Originally posted by Beyond Within:
I think it all comes down to the purpose of the symphony and what aesthetics are trying to be expressed.
There seem to be (from my reading) three categories of purpose. For the aristocrate/monarchy, for the general public, and for the self. When written for aristicrates the music seems to be more like technical exercises in style and form than emotionally impacting music. The closer to the self, the more emotional it gets because as you get increasingly personal feeling is all that could take over. Which brings me to this point: If you want perfectly executed classical than the most obvious preference would be mozart due to his incredible natural talent and mastery. But for emotional appeal it is always beethoven because he even said many times he wrote to get what was in him out, and to satisfy himself, if he didnt get it out he would be tortured.
Also, it depends how you define "development", for some people Beethoven or Wagner is too much to digest and to them Mozart was the pinnacle in everyway. So thats always something to consider...please excuse repetition in my post, i think i presented the same idea in three different ways,,
I think it all comes down to the purpose of the symphony and what aesthetics are trying to be expressed.
There seem to be (from my reading) three categories of purpose. For the aristocrate/monarchy, for the general public, and for the self. When written for aristicrates the music seems to be more like technical exercises in style and form than emotionally impacting music. The closer to the self, the more emotional it gets because as you get increasingly personal feeling is all that could take over. Which brings me to this point: If you want perfectly executed classical than the most obvious preference would be mozart due to his incredible natural talent and mastery. But for emotional appeal it is always beethoven because he even said many times he wrote to get what was in him out, and to satisfy himself, if he didnt get it out he would be tortured.
Also, it depends how you define "development", for some people Beethoven or Wagner is too much to digest and to them Mozart was the pinnacle in everyway. So thats always something to consider...please excuse repetition in my post, i think i presented the same idea in three different ways,,
Thanks for your post. I think you are correct in dividing up the audience this way. One thing we overlook (some of us anyway) is the depth of knowledge of the listeners in those times. Their grasp of musical structure and language was far greater than the majority of listeners today (please, no one take umbrage, I only mean most, not all). The aristocrats were generally connoisseurs, who not only understood all the nuances of the music, but in all probabiltiy could play it as well as the musicians did. In order to please them required a tremendous talent on the part of a composer. To balance that out, the general public (but really, not too general after all, perhaps "bourgoisie" would be better) wanted something to "tap their toes" to. And everyone wanted a certain amount of emotion, as it was becoming the style in post-baroque times to be somewhat expressive, so to please everyone took a real masterpiece. It is a historical fact that Beethoven was respected and admired as a master of music, but by and large he was not loved because he didn't really care about pleasing everyone. This is why his music has stood for so long, because he did not compromise to make it easier for the musicians, the critics or the listeners. He wrote what he felt, and the rest be damned. I admire this tremendously, I think it is B's greatest distinguishing trait as a composer; he did not compromise. Mozart did, and admitted he did, and his music is no less beautiful for it, because his genius lay in writing music that could satisfy the whole audience, and who else can say that?
That's my opinion, I may be wrong,
Best Regards,
Gurn
[This message has been edited by Gurn Blanston (edited June 25, 2003).]
Comment