Beethoven's Symphonies: Are they All Masterpieces?

[nakulanb]

I say yes!

[nakulanb]

Oops!  Wrong section.  Mods, please move to the main forum.

[kyjo]

I'm not particularly fond of nos. 2 and 4,
though they may still be "masterpieces". All the others, yes!

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

Oddly enough, the only one I think may not be a masterpiece is the most famous, i.e. No. 9. That's because I've never been convinced by the structure of the Finale - it seems like sort of a grab-bag, with the second half much less inspired than the first.

I suppose No.1 is not super-special either, I can think of several other composers' firsts that I would put above it. But it's still a nice piece.

I'm not particularly fond of nos. 2 and 4,
though they may still be "masterpieces". All the others, yes!

This is funny, because nowadays 2, 4 and 8 are the ones I listen to most often.

[Jo498]

The 9th finale is one of the most underrated movements in Beethoven; it's as logical or grab bag as op.133 and far easier to follow because of the more accessible tune. The structure is comparably loose but not more so than the Eroica finale or op.133

I think the 1st is an intentionally modest piece and while not flawed in obvious ways not really among the best Beethoven wrote at that time. There is a tradition of preferring the 1st to the 2nd (e.g. Furtwängler) that I never understood; except for the 3rd movement the 2nd is far superior, especially in the first two movements and the larghetto is one of the most beautiful slow movements by Beethoven.
4 and 8 are comparably modest in scale in their surroundings but I think they achieve pretty exactly what Beethoven intended with them. (I don't much care for the 6th personally, but it was one of the most influential and highly regarded in the early-mid 19th century.)

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

The 9th finale is one of the most underrated movements in Beethoven; it's as logical or grab bag as op.133 and far easier to follow because of the more accessible tune. The structure is comparably loose but not more so than the Eroica finale or op.133

Maybe, but my interest level drops sharply at "seid umschlungen, Millionen" and stays low until the exciting coda arrives.

I do think the 2nd is somewhat underrated. When it was new, it may have been the longest, most imposing symphony anyone had written up to that point - something we tend to forget, because Beethoven then smashed his own record with the Eroica.

[JBS]

Not a masterpiece
First, Second, Fifth
Are a masterpiece
Third, Fourth, Seventh, Eighth
Not a masterpiece but original enough to be categorized separately
Sixth, Ninth

[relm1]

Generally, the odd symphonies are preferred.  1st, 3rd, 5th, 7th, 9th.  But with that said, the others are gems too.  I think you should think of this as a genius can be mistaken too.  For example, Einstein didn't think Black Holes were possible though they were in his formulas.  He also didn't believe in the Big Bang which is certain.  He was wrong and also absolutely brilliant.  It's possible to be both.  I would say Beethoven falls in that category.  He was both a genius and not always right.

[vers la flamme]

I would say yes.

[Que]

Yes.

[71 dB]

This almost belongs to the "unpopular opinions" thread, but imho the Sixth is the masterpiece.

5, 7, 9 are great (but not masterpieces)
3, 4, 8 are good
1 & 2 are "meh"

[Jo498]

I don't dislike the 6th and I loved it as a teenager (for odd reasons, 3, 6 and 9 were the first I encountered, even before the 5th) but I think it has the closest thing to flaws in the mature symphonies: Schubertian broadness and repetition in movements 1, 2 and 5 and some reliance on the program in movements 2-4. If movements like the finales of the 3rd and 9th have a few rough edges, I find this justified by the extraordinary daring of the conception. I don't find the program/conception of the Pastoral all that daring and extraordinary...

[Brian]

Not a masterpiece
Fifth

Whoa. Discuss?

(I tend to think 2-8 are clear masterpieces, 1 wasn't trying to be but is very good, and 9 probably is but in a weird way that other composers should have been more hesitant about imitating.)

[Spotted Horses]

Whoa. Discuss?

(I tend to think 2-8 are clear masterpieces, 1 wasn't trying to be but is very good, and 9 probably is but in a weird way that other composers should have been more hesitant about imitating.)

+1

In my mind, the ninth would have been a unalloyed masterpiece had Beethoven lived to carry out an idea he had (as I read somewhere) for separating the finale as a free standing piece and writing an instrumental finale (as he did for the B-flat quartet and the Grosse Fuge).

Currently my most listened-to Beethoven Symphony is the 8th. The 2nd and 4th didn't make a big impression on me in traditional performances, but HIP or PI performances of the 2nd and 4th opened them up for me (Immersaal, Harnoncourt).

[Jo498]

The 9th finale would not have been a free-standing piece. To my knowledge there was far earlier the idea to write a separate piece based on the Schiller text but this never led to any real sketches.
At the time of the planning and composition of the 9th the latter apparently was the fusion of two symphony plans for one of which some choral part was present at least as an idea (there is a note by Beethoven that already in a slow movement the choir should start). So the inclusion of the Schiller text was a comparably late decision but the idea of a choral symphony had been hovering in Beethoven's mind for some time. And a later separation and replacement is either a myth or mainly a suggestion by some well-meaning philistine friends.

The complex history of op.130/133 makes also a dubious parallel case, because it is really different (it was not open until late in the original composition what kind of finale there would be) and also because nowadays Beethoven's "final" version is usually disregarded.

[Scion7]

The first two are nothing ground-breaking.  Technically perfect, but they are covering the same ground as Haydn.
The Fourth has never been a favorite of mine.
All the others - sublime, with the Ninth making new ground that resonates today.

[prémont]

Yes.

Yes from me too.

[JBS]

Whoa. Discuss?

(I tend to think 2-8 are clear masterpieces, 1 wasn't trying to be but is very good, and 9 probably is but in a weird way that other composers should have been more hesitant about imitating.)

Compared to 3 and 4, 5 is a falling off, and it certainly is below the level of 7 and 8.

The main thing going for it is its Reputation.

[Jo498]

No, the 5th is tremendous, far tighter and more stringent than almost any other (possible exceptions are 7 and 8 but they don't have the emotional breadth) and this combined with the unprecedented overall arch that is also the strongest of all of them made it so influential and iconic. We take so much of this for granted because it became a model that we have become jaded, also because of overexposure.

[Spotted Horses]

Compared to 3 and 4, 5 is a falling off, and it certainly is below the level of 7 and 8.

I could nominate that as the most absurd thing I have ever read on GMG!