Beethoven & Mozart (the music and the mind)

[Amalie]

Originally posted by Peter:
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.

Beethoven was smart enough to see through the wiles of publishers as they were astute enough to realize, in part a least, what a staggeringly marketable proposition they had in Beethoven.
To Pick up Steppenwolf's point about intellectual property, Beethoven was only trying protect his own rights, pretty much on his own without advice, and as fairly 'unworldly' person as we know, whereas the publisher were sophisticated men of business usually, with ready access to Notaries.
It could be very intimidating to Beethoven to have to deal with those people, and doesn't he say somewhere that he whas sick of the whole business, and he half seriously said; he would much prefer a system where he could just compose and just draw a monthly allowance so he didn't have to think about tedious and prosaic business matters. After all, what does a man want with money who writes the Ninth and the late piano sonatas, or at least concern for financial matters?


Wasn't is John Lennon who said during the Beatles days, that he was sick and tired of going to meetings with lawyers and accountants, when all he wanted to do was write songs. But there again I suppose you could say that in this wicked world in which we live, such people are, heaven forbid, necessary, and particularly for the great market draws like Beethoven.



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

[Gurn Blanston]

Originally posted by Peter:
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.

Peter,
Yes, you are correct then, we are fated to be in agreement once again, it is the alignment of the planets perhaps!?! Generally speaking, B was not a nice guy. not that this makes the sightest bit of difference to his music, but it did tend to make his life miserable overall, because he lacked the comfort of friends, having run them off in various ways over the years.
Oddly enough (and I know Amalie will love this), it was the always-thought-of-as-virtuous Haydn who actually taught B a lesson that stuck, namely how to deal with publishers in a manner that got him the most for his efforts. HAydn was a master of it, and B used enough of the same methods to show where it came from I guess. But truly (as though it has changed) it was a dog-eat-dog business in those days before copyrights, so perhaps the kind of shady dealings we see from the first class of independent composers is not symptomatic of their honesty in general. I hope not.



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

[Amalie]

It is perfectly true what Gurn says about learning business lessons from Papa Haydn. Thanks for reminding me.
Let's face (and Chaszz will hate this), they are all saints compared with Wagner, who for years, even when he was very famous he was pursued by his creditor's whom he seems to have had not the slightest intention of paying for his extravagant purchases of house furnishings and clothes. And of course, he shamelessly milked mad 'Ludwig of Bavaria and the Bavarian Government of millions, and some feared his demands could have caused the collapse of the Government itself. Wagner certainly loved the long dollar and the life of Riley! and saw no reason why he shouldn't.
Wagner loved nothing more that striding around his house in a long velvet smoking jacket and cap, touching a brocade here and a brocade there, listlessly observing and waving his scented hankerchief at the devoted circle of his admirers and toadies.
The nearest we come I suppose to this is Mozart amongst the classical composers, but even I think would have been appalled by W's egregious bourgeoisie tastes.
Beethoven of course, led a spartan and sparing lifestyle to his credit. Haydn was very wealthy of course, but donated enormouse sums for charitable causes, and also led a gracious though essentially simple lifstyle.
Essentially, Beethoven and Haydn were not worldly people, whereare Wagner and Mozart were. Mozart's problem here was that he wanted so many of the good things in life, but had not learned the habits of a good business man, or like Wagner had found anyone sufficienltly wealthy to underwrite his art.

Now I am for it!!




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

[Peter]

Originally posted by Gurn Blanston:
Peter,
Yes, you are correct then, we are fated to be in agreement once again, it is the alignment of the planets perhaps!?! Generally speaking, B was not a nice guy. not that this makes the sightest bit of difference to his music, but it did tend to make his life miserable overall, because he lacked the comfort of friends, having run them off in various ways over the years.

I'm not sure if the planets have anything to do with it except perhaps the one we're stuck on!

Well of course Beethoven did have a hard time of it health wise (not just his hearing) and this obviously contributed to his gruff manner and paranoia in later life, some of it at least probably quite justified. There is no doubt that he didn't make things easier for himself or others around him. Amalie is quite right though, Beethoven was a saint next to Wagner!

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

[Joy]

I agree with what you say, Amalie so I'll be in for it too! Anyway, indeed Beethoven must have been a hard man to live with. At times he was pushing his friends away, saying crass and rude things to people without any concern for their feelings, very uncouth at times. Just because I love someone doesn't mean I'm blind to his faults, warts and all!
But he was marvelous!

------------------
'Truth and beauty joined'

[v russo]

Amalie, I have not forgot about you. I will find this Goethe poem soon...



