what do you think of beethoven

[Peter]

Originally posted by Uniqor:
Quality, as you argue, can act as a measure of greatness. Before you can make such a conclusion, the meaning of quality must be defiined. If you try to do that, in the end, you'll probably find yourself deep into the chaos of aesthetics. The only conclusion you're then able to get is: there is no such thing as the "greatest" in all art. Try it.

Well few would argue that Beethoven was not superior to Diabelli, Mozart to Salieri.
Even within Beethoven's work we recognise that the 1st symphony is not as great as the 9th, and that there is more merit to a Beethoven quartet than chopsticks. So why is this? For a musician it is relatively straight forward to demonstrate the superiority of a Beethoven quartet to chopsticks - we can talk about part writing, counterpoint, harmony, rhythm and demonstrate a more sophisticated use of them. We can talk about form, originality, proportion, workmanship, vitality, but somehow truly great art has qualities that shine through equally to non-musicians and trained professionals, a certain truth that defies analysis. I take this argument as far as saying that it provides a standard by which great music can be measured against the mediocre, but I accept that to choose between 2 works or composers that are considered great by these means is an impossible and fruitless task.




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

[Uniqor]

Amalie, I'm a bit confused... Are we on the same or what?

Peter, I think I understand what you were trying to say, and actually, I agree with you on what you were trying to say, who doesn't? But what you were trying to say can't provide an arguement to my previous post. In case you didn't understand what I was trying to say, I'm saying it again:

Complexity and stuff like that, has got nothing to do with artistic pleasure. Just look at those crazy metal punkers, are they pleased by simple music? Hell yeah! So as long as the punk is appreciated, despite of its whatever nature you wana call it, it exists as art. How would you compare a punker to Beethoven? Why should you compare at all? Anwser, for supporting your own favour, by restricting the comparison to something that is insignificant, even irrelavent as I would say. Only human nature man, completely understandable, so respect.

[Peter]

Originally posted by Uniqor:
Amalie, I'm a bit confused... Are we on the same or what?

Peter, I think I understand what you were trying to say, and actually, I agree with you on what you were trying to say, who doesn't? But what you were trying to say can't provide an arguement to my previous post. In case you didn't understand what I was trying to say, I'm saying it again:

Complexity and stuff like that, has got nothing to do with artistic pleasure. Just look at those crazy metal punkers, are they pleased by simple music? Hell yeah! So as long as the punk is appreciated, despite of its whatever nature you wana call it, it exists as art. How would you compare a punker to Beethoven? Why should you compare at all? Anwser, for supporting your own favour, by restricting the comparison to something that is insignificant, even irrelavent as I would say. Only human nature man, completely understandable, so respect.

Well this argument does lead to the conclusion that artistic standards are irrelevant and perhaps do not even exist. This then diminishes great art, the achievements of Beethoven, Michelangelo, Shakespeare and ultimately humanity. Of course complexity in music is not the determining factor of value, there are many others, such as subtlety, sophistication, originality. You imply in a previous post that popularity is the most important attribute which is far from the truth.


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

[Uniqor]

Again, I'll have to agree with the most of your content, what I disagree: popularity shouldn't be counted as one of the the musical parameters. Instead, popularity should be simply regarded as how the piece is liked by audiences, which is the word's original meaning really. This concept have no contradiction against the "greats", as all of them are popular anyway.

What is art for? As long as your anwser to that question is not way off, you have no choice but to accept the fact that superioty and inferioty don't exist in the most fundamental and significant sense, not only for art, but for everything else.

"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder", any transcendental idealist would agree with that. Do you not agree with that? If so, forget all the shit that I've said, cause you know, we're in different believes. Are we?

[Peter]

Originally posted by Uniqor:
Again, I'll have to agree with the most of your content, what I disagree: popularity shouldn't be counted as one of the the musical parameters. Instead, popularity should be simply regarded as how the piece is liked by audiences, which is the word's original meaning really. This concept have no contradiction against the "greats", as all of them are popular anyway.

