Beethoven & Mozart (the music and the mind)

[Amalie]

Originally posted by Peter:
Yes I have the Crabbe book and was fortunate to obtain a signed copy (by chance) from my excellent local 2nd hand book shop - it is an interesting and concise read.

I agree, it contains a lot of material that is not easily accessible in more standard works on the maestro. It really traces Beethoven's genaral intellectual and spiritual ideas, which as we all know is a fascinating topic.

[Steppenwolf]

Originally posted by Rod:
The Romantic picture you paint of Beethoven is that from a post-Beethovenian Romantic perception of the man. If beethoven was a Romantic then he was a totally unique one, because his mindset i believe was rather different to all of those composers we associate generally with Romantisism. I suggest there was deep emotional involvement in music before Beethoven, certainly from Handel amongst the composers in your list!

Yes, the image of Beethoven as the quintessential romantic was an image painted after his death. It was never a way in which he described himself. But isn't it always the case that great figures in history are never sure, during the lives, the type of legacy they will leave behind?, what they will mean to future generations?

I am certain that Beethoven's romanticism was largely unconscious, but it was still there! The way in which Beethoven attempted to answer the 'big questions' of humanity - the most obvious example being the 9th symphony - suggested that he was partly cut-off from pragmatic, mundane commercial concerns. He was not just writing for a living ... I think his creative impulse would have propelled him to write music even if there was no chance that anyone would pay him for it. To that extent he was different from his predecessors.

Certainly, there is great emotion in many previous composers, and I agree, there is some very profound emotion in much of Handel's music. But I think with previous composers the primary concern was to make a living, rather than to give a voice to a creative impulse alone.

[Peter]

Originally posted by Steppenwolf:
Yes, the image of Beethoven as the quintessential romantic was an image painted after his death. It was never a way in which he described himself. But isn't it always the case that great figures in history are never sure, during the lives, the type of legacy they will leave behind?, what they will mean to future generations?

I am certain that Beethoven's romanticism was largely unconscious, but it was still there! The way in which Beethoven attempted to answer the 'big questions' of humanity - the most obvious example being the 9th symphony - suggested that he was partly cut-off from pragmatic, mundane commercial concerns. He was not just writing for a living ... I think his creative impulse would have propelled him to write music even if there was no chance that anyone would pay him for it. To that extent he was different from his predecessors.

Certainly, there is great emotion in many previous composers, and I agree, there is some very profound emotion in much of Handel's music. But I think with previous composers the primary concern was to make a living, rather than to give a voice to a creative impulse alone.

What about his reaction to the receipts at the first performance of the 9th?! And Schubert fits your criteria far more than Beethoven who often played publishers off against one another primarily for financial reasons. I agree there are elements of Romanticism in Beethoven's character (with hindsight) but as a composer he was technically Classical in his use of harmony, form and rhythm.

------------------
'Man know thyself'

[This message has been edited by Peter (edited February 12, 2004).]

[Gurn Blanston]

All,
Since I have developed a reputation as being nearly too bloody polite, it is obviously against my principles to post this, but really, this whole thread is ludicrous, the arguments advanced to start it out were totally specious, and the encouragement that the thinking ones aong you have given is egregious. No, we cannot all agree that Mozart's music was artifice. I beg to differ. If you think that then you haven't listened to it. And to say that there is no feeling or emotion expressed by composers before Beethoven simply defies any reasonable definition of emotion or music that I have ever heard. Come on, really, I know you all are passionately fond of Beethoven, we all are else we wouldn't be here, but the music world didn't begin or end with him, music (and damned good music too) existed before him, and music existed after him, not of his creation. It does not do Beethoven credit for his admirers to advance him at the expense of others, who he in fact had enough wit and knowledge to admire deeply himself.


