who do you think is a betta composer beethoven or mozart

[Joy]

Originally posted by Amalie:

One hears very little of Ditters von Dittersdorf and in some respects can be compared to his near contemporary Joseph Haydn.
It would be nice to know a little more about this interesting composer. Was he know to Beethoven for instance?
I can't say I have really heard much of his works and I would appreciate a little more information whether anyone has heard in particular his symphonies on Ovid's Metamorphosis, and chamber music.
Is he similar to Haydn?

Thankyou.

[This message has been edited by Amalie (edited March 10, 2004).]

I've found some information on him in one of my composer books. Karl Ditters von Dittersdorf (there's a name for you)! b.1739-1799, an eminent violinist and composer who on the whole admired Mozart for which he said, "I have never yet met with any composer who had such an amazing wealth of ideas. I could almost wish he were not so lavish in using them. He leaves his hearer out of breath, for hardly has he grasped one beautiful thought than another of greater fascination dispels the first, and this goes on throughout, so that in the end it is impossible to retain any one of these beautiful melodies."
Haven't found anything on him and Beethoven.
Here's a site to view if you wish to see a picture of him and a short biography. http://www.hoasm.org/XIIC/Dittersdorf.html


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

[sweet_blu3berry]

Who is Ditters von Dittersdorf??? Just wondering never heard of him before. Famous or not ?
Oh and how do u judge whether a composer is great or not??

[This message has been edited by sweet_blu3berry (edited March 10, 2004).]

[This message has been edited by sweet_blu3berry (edited March 10, 2004).]

[Steppenwolf]

Originally posted by Gurn Blanston:
However, since I did take the trouble to briefly spell out why I feel that Haydn was more influential on his successors, perhaps you would care to name any of the people who carried on the Wagner tradition for the next 100 years after his death? Or what idiom he devised which revolutionized music? Leitmotif will only carry a man so far, it may have served well to make Wagner famous, but it did little or nothing for music beyond his. But sonata-allegro form, conversational string quartets, the modern symphony, the concept of Scherzo, all of thse things are Haydn's legacy, and his disciples managed to carry on for a long time with them. As I recall the main legacy of the Wagner faction was to deconstruct music, scarcely a legacy to be proud of.

I think other posters have already answered the question well, but I will also give my two pence worth.

EVERY composer after Wagner has been influenced by him - just as an example, Shoenberg and Mahler worshipped him. Hugo Wolf once wrote "What is left for us musicians to do? Wagner has already done everything!" To this day, the music used in typical Hollywood soundtracks follows the Wagnerian-orchestral tradition. His influence on other areas of the arts has also been considerable - even, as Chassz pointed out, extending to impressionist painting. There are dozens and dozens of examples I can give where Wagner has had a strong influence on modernist literature, from TS Eliot to James Joyce.

As for deconstructing music, I assume you are referring to atonalism. Like you, I have no time for atonalism. And it is true Wagner paved the way for it. Music in Tristan and Parsifal teeters on the edge of tonalism, but in my opinion does so in a way that does not go too far, because tonalism is still dominant. The problem was that since Wagner had done everything, there was, as Wolf wrote, little left new for composers after him to explore. So in trying to come up with something new, they went too far. Deconstructionism was the only option left after Wagner had explored music to its furthest limits. Nietzsche once wrote that Wagner was 'the last great event in Western culture'. I think he took music to its furthest limits. This was legitimate - the mistake was to go any further. However, for all we talk about atonalism, not all his music is so 'deconstructionist' and avant guarde. Look at Meistersinger - if Bach had lived for another century, and had decided to write an opera, then it would have sounded like Meistersinger - much of the music is very Bachian, albeit in an up-dated 19th century orchestra.

Haydn did have a big influence on those who followed, but at the very least I don't think it exceeded the influence of Wagner. And I place Wagner, and not Haydn, at the very top, as a musical collossus, because of the enormous, profound and overwhelming capacity for emotional expression in his music, an enormity not matched by Haydn.

Perhaps I was too harsh in my last post - I am defensive because all too frequently Wagner is dismissed unjustly with scorn and derision, and Wagnerians are poo-pooed and mocked inexplicably by people who are otherwise very intelligent and open minded, which is extremely unfair and ignorant. I certainly don't think you lack intelligence or taste - otherwise you wouldn't be on this forum! - but I think your predjudice is preventing you from exercising either with respect to Wagnerian music.

[This message has been edited by Steppenwolf (edited March 11, 2004).]

[Chaszz]

Originally posted by Steppenwolf:
... However, for all we talk about atonalism, not all his music is so 'deconstructionist' and avant guarde. Look at Meistersinger - if Bach had lived for another century, and had decided to write an opera, then it would have sounded like Meistersinger - much of the music is very Bachian, albeit in an up-dated 19th century orchestra...