------------------
v russo

[Gurn Blanston]

Well, we have now nearly all reached complete agreement:
1. Beethoven was cool, but not perfect
2. Mozart was actually specifically taught to be the way he was by his father. It came back to haunt him, too.
3. Haydn was OK, despite having sharp eye out for publishers to outfox, they undoubtedly deserved it.
4. Wagner was an ass. Of this I never had a doubt.

I love it when rationality strikes!


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

[Steppenwolf]

Originally posted by Amalie:
And of course, he shamelessly milked mad 'Ludwig of Bavaria and the Bavarian Government of millions, and some feared his demands could have caused the collapse of the Government itself.

And thank goodness he did!
Ludwig was not so mad as reputation suggests, only slightly eccentric. His eventual breakdown is obscured by mystery - it is possible he never had one at all, and that it was a lie invented to cover up the fact that he was murdered by conspirators.

“My skepticism as to the madness of King Ludwig is the result of many year’s acquaintance, frequently renewed, with all the available first-hand documents and most of the literature bearing in the case.”
Ernest Newman, Wagner biographer

Ludwig knew exactly what he was doing when he became Wagner's patron, and what great works of art he was helping to bring into existence. While all the other achievements Ludwig's reign (apart from his castles) are forgotten, the supreme works of art he helped to produce through Wagner stand forever as some of the greatest cultural achievements of the human race.
Wagner was aware of what a genius he possessed, and if he did almost anything possible to get money to bring his masterworks into existence, then good! Let us thank God that he did!

Wagner loved nothing more that striding around his house in a long velvet smoking jacket and cap, touching a brocade here and a brocade there, listlessly observing and waving his scented hankerchief at the devoted circle of his admirers and toadies.

Which source did you use to obtain this description?
This, I am afraid, is a simplistic charicature of the real man, a comic book invention, by which historical figures are stripped of their complexity as human beings in order to portray them as one-dimensional charicatures, either saints or monsters.
Wagner's tastes were certainly flamboyant and extravagent, but it is wrong to use this fact alone to portray him in that simplistic and derogatory way.

Wagner is universally cast as an arrogant, cold, and selfish egotist. The facts often contradict this, however. Let's take a couple of anecdotal examples that paint a different picture to the one of a lofty, pompous egoist.

A humble and honest Bayreuth citizen who worked at a local factory asked Wagner one day to be his child’s godfather, as the child had been born on the day that the cornerstone for Wagner’s theatre was laid. Wagner cheerfully agreed and brought his entire family to spend the entire afternoon in the man’s house, joking and telling stories.

One day while Wagner’s theater was being constructed, something had been done incorrectly because the builders had not understood Wagner’s directions correctly. One of the overseers, though not a builder, saw what was needed and redid the work. Wagner was so happy that he sought him out in town, escorted him to a tavern, and drank a bottle of wine with him.

Praeger came to see Wagner in Zurich and they went on a tour of the Rhine Falls. They spent the night at a hotel and agreed to meet for breakfast in the garden, but at breakfast time, no one could find Wagner. “Here I am!” they suddenly heard him call. He was sitting high up on the back of a plaster lion that decorated the outside area. He scurried down recklessly; laughing heartily saying he had gone up there to get his breakfast appetite.

On July 10, 1852, Wagner began a trek through the Bernese Oberland of the Swiss Alps and climbed both the Faulhorn and the Sidelhorn. “The gem of my trip was my march over the Gries Glacier from Wallis through the Formazza Valley to Domo d’Ossola, which occupied two days. The Gries is a stupendously savage glacier-pass, very dangerous, and crossed but seldom from the Haslithal or Wallis by peasants fetching Southern wares such as rice, etc. from Italy.” On July 19th, he trudged down the Formazzathal to Domodossola and arrived that evening in Baveno. He was intoxicated with everything he saw and experienced, the peasants, the goat-herders, the chestnut groves and glaciers. All was so beautiful, he laughed out load for joy.




[This message has been edited by Steppenwolf (edited February 16, 2004).]

[Steppenwolf]

Originally posted by Gurn Blanston:

4. Wagner was an ass. Of this I never had a doubt.

How do you know this? Have you studied the man? Have you studied any of his biographies? Or have you just heard this opinion expressed elsewhere, and just adopted it yourself without thinking for yourself independently? Wagner certainly had plenty of faults (who doesn't?!) but he also had many very endearing, humane traits as well. How many people know, for instance, that he was a committed animal-rights activist? Or how many people who accuse him of Nazism know the meaning of the Ring Cycle, that lust for power, at the expense of love for fellow-man, is the path to destruction? And for those who dismiss his music (many on this forum!!), how can they account for the fact that virtually all late 19th century and 20th century classical music that followed Wagner, from Strauss to Schoenberg to Debussy to Hollywood sound tracks, has been indelibly influenced by his musical achievements, in the same way that all 19th century music was influenced by Beethoven? But this is missed and not even known about by the glib Wagnerphobes.

