is a whole other matter. But to imply that Farrenc (some of whose work I do know, and enjoy) would have been better recognized if she had been a man is speculative. Maybe she would have, maybe not. It is not inevitably true that a neglected composer is undeservedly neglected.

[Ten thumbs]

Most neglected composers are deservedly so. When the case is to the contrary it is right to try and remedy that. There are no conspiracies but there was prejudice because prejudice is part of human nature. Also concert promoters had and still have to consider what fills seats and the general public like what they know. The era of readily available recorded music only began recently. I cannot at the moment see an opportunity arising for a composer of Beethoven's stature to arise. The talent almost certainly but not the opportunity to express it.

[(poco) Sforzando]

Most neglected composers are deservedly so. When the case is to the contrary it is right to try and remedy that.

Of course. But in the present climate, where anything and everything seems to be recorded, there is more chance for the neglect of such composers as Farrenc and Onslow to be remedied.

What works of either composer do you most admire? Personally, I think Farrenc's 1st symphony is terrific.

[Ten thumbs]

Of course. But in the present climate, where anything and everything seems to be recorded, there is more chance for the neglect of such composers as Farrenc and Onslow to be remedied.

What works of either composer do you most admire? Personally, I think Farrenc's 1st symphony is terrific.

I certainly enjoy listening to Farrenc's 3 symphonies but I also love her sextet for piano and wind. It is so refreshing. I haven't actually heard any Onslow yet. I am responding to praise for him from this board but don't know what to try. There are 4 symphonies true but no less than 36 quartets. Even if they were all good they'd never fit into the repertoire! I may of course be disappointed.

[Don]

I have a few recordings from Farrenc and more than a few from Onslow.  Both are excellent composers, but I wouldn't put either near the top of the hill.

[bwv 1080]

Beethoven fell short of Mozart in a number of areas, notably his writing for wind instruments, opera and he lacked Mozart's natural ease with counterpoint (Beethoven's various fugues are great, but lack the grace and fluidity of Mozart or Bach).

He surpassed Mozart in other areas, so this is no dig, just a relative appraisal

[Al Moritz]

Beethoven fell short of Mozart in a number of areas, notably his writing for wind instruments,

Hmm. I am particularly taken by Beethoven's colorful woodwind timbres.

and he lacked Mozart's natural ease with counterpoint (Beethoven's various fugues are great, but lack the grace and fluidity of Mozart or Bach).

Perhaps grace and fluidity were not what he was after? The great achievements of some modern composers in counterpoint would also have to be dismissed for "lack of grace and fluidity", and those qualities are distinctly not what these composers were after. Stockhausen's music, for example, has many examples of "recalcitrant" counterpoint or polyphony, but this is not due to inability of the composer, as is evident from the gracefully fluid polyphony of some of his works, like Ave for basset-horn and alto flute (here the polyphony has to be graceful, given the feminine character of the work).

I would assert that at least in the Grosse Fuge Beethoven definitely was after a clashing of voices against each other -- counterpoint in the most literal sense, which leaves little room for grace and fluidity.

Al

[Josquin des Prez]

Beethoven fell short of Mozart in a number of areas, notably his writing for wind instruments, opera and he lacked Mozart's natural ease with counterpoint (Beethoven's various fugues are great, but lack the grace and fluidity of Mozart or Bach).

He surpassed Mozart in other areas, so this is no dig, just a relative appraisal

Beethoven's late contrapuntal style focuses a lot on various additive, dotted and contrasting rhythm figurations which i believe were quite innovative in the realms of polyphony and served as inspiration for a lot of composers, particularly in the early 20th century. This is what makes his fugal writing so seemingly disjointed (where in fact there's nothing particularly odd about it) as well as one of the reasons why he sounds so... modern. That, combined with his obsession in bending every formal structure or rule to the expressive fabric of the music (and that includes fugue) as well as the fact Beethoven late music is actually polyphonic in a stricter sense gives him his "avant-gard" patina. Eternally modern, like Stravinsky said in regards to the Op.133 (though the same principle applies to all of his later works).     