It's kind of a wonder that Tristan and Meistersinger were written within a few years of each other, and each as a kind of sabbatical break from working on The Ring.
Tristan paves the way towards modernism and atonality, and then Meistersinger turns around and sums up the musical past. The music in each is sublime, yet quite different, and also obviously sounds like it could only be by Wagner.

Add to this the exhaustive scholarship that went into researching books and recreating the historical background of each of these plays, and that all this was done during vacations from similar work for the Ring, and that every opera (except Rheingold) involved both inside and outside the Ring is five hours long, and it's even more impressive. That he also had time to get into so much trouble over his intrigues, affairs, politics and antisemitism is more a wonder yet. Kind of makes Byron and Liszt look as if they were just practicing to be outsized Romantic characters.



[This message has been edited by Chaszz (edited March 11, 2004).]

[Gurn Blanston]

Guys,
I am absolutely delighted that you are confirmed Wagnerites. It is good for a person to have an obssession, as long as it doesn't get out of hand What was (and is) bugging me is simply that for some reason, adherents of Wagner are like religious fanatics, their only aim in life aside from praising the Master being to convert the great unwashed to the cause. As a consequence of this behavior (and it is not only here, but on every board that I read, which is several) even if there was a chance of my liking this music (and I don't like singing, Wagner or not, so it is a slim chance at best), I wouldn't do it for the same reasons that I won't ever attend a religious service. I swear, some of the prose I've read on this topic must have necessitated a pit stop mid-post to clean the foam off the keyboard! So there you have it, true confession time. If you promise not to proselytise constantly, I will promise not to stab you in the heart at every opportunity. Let's talk about Beethoven!


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

[This message has been edited by Gurn Blanston (edited March 11, 2004).]

[Chaszz]

Originally posted by Gurn Blanston:
...I swear, some of the prose I've read on this topic must have necessitated a pit stop mid-post to clean the foam off the keyboard! ...

Delightful, Gurn

[Chaszz]

Too bad you don't like vocal singing, Gurn. This could be a way to get at you. Don't say you don't like the Missa Solemnis???

[Gurn Blanston]

Originally posted by Chaszz:
Too bad you don't like vocal singing, Gurn. This could be a way to get at you. Don't say you don't like the Missa Solemnis???

Chaszz,
As much as it pains me to admit it, I love this music, but I have only listened to it one time so that i could know what it sounds like, but then could not bear to listen again as there was simply too much caterwauling. I thought for a few years that my disaffection was due to all the singing being in a foreign language so I couldn't understand it, but now I have even heard some in English (which I could scarcely understand better!) and it still didn't fall pleasingly on the ear. Alas, I fear I am a lost cause on that front.



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

[Gurn Blanston]

Originally posted by Chaszz:
Delightful, Gurn

Chaszz,
Now man, that was a pretty good turn of phrase, a touch graphic perhaps, but nonetheless apropos my feelings, and expressed in a way to make one smile instead of throwing brickbats at each other!
PS - Do you suppose brickbats are generally available nowadays?



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

[Rutradelusasa]

I'm very upset I didn't see the Wagner discussion earlier this thread, but as Steppenwolf said, I'll throw my 2 pences in as well.

I once wrote awful things about Wagner (even on this forum, look and ye shall find ) along with Mahler and since then my opinion about Wagner has changed drastically.
It all started when I decided to face my fears and start to hear their music, I soon realized that Wagner was indeed great, I just was so filled with prejudice on his person that I couldn't find greatness on his music. But I then realized that, although he was not a good person, his art was good and very good indeed, but you get lost in it trying to find where it is good (my god, I think I lost myself in this sentence ). And this happens most of the time because of the length of his works. Who can stand a 2 hours act? Now I can, but when it got up to 30 minutes I was already full of this anti-semite moth...ing bu...hit. That was prejudice talking.
He was indeed one of the worst people to go around, he used Liszt, von Bülow and even a jew as Richter. He used them as he saw fit. He cheated von Bülow, for his second wife, Cosima, became pregnant of him when she was still married to von Bülow.
Even though he was all that, his music was not, he made a considerable effort to change the way people used the orchestra, and by knowing how to use and orchestra the way he did is the major diference between him and other opera-only composers (Puccini and such, Verdi was still good), his work in this regard is surpassed by none. His work on new demands on opera is surpassed by none as well. Because of him we have Heldentenors, Heroic Sopranos and a new attention to the theather itself. Even in the theather plays world he managed to make a difference.
So I say this, Wagner as a person - bad, Wagner as a musician and Wagner-music - good, we just take a while to separate one from the other.