------------------
Regards,
Gurn
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
That's my opinion, I may be wrong.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[Amalie]

Originally posted by Gurn Blanston:
All,
Since I have developed a reputation as being nearly too bloody polite, it is obviously against my principles to post this, but really, this whole thread is ludicrous, the arguments advanced to start it out were totally specious, and the encouragement that the thinking ones aong you have given is egregious. No, we cannot all agree that Mozart's music was artifice. I beg to differ. If you think that then you haven't listened to it. And to say that there is no feeling or emotion expressed by composers before Beethoven simply defies any reasonable definition of emotion or music that I have ever heard. Come on, really, I know you all are passionately fond of Beethoven, we all are else we wouldn't be here, but the music world didn't begin or end with him, music (and damned good music too) existed before him, and music existed after him, not of his creation. It does not do Beethoven credit for his admirers to advance him at the expense of others, who he in fact had enough wit and knowledge to admire deeply himself.

No one has suggested that there is not music or emotion in music before Beethoven, Bach's supreme example is enough to settle that point.
We were only discussing the extra dimension as it were, that romantcism brought to music in terms of a profound emotional connection with nature and mans condition.
Mozart diaries really give very little clue, I think, to his music and this has always remained a bit of a puzzle to his scholars. It cannot be denied that there is both a brilliant surface and indeed depth to Mozart's music, but Beethoven is just simply a different kind of composer all together, and a person to some extent imbued with the romantic spirit which would have been utterly alien to Mozart.
I am afraid I don't see anything ludicrous in that. It is understandable that you would probably prefer to discuss their music only, but I am not a musicologist, sorry about that!
Oh, and by the way, I am looking forward to going to a concert on Sunday at the Barbican in London, to hear Mozart's Requiem, performed by the London Symphony Orchestra. I know this will be superb.


Signing off
Amalie.

[Steppenwolf]

Originally posted by Amalie:

Oh, and by the way, I am looking forward to going to a concert on Sunday at the Barbican in London, to hear Mozart's Requiem, performed by the London Symphony Orchestra. I know this will be superb.

I too will be attending that concert!

I am also looking forward to Ave Verum Corpus, which will be the last piece - a short but sublime religious piece written, like the Requiem, not long before Mozart died.

The evening begins with another piece, a symphony by Sibelius, I think, who I know nothing about ... I am just going for the Mozart bit.

[Amalie]

Originally posted by Steppenwolf:
I too will be attending that concert!

I am also looking forward to Ave Verum Corpus, which will be the last piece - a short but sublime religious piece written, like the Requiem, not long before Mozart died.

The evening begins with another piece, a symphony by Sibelius, I think, who I know nothing about ... I am just going for the Mozart bit.

That's great Steppenwolf,
My friend and work colleague who sings in the London Symphony Choir has offered Keith and I cheap tickets for the evening.
The concert is opening with Sibelius 4th symphony. But of course the highlight of the evening is Mozart's Requiem.


We are also going to a 'free' dress rehearsal of the 'Rhinegold' at the English National Opera. February 23rd. As you probably know the Coliseum has now been completely refurbished.
We are certainly looking forward to that!



[This message has been edited by Amalie (edited February 13, 2004).]

[Gurn Blanston]

Originally posted by Amalie:
No one has suggested that there is not music or emotion in music before Beethoven, Bach's supreme example is enough to settle that point.
We were only discussing the extra dimension as it were, that romantcism brought to music in terms of a profound emotional connection with nature and mans condition.
Mozart diaries really give very little clue, I think, to his music and this has always remained a bit of a puzzle to his scholars. It cannot be denied that there is both a brilliant surface and indeed depth to Mozart's music, but Beethoven is just simply a different kind of composer all together, and a person to some extent imbued with the romantic spirit which would have been utterly alien to Mozart.
I am afraid I don't see anything ludicrous in that. It is understandable that you would probably prefer to discuss their music only, but I am not a musicologist, sorry about that!
Oh, and by the way, I am looking forward to going to a concert on Sunday at the Barbican in London, to hear Mozart's Requiem, performed by the London Symphony Orchestra. I know this will be superb.


Signing off
Amalie.

Amalie,
Well, when you explain it that way, you become the soul of reason, and who could argue with that? It was this other thing that bothered me:
"Would we agree that Mozart's music is more artifice and Beethoven is more trying to do something about 'being', trying to elevate man's being and substance?
Mozart's music did not seem to affect him personally. Beethoven's music is always heart felt, whereas with Mozart there is always a distance between the creator and the created thing. With Beethoven it is one and the same.
It astonishes me that Mozart's fabulous music seems to have no affect on him as an individual and cerainly never matured in emotional terms.
Beethoven was fully mature in his music and his first essays in music, and when he had to take on the leadership of the household."