Mozart's counterpoint is really astonishing though. It's always intrinsically woven with his voluptuous melodic writing (which is always one inch from braking into free chromaticism) and the overall texture simply flows with contrapuntal possibilities. Point against point at it's utmost perfection (this is the root of Chopin's appraisal over Mozart's contrapuntal refinement as opposed to Beethoven, with which he was actually in discord). While Beethoven caught a lot of ground late in his life, i don't think he is remotely in the same league as Mozart in his early and middle periods.

[bwv 1080]

Beethoven's late contrapuntal style focuses a lot on various additive, dotted and contrasting rhythm figurations which i believe were quite innovative in the realms of polyphony and served as inspiration for a lot of composers, particularly in the early 20th century. This is what makes his fugal writing so seemingly disjointed (where in fact there's nothing particularly odd about it) as well as one of the reasons why he sounds so... modern. That, combined with his obsession in bending every formal structure or rule to the expressive fabric of the music (and that includes fugue) as well as the fact Beethoven late music is actually polyphonic in a stricter sense gives him his "avant-gard" patina. Eternally modern, like Stravinsky said in regards to the Op.133 (though the same principle applies to all of his later works).     

Mozart's counterpoint is really astonishing though. It's always intrinsically woven with his voluptuous melodic writing (which is always one inch from braking into free chromaticism) and the overall texture simply flows with contrapuntal possibilities. Point against point at it's utmost perfection (this is the root of Chopin's appraisal over Mozart's contrapuntal refinement as opposed to Beethoven, with which he was actually in discord). While Beethoven caught a lot of ground late in his life, i don't think he is remotely in the same league as Mozart in his early and middle periods.

Yes, and my only point was that Mozart had better counterpoint "chops" than Beethoven.  There are no Mozart pieces I like better than the Grosse Fuge or the fugue from the Hammerklavier Sonata

[jochanaan]

...While Beethoven caught a lot of ground late in his life, i don't think he is remotely in the same league as Mozart in his early and middle periods.

But IIRC, Mozart came to counterpoint relatively late too.

[zamyrabyrd]

Ahhh yes and along those lines it was good ol' Ludwig Van himself who said,
"Not Bach (German for "brook") but Ocean should be his name." Nuff said. Case closed.
We can lock this sucker up!   

My football team is the greatest too, but SO WHAT?

I'm sorry but a lot of you posters who say 'Beethoven is the greatest' without supplying a shred of evidence MAY JUST BE influenced by the hype of the some 19th century writers who elevated him and some other composers into near god-like status. (Wagner didn't need anyone else to do that for him. He simply exalted himself.) Before the romanticism of the artist-hero, composers were craftsmen, presumably just as 'great' as their successors: Monteverdi, Vivaldi, Machaut, etc., not to mention Bach and Handel whom the latter was recognized by Beethoven himself as being the greatest of composers.

Some of Beethoven's piano sonatas are simply boring. Without the ready grace and lyricism of a Mozart, the fillers can be awkward and the construction at times showing and vocal writing almost always labored. His one opera "Fidelio", though with some great moments, is a real trial to stage successfully. The Choral Fantasy is one gargoyle of a work, almost as monstrous as Czerny's who most probably was inspired by his mentor's.

Daniel Barenboim recently in his taped masterclasses said that late Beethoven is problematic because of the fragmented quality of much of the writing. I'm not so sure that this is due to what Bernstein in the "Unanswered Question" refers to as 'deletion', the process of whittling away ALL unneccessary additives so what remains is the equivalent of poetry, or simply because all of the possibilities had not been explored as in the Fugue of Op. 110.

Beethoven's 'hits' were unmistakable but not everything came up to the level of his best works. This is not actually true for Bach and Mozart who didn't really have any bad wig days.