In the beggining I mentioned Mahler. Well... I still have the same opinion about Mahler, a guy who tried with all his heart to be more impressive, so that he exagerated and his music became extremely dull and empty.
_________________________________________

Done with Wagner, now to Haydn.

I rate Haydn higher than Mozart. I think that Haydn did an amazing job and that people (as with Wagner) tend to overlook what he achieved. His last two Oratorios (The Creation and The Seasons) are extremely well conceived and can pass to the listener just the image he had in mind (e.g. the opening of The Creation - chaos, the animals in The Seasons). He also had a amazing capability of passing emotions (even though many can't find this in his music), for that I give you Armida, a marvelous opera. In the 3rd act, Armida threatens Rinaldo if he doesn't loose the idea of striking the tree which gives her power (!) and warns him of her power. After she storms out, Haydn, with only the average classical orchestra without timpani and trumpets, makes your heart shiver at the sound of her rage. The bassoons sound like horns (I have the Harnoncourt recording in period instruments with Cecilia Bartoli - greately recommended), the basses like wind and the horns heavenly. He manages to transmit and idea of intense rage (which acts inside Rinaldo's brain) from Armida and immense dispair of Rinaldo. A must hear!
Haydn did an amazing job of creating the most deep foundation after Bach's-Rameau's tonalism and Bach's counterpoint of classical music: the form. Haydn shaped classical music into what Mozart and Beethoven worked and perfected, without him we may not have been blessed with their music.
__________________________________________

In the light of all this I rate Handel, Bach, Rameau, Haydn, Beethoven, Wagner equally important to the Classical music world as a whole.

I think I may have helped (or not ),
[]s,
Artur.

[This message has been edited by Rutradelusasa (edited March 12, 2004).]

[Steppenwolf]

Originally posted by Rutradelusasa:

I once wrote awful things about Wagner (even on this forum, look and ye shall find ) along with Mahler and since then my opinion about Wagner has changed drastically.
It all started when I decided to face my fears and start to hear their music, I soon realized that Wagner was indeed great, I just was so filled with prejudice on his person that I couldn't find greatness on his music. But I then realized that, although he was not a good person, his art was good and very good indeed, but you get lost in it trying to find where it is good (my god, I think I lost myself in this sentence ). And this happens most of the time because of the length of his works. Who can stand a 2 hours act? Now I can, but when it got up to 30 minutes I was already full of this anti-semite moth...ing bu...hit. That was prejudice talking.
So I say this, Wagner as a person - bad, Wagner as a musician and Wagner-music - good, we just take a while to separate one from the other.

Rutradelusasa, I am really glad that you have given Wagnerian music a go and have found some enjoyment in it. I think many people are in the position you used to be in - put off listening to his music with an open mind because of what they have heard about Wagner the person.

However, while Wagner certainly had faults, I think your view of him as a monster is a little exagerated. He was not so bad as is made out. Anti-semitism was rife in Europe in the 19th century, Wagner was not unique in this. Anti-semitism can also be attributed to Mozart (from comments made in some of his letters) and many other composers, for instance Stravinsky. And if you still have it in your head that he was some sort of proto-Nazi, I could list for you many reasons why he was the exact opposite.

The accounts we have of Wagner the man by those who knew him often depict him as unpleasant - but there are just as many which paint him, personally, in a glowing light. If you are truly interested in this, you would be well advised to read books by Wagner written by Brian Magee and Michael Tanner, which give a fair and balanced description of his personality.



[This message has been edited by Steppenwolf (edited March 15, 2004).]

[Rutradelusasa]

Originally posted by Steppenwolf:
Rutradelusasa, I am really glad that you have given Wagnerian music a go and have found some enjoyment in it. I think many people are in the position you used to be in - put off listening to his music with an open mind because of what they have heard about Wagner the person.

However, while Wagner certainly had faults, I think your view of him as a monster is a little exagerated. He was not so bad as is made out. Anti-semitism was rife in Europe in the 19th century, Wagner was not unique in this. Anti-semitism can also be attributed to Mozart (from comments made in some of his letters) and many other composers, for instance Stravinsky. And if you still have it in your head that he was some sort of proto-Nazi, I could list for you many reasons why he was the exact opposite.

The accounts we have of Wagner the man by those who knew him often depict him as unpleasant - but there are just as many which paint him, personally, in a glowing light. If you are truly interested in this, you would be well advised to read books by Wagner written by Brian Magee and Michael Tanner, which give a fair and balanced description of his personality.

[This message has been edited by Steppenwolf (edited March 15, 2004).]