I simply say in answer to the question "Would we agree that Mozart's music is more artifice &c..." NO, we would not agree on that. The whole idea of comparing and assigning relative values is what I'm on about. It would be tritely simple to say that the 18 year old Mozart's Paris Symphony doesn't carry the weight of the Eroica, but what purpose would it serve? They are not comparable because of the vastly different circumstances surrounding their creation and their raison d'etre.
What I am trying to say is not that I prefer more "musical" dissertation, it is that I abhor the notion of comparing dissimilar things and trying to base intelligent discussion on a false and quicksandy substrate. Why can we not simply recognize instead that Beethoven introduced an element of pathos into music which had not been inherent in it before, and leave it at that rather than saying "thus he is so much better than so and so and everyone else"? I would readily accept "different" where I have to choke down "better", you know?




------------------
Regards,
Gurn
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
That's my opinion, I may be wrong.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[spaceray]

Yes I agree,what purpose does it serve to say one is better than another,Beethoven is Beethoven and Mozart is Mozart.

[Amalie]

Originally posted by Gurn Blanston:
Amalie,
Well, when you explain it that way, you become the soul of reason, and who could argue with that? It was this other thing that bothered me:
"Would we agree that Mozart's music is more artifice and Beethoven is more trying to do something about 'being', trying to elevate man's being and substance?
Mozart's music did not seem to affect him personally. Beethoven's music is always heart felt, whereas with Mozart there is always a distance between the creator and the created thing. With Beethoven it is one and the same.
It astonishes me that Mozart's fabulous music seems to have no affect on him as an individual and cerainly never matured in emotional terms.
Beethoven was fully mature in his music and his first essays in music, and when he had to take on the leadership of the household."

I simply say in answer to the question "Would we agree that Mozart's music is more artifice &c..." NO, we would not agree on that. The whole idea of comparing and assigning relative values is what I'm on about. It would be tritely simple to say that the 18 year old Mozart's Paris Symphony doesn't carry the weight of the Eroica, but what purpose would it serve? They are not comparable because of the vastly different circumstances surrounding their creation and their raison d'etre.
What I am trying to say is not that I prefer more "musical" dissertation, it is that I abhor the notion of comparing dissimilar things and trying to base intelligent discussion on a false and quicksandy substrate. Why can we not simply recognize instead that Beethoven introduced an element of pathos into music which had not been inherent in it before, and leave it at that rather than saying "thus he is so much better than so and so and everyone else"? I would readily accept "different" where I have to choke down "better", you know?

Yes Gurn, we would all agree with what you are saying, and circumstances explain a lot.
I have been listening recently to Bach's English Suites, played be Angela Hewitt (It is a double CD set on Hyperion Label) and I have been completely overwhelmed by the experience, the utter perfection and beauty of these keyboard pieces is fantanstic and Angela Hewitt's playing and articulation of ideas is breathtaking. I cannot think of a finer example of a perfect marriage of reason and emotion which follows on from the themes we have been discussing. Like Beethoven, one feels that the world would be a infinitely poorer place spiritually if it were not for these great masterpieces.

In a sense, perhaps one could say that after Bach's music and Haydn's string quartets, the pre-Beethoven world in a sense had no where else to go musically because it has reached the pinnacle or its achievement and it was left to Beethoven to scale a new mount Olympus af musical achievement, but it is incredible how one can turn to Bach, like Beethoven and find new sources of renewal and refreshment.
Yes and even hope!

Now I shall make a hasty retreat before I get into more trouble.


Aside: ( hmmm, now what did that Gurn mean 'soul of reason', but I AM the soul of reason, and a reasonable soul) >




[This message has been edited by Amalie (edited February 14, 2004).]