ZB

[max]

The Hammerklavier Sonata give me a migraine, except for the ineffable 3rd movement and the Grosse Fuge makes my fillings fall out. If I want weird and visionary I'll take Parsifal. It's the musical analogue of quantum theory.

[Cato]

It has come to my attention that this topic is a direct attack on Istvan Tututulu, whose 19 symphonies (at last count) put Beethoven and the composer himself to shame, and therefore I must ask the moderators to issue a cease and desist order!   

[karlhenning]

I don't care about Lulu's tutu, or how many symphonies are sewn into it!

[Josquin des Prez]

But IIRC, Mozart came to counterpoint relatively late too.

He was in his mid 20s when he achieved supreme contrapuntal mastery. That's relatively early by most standards. The fact he died at an early age doesn't make that his 'late period'.

[(poco) Sforzando]

My football team is the greatest too, but SO WHAT?

I'm sorry but a lot of you posters who say 'Beethoven is the greatest' without supplying a shred of evidence MAY JUST BE influenced by the hype of the some 19th century writers who elevated him and some other composers into near god-like status. (Wagner didn't need anyone else to do that for him. He simply exalted himself.) Before the romanticism of the artist-hero, composers were craftsmen, presumably just as 'great' as their successors: Monteverdi, Vivaldi, Machaut, etc., not to mention Bach and Handel whom the latter was recognized by Beethoven himself as being the greatest of composers.

Some of Beethoven's piano sonatas are simply boring. Without the ready grace and lyricism of a Mozart, the fillers can be awkward and the construction at times showing and vocal writing almost always labored. His one opera "Fidelio", though with some great moments, is a real trial to stage successfully. The Choral Fantasy is one gargoyle of a work, almost as monstrous as Czerny's who most probably was inspired by his mentor's.

Daniel Barenboim recently in his taped masterclasses said that late Beethoven is problematic because of the fragmented quality of much of the writing. I'm not so sure that this is due to what Bernstein in the "Unanswered Question" refers to as 'deletion', the process of whittling away ALL unneccessary additives so what remains is the equivalent of poetry, or simply because all of the possibilities had not been explored as in the Fugue of Op. 110.

Beethoven's 'hits' were unmistakable but not everything came up to the level of his best works. This is not actually true for Bach and Mozart who didn't really have any bad wig days.

ZB

This is a very impassioned speech, but it doesn't really invalidate anything said previously. It's not necessary for all of Beethoven's work to reach the level of the C# minor quartet or the Diabelli Variations for him to be considered among the greatest of composers. It is perfectly valid as well to say that some of the piano sonatas are boring (I'll nominate opp. 7, 14/2, 22, 27/1, and 54 as being in that category). And I'll add numerous other works that are negligible or forgettable (I never understood the popularity of the Violin Concerto, the Choral Fantasy is enjoyable but a thorough mess, and then there are all those folksong arrangements that hardly anybody bothers with).

But in your own words, SO WHAT? The fact that Shakespeare wrote a blood-and-guts clunker like Titus Andronicus does nothing to diminish Henry IV, Hamlet, or Antony and Cleopatra. The fact that Beethoven wrote Wellington's Victory does nothing to diminish the Eroica. If you want "evidence," I could talk for hours about some of the quartets and symphonies to show passages of extraordinary imagination and logical thought, and hype has nothing to do with it. (Especially "19th-century hype." The rise in esteem for Beethoven's late period is predominantly a 20th-century phenomenon, the late music having been largely unplayed and ignored for many years following Beethoven's death.)

[Cato]

I don't care about Lulu's tutu, or how many symphonies are sewn into it!

Karl, do you realize how many Hungarian-Fijians you just insulted!!!   

Given the Gypsy/Mojo Powers involved, I would be very careful crossing streets, crossing your wife, and crossing guards!   0:)

[karlhenning]

Oh, the mojitos are all the rage in Boston these days, even I've had one!