S., I said that that is how people see him and his music, and I failed to say that he was just an hipocrit (?) and anti-semitism was only a way of his, but not all the time, for that I mentioned Richter, a jew, who, after Wagner much pleading, conducted the première of the Ring. So, if a jew can perform his masterpiece, why does he have something against jews?, I guess that it was just common sense of hailing Germany, which came with Romanticism, and Wagner liked to criticize and found a point to do it, semitism. So he was an occasional anti-semite, not a heartly Nazi.

[Steppenwolf]

Originally posted by Rutradelusasa:
S., I said that that is how people see him and his music, and I failed to say that he was just an hipocrit (?) and anti-semitism was only a way of his, but not all the time, for that I mentioned Richter, a jew, who, after Wagner much pleading, conducted the première of the Ring. So, if a jew can perform his masterpiece, why does he have something against jews?, I guess that it was just common sense of hailing Germany, which came with Romanticism, and Wagner liked to criticize and found a point to do it, semitism. So he was an occasional anti-semite, not a heartly Nazi.

Wagner had many acquaintences with Jews throughout his life. In his youth, he had a very close friend who was Jewish, and Wagner later wrote, in his autobiography, that it was "one of the most beautiful friendships of my life". As another example - there is a letter preserved from Herman Levi - the Jewish conductor whom Wagner chose to conduct many of his operas, including the premiere of Parsifal - written to his father in which he described Wagner in glowing terms, and said that every day in his prayers he would thank God for allowing him to know such and wonderful, generous and kind-hearted man.

I note these examples not to excuse his anti-semitism (like how many people say "Oh, but some of my best friends are black" etc. to excuse their racism), but merely to point out that it was inconsistent - almost schizophrenic. Wagner's personality was given to wild extremes, and he was always changing his mind about things.

There is evidence that he felt regrets for his anti-semitism later in life.

“If I wrote about the Jews again, I would say that there is nothing to be held against them, only that they came to us Germans too soon and we were not stable enough to absorb this element.”
The Diaries of Cosima Wagner. November 21, 1888

Late in his life - in late 19th century Germany - the seeds of Nazism began to sprout: fierce anti-semitism, military fervour and nationalism broke out amongst the German masses. On this subject he wrote -

“I have no connection whatever with the present anti-Semitic movement. An article of mine about to appear in Bayreuther Blätter will state this in such a way that it should be impossible for intelligent people to identify me with this movement.”
In a letter to Angelo Neumann February 23, 1881

Wagner was a German nationalist in a cultural sense, but NOT in a military sense. He believe that German culture - as typified in such artists as Beethoven, Mozart, Schiller and Goethe - should enoble the world. He did NOT believe that Germany should dominate the world as a military force, as did Hitler. Thus he wrote -

“German poetry, music and philosophy are nowadays esteemed and honored by every nation in the world; but in his yearning after “German Glory,” the German, as a rule, can dream of nothing but a sort of resurrection of the Roman Empire, and the thought inspires the most good-tempered German with an unmistakable lust for mastery, a longing for the upper-hand over the other nations. He forgets how detrimental to the welfare of the German peoples that notion of the Roman state has been already. Jesus teaches us to break through the barriers of patriotism and find our amplest satisfaction in the wealth of the human race.”



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

[Cuprik]

Isn't it interesting that in a Beethoven forum, under a discussion initially about Beethoven and Mozart, we are instead discussing Haydn and Wagner.

There are so many criteria for determining the value that we place on art, both subjective and objective.

While absolutely impossible to defend, I place the highest value on the composer's ability to skillfully and directly give voice to the muse. Our greatest artists and musicians somehow seem to have a direct link and their works are infused with a brilliance of honesty. Each piece inventing a language as if we have never heard it before. ( I experience this with many composers - Haydn, Beethoven, Schubert, Ravel, Sibelius, Stravinsky. What an odd list, isn't it?

And part of it is simply resonance. Sometimes I think we are like receivers tuned to a particular frequency. I would love to resonate to Bach or Mozart, but so far, we appear to be on a different bandwidth.

And Wagner? Woah. He sweeps me away each and every time. And why do i always feel so...tawdry afterwards. Like I've been lied to by a seductive lover I suppose. I always suspect that he is a brilliant fraud. But brilliant nonetheless.

(Well that was a little cryptic.)

BTW. I'm listening to Mass in C right now. Cheers.

[Rutradelusasa]

Originally posted by Cuprik:
Isn't it interesting that in a Beethoven forum, under a discussion initially about Beethoven and Mozart, we are instead discussing Haydn and Wagner.

There are so many criteria for determining the value that we place on art, both subjective and objective.

...

hehe, this is because you are new and not yet acquainted with this forum and its amazing capability of questioning our knowledge and introducing us to more classical music than we knew before.

Welcome, and feel free to change from Haydn to Bartók, from Bach to Orff in a snap.