There is a tendency amongst even the most intelligent and cultured classical music lovers to dismiss Wagner and his music as something tasteless and crude, and his artistic achievements and his modern day admirers are dismissed with smug scorn and derision. This is the opinion of people who have never bothered to actually study the man or, more importantly, his music in any depth with an open mind. Well, it is NOT clever to smugly and gliby go along with the crowd and dismiss Wagner as an 'ass' .. it is not clever and it is not original.

That is your opinion, Gurn, and this time you ARE wrong!



[This message has been edited by Steppenwolf (edited February 16, 2004).]

[Peter]

Originally posted by Steppenwolf:
How do you know this? Have you studied the man? Have you studied any of his biographies? Or have you just heard this opinion expressed elsewhere, and just adopted it yourself without thinking for yourself independently? Wagner certainly had plenty of faults (who doesn't?!) but he also had many very endearing, humane traits as well. How many people know, for instance, that he was a committed animal-rights activist? Or how many people who accuse him of Nazism know the meaning of the Ring Cycle, that lust for power, at the expense of love for fellow-man, is the path to destruction? And for those who dismiss his music (many on this forum!!), how can they account for the fact that virtually all late 19th century and 20th century classical music that followed Wagner, from Strauss to Schoenberg to Debussy to Hollywood sound tracks, has been indelibly influenced by his musical achievements, in the same way that all 19th century music was influenced by Beethoven? But this is missed and not even known about by the glib Wagnerphobes.

There is a tendency amongst even the most intelligent and cultured classical music lovers to dismiss Wagner and his music as something tasteless and crude, and his artistic achievements and his modern day admirers are dismissed with smug scorn and derision. This is the opinion of people who have never bothered to actually study the man or, more importantly, his music in any depth with an open mind. Well, it is NOT clever to smugly and gliby go along with the crowd and dismiss Wagner as an 'ass' .. it is not clever and it is not original.

That is your opinion, Gurn, and this time you ARE wrong!

[This message has been edited by Steppenwolf (edited February 16, 2004).]

On several points we agree - on King Ludwig who was as you say eccentric rather than mad (even though we have been left wonderful castles such as Linderhof and Neuschwanstein, his architectural dreams were getting slightly out of control!)

On Wagner's music I can generally agree and even on some of the good points in Wagner's character - however what about that notorious pamphlet 'Judaism in Music'? What about his appalling treatment of Wesendonck? - demanding more money from him whilst conducting an affair with his wife right under his nose. This is hardly behaviour Beethoven would have condoned or quite frankly anyone else with a decent sense of morality.

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

[This message has been edited by Peter (edited February 16, 2004).]

[Gurn Blanston]

Originally posted by Steppenwolf:
How do you know this? Have you studied the man? Have you studied any of his biographies? Or have you just heard this opinion expressed elsewhere, and just adopted it yourself without thinking for yourself independently?]

No, actually I never adopt anyone else's ideas without thinking about it first and informing myself. I base that opinion on innumerable items of anecdotal evidence, on the things listed by Peter below, and on the fact that very few of the supposedly intelligent quotations that I have read as being attributed to him struck me as anything more than supercilious. I can certainly agree to some extent that the music should be the thing he is judged by, and some of it is actually acceptable on its own merits, but the man himself? Nah, I wouldn't willingly spend 5 minutes in his company.



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

[Sorrano]

Originally posted by Gurn Blanston:

"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.

At this point (and perhaps this is late in th discussion) I might simply point out that the music of Mozart is more abstract and Beethoven's is more programmatic. I say programmatic as it contains some real purpose as opposed to being totally abstract--or shall I say, music for it's own sake. Beethoven's music (much of it, anyway) appears to me to have an agenda.

[King Stephen]

Originally posted by Opus131:
I don't subscribe to this notion at all, just the usual Romantic drivel.

First of all, why do Romantics always assume 'emotion' can only be defined with a state of sadness ?!? I don't get this, is Haydn music, which is filled with joy and serenity (even nobility) all of a sudden superficial ?!? Isn't joy just as much an emotion as sadness ?!?