[Peter]

Originally posted by Gurn Blanston:
Amalie,
Well, when you explain it that way, you become the soul of reason, and who could argue with that? It was this other thing that bothered me:
"Would we agree that Mozart's music is more artifice and Beethoven is more trying to do something about 'being', trying to elevate man's being and substance?
Mozart's music did not seem to affect him personally. Beethoven's music is always heart felt, whereas with Mozart there is always a distance between the creator and the created thing. With Beethoven it is one and the same.
It astonishes me that Mozart's fabulous music seems to have no affect on him as an individual and cerainly never matured in emotional terms.
Beethoven was fully mature in his music and his first essays in music, and when he had to take on the leadership of the household."

I simply say in answer to the question "Would we agree that Mozart's music is more artifice &c..." NO, we would not agree on that. The whole idea of comparing and assigning relative values is what I'm on about. It would be tritely simple to say that the 18 year old Mozart's Paris Symphony doesn't carry the weight of the Eroica, but what purpose would it serve? They are not comparable because of the vastly different circumstances surrounding their creation and their raison d'etre.
What I am trying to say is not that I prefer more "musical" dissertation, it is that I abhor the notion of comparing dissimilar things and trying to base intelligent discussion on a false and quicksandy substrate. Why can we not simply recognize instead that Beethoven introduced an element of pathos into music which had not been inherent in it before, and leave it at that rather than saying "thus he is so much better than so and so and everyone else"? I would readily accept "different" where I have to choke down "better", you know?

I entirely agree! Beethoven didn't improve on Mozart - Mozart achieved his own perfection and Beethoven did likewise.

------------------
'Man know thyself'

[Gurn Blanston]

Originally posted by Peter:
I entirely agree! Beethoven didn't improve on Mozart - Mozart achieved his own perfection and Beethoven did likewise.

Peter,
Thank you. I know we don't always agree, so it is pleasant when we do. I don't think that anyone can question my allegiance to Beethoven simply because I am also inordinately fond of both Mozart and Haydn as well, but it seems like not the thing to say in this venue sometimes. Also, I like my composers to be people, warts and all, and that is not necessarily the way to make friends and influence people either! However, I am far too old to change, so I shall soldier on, et que sera, sera.




------------------
Regards,
Gurn
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
That's my opinion, I may be wrong.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[Peter]

Originally posted by Gurn Blanston:
Peter,
Thank you. I know we don't always agree, so it is pleasant when we do. I don't think that anyone can question my allegiance to Beethoven simply because I am also inordinately fond of both Mozart and Haydn as well, but it seems like not the thing to say in this venue sometimes. Also, I like my composers to be people, warts and all, and that is not necessarily the way to make friends and influence people either! However, I am far too old to change, so I shall soldier on, et que sera, sera.

Well we agree again and I'm all for the warts on my composers as well - none of this whitewashing nonsense for me! They are extraordinary human beings with very ordinary failings.


------------------
'Man know thyself'

[Amalie]

Originally posted by Peter:
Well we agree again and I'm all for the warts on my composers as well - none of this whitewashing nonsense for me! They are extraordinary human beings with very ordinary failings.

I wholeheartedly agree, and we give thanks to God for their life and works!
The way I see it great artists are imperfect humans but precious vessels or meduims of the higher powers.
There is an interesting question which I have never really been able settle in my own mind as to how far the brilliant innate skills of Beethoven and Mozart relate to this kind of meduimship that they undoubdtedly had to the higher order of things. By the way, when I say imperfect It pretty much does not apply to Beethoven who was a person of the highest moral character as we all know.




[This message has been edited by Amalie (edited February 15, 2004).]

[Peter]

Originally posted by Amalie:
By the way, when I say imperfect It pretty much does not apply to Beethoven who was a person of the highest moral character as we all know.

Ah but it does apply to Beethoven as well - he wasn't 'perfect' and had his failings which we shouldn't deny. Yes he had high moral standards (from a sexual perspective) but his dealings with publishers were shall we say a little underhand at times! His whole approach to his nephew Karl (and Johanna) was misguided if well intentioned. The constant and unnecessary break up of friendships was primarily his fault - (men such as Breuning didn't deserve the treatment meeted out to them) and Beethoven himself was aware of these shortcomings in his personality.

------------------
'Man know thyself'