It's true, composers before Beethoven saw composition as a craft, because that's exactly what it is. Nothing changed during the Romantic era, musical composition simply moved to 'different' aestetical demands, the process of composition and the emotional token necessary was still the same.

When Haydn composed a symphony to surprise a guest on the court, don't you think the music affected him as well as the listener ?!? If not, how did he manage to write the music ?!? Did he just sat down on a table and crammed various notes randomnly togheter ?!? How do you write music without getting 'personally' involved ?!? I don't understand.

Because i mean, left face it, if pre-romantic music was so artificial, why do we all listen to it today ?!? If Baroque music was only meant for worship, how can an half atheist like myself find emotional satisfaction in it ?!?

Furtheremore, why does anybody always consider music from it's emotional connotations and nothing else ?!? What about intelligence, wit, humor, complexity, originality ?!? If none of those elements mattered why do we even bother with classical at all ?!? We might as well listen to pop music.

The truth is, Romantics turned music into a big melodrama, and that's about it, all the emotion was and is still up to the individual who makes it...

[This message has been edited by Opus131 (edited February 07, 2004).]

Opus131, you have hit the nail on the head with your post........

[Amalie]

Originally posted by Steppenwolf:
Which source did you use to obtain this description?
This, I am afraid, is a simplistic charicature of the real man, a comic book invention, by which historical figures are stripped of their complexity as human beings in order to portray them as one-dimensional charicatures, either saints or monsters.
Wagner's tastes were certainly flamboyant and extravagent, but it is wrong to use this fact alone to portray him in that simplistic and derogatory way.

Wagner is universally cast as an arrogant, cold, and selfish egotist. The facts often contradict this, however. Let's take a couple of anecdotal examples that paint a different picture to the one of a lofty, pompous egoist.

A humble and honest Bayreuth citizen who worked at a local factory asked Wagner one day to be his child’s godfather, as the child had been born on the day that the cornerstone for Wagner’s theatre was laid. Wagner cheerfully agreed and brought his entire family to spend the entire afternoon in the man’s house, joking and telling stories.

One day while Wagner’s theater was being constructed, something had been done incorrectly because the builders had not understood Wagner’s directions correctly. One of the overseers, though not a builder, saw what was needed and redid the work. Wagner was so happy that he sought him out in town, escorted him to a tavern, and drank a bottle of wine with him.

Praeger came to see Wagner in Zurich and they went on a tour of the Rhine Falls. They spent the night at a hotel and agreed to meet for breakfast in the garden, but at breakfast time, no one could find Wagner. “Here I am!” they suddenly heard him call. He was sitting high up on the back of a plaster lion that decorated the outside area. He scurried down recklessly; laughing heartily saying he had gone up there to get his breakfast appetite.

On July 10, 1852, Wagner began a trek through the Bernese Oberland of the Swiss Alps and climbed both the Faulhorn and the Sidelhorn. “The gem of my trip was my march over the Gries Glacier from Wallis through the Formazza Valley to Domo d’Ossola, which occupied two days. The Gries is a stupendously savage glacier-pass, very dangerous, and crossed but seldom from the Haslithal or Wallis by peasants fetching Southern wares such as rice, etc. from Italy.” On July 19th, he trudged down the Formazzathal to Domodossola and arrived that evening in Baveno. He was intoxicated with everything he saw and experienced, the peasants, the goat-herders, the chestnut groves and glaciers. All was so beautiful, he laughed out load for joy.




[This message has been edited by Steppenwolf (edited February 16, 2004).]

Steppenwolf

[Amalie]

Originally posted by Amalie:
Steppenwolf

Steppenwolf,
What you say I am sure is absolutely right.
However, the fact remains that as a human being as opposed to being one of the greatest composers that ever lived, Wagner really was not a very nice man in spite of what you say. He demanded utter loyalty and obedience from his acolytes, and he could be very nasty towards people whom he thought critical or even luke warm with regard to his music.
I cannot go into all the details here, which would bore everyone, but if you would read Newmans still authoritative Life of Wagner, you would see I think, that this great genius really did have feet of all too mortal clay. I don't think it detracts from the music, indeed as far as I can see it is really irrelevant to the stature of the music itself. All I would say on this point is that Wagner was a very sensual man, even more than Mozart, and on that point we will then draw to a discreet halt.
All I was originally saying is that the characters of the great composers are markedly different, which has a certain interest for all of us who love our music, but it is only a very tiny point in the scheme of things.


[This message has been edited by Amalie (edited February 16, 2004).]