What is art for? As long as your anwser to that question is not way off, you have no choice but to accept the fact that superioty and inferioty don't exist in the most fundamental and significant sense, not only for art, but for everything else.

"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder", any transcendental idealist would agree with that. Do you not agree with that? If so, forget all the shit that I've said, cause you know, we're in different believes. Are we?

Hmm, then are you saying that a student who can barely stumble through a Mozart sonata with loads of wrong notes, terrible sense of rhythm etc is not inferior as a musician to Schnabel? It is a nice comforting idea that is politically current - everyone is equal when plainly they are not. Not to recognise this diminishes those with talent and does no favours for those without. Liszt once gave a pretty young lady sound advice when she played dreadfully to him -'young lady, go and get married'!

I disagree that the 'greats' are popular - classical music is not popular - you only have to check out your ever decreasing cd store classical department hidden away in the basement to see that! Most of the so-called popular pieces by Beethoven are generally far from his best (although your argument wouldn't recognise this), and most people who claim to like Beethoven on the strength of Fur Elise or the 1st movement of the Moonlight know little else by him.

Art is a creative form of expressing the divine, and exists to enrich our lives spiritually - some composers such as Beethoven reached the highest levels with music such as the last quartets, sonatas and Missa Solemnis, all of which are superior to any 'popular' Strauss waltz - and I like Strauss waltzes!

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

[Uniqor]

Peter, for a moment I thought that we were onto some Aesthetics, but now... You gave away again! "The greats aren't popular"? Are you getting desperate? "Politicallly comforting"? Get real man! "Young lady, go get married"? It reminded me of John Wayne!

Have you asked youself what art is for? For showing off technical, spirirual and intellectural capabilities? Oh no! Art is for fun! That artwork gives you joy, comfort and satisfaction, that artwork is great! For a heavy metal fan, which is a superior piece, Inferno or Fidelio? What's Beethoven so great to them, if his sipratual depth fail to make them 'cream and craw?

To compare in many cases, is a lost cause, this is certainly one of them.

[Amalie]

Originally posted by Uniqor:
Peter, for a moment I thought that we were onto some Aesthetics, but now... You gave away again! "The greats aren't popular"? Are you getting desperate? "Politicallly comforting"? Get real man! "Young lady, go get married"? It reminded me of John Wayne!

Have you asked youself what art is for? For showing off technical, spirirual and intellectural capabilities? Oh no! Art is for fun! That artwork gives you joy, comfort and satisfaction, that artwork is great! For a heavy metal fan, which is a superior piece, Inferno or Fidelio? What's Beethoven so great to them, if his sipratual depth fail to make them 'cream and craw?

To compare in many cases, is a lost cause, this is certainly one of them.

At the risk of provoking 'pop' or heavy metal fans, classical music is far superior (for want of a better, more politically correct word), because of its greater depth and complexity which produces an artistic unity and relates to virtually every side of the human condition.
I am sure for you, heavy metal can do this, but a Bach Sonata or a Beethoven piano concerto engages us at a far deeper level, which is a function of the immense creativity that the layers of notes and registers that goes into the piece.
In comparison, rock music has only a limited register, didn't someone say that Status Quo, played the same two notes in virtually every song they wrote, and this surely leads to an impoverishment of response.
The complexity of classical music evokes complex responses which however you think of rock music, simply cannot do this, because it does not have the complex form and structure. But hey, if moshing to Beethoven does it for you, all well and good.
As far as art goes, I find the Rolling Stones very amusing, but the idea of rock musicians being 'serious' musicians, this is surely some sort of wind up.

------------------
~ Courage, so it be righteous, will gain all things ~




[This message has been edited by Amalie (edited 12-03-2004).]

[Peter]

Originally posted by Uniqor:
For a heavy metal fan, which is a superior piece, Inferno or Fidelio? What's Beethoven so great to them, if his sipratual depth fail to make them 'cream and craw?

To compare in many cases, is a lost cause, this is certainly one of them.

Well if you want to believe that there is no more value in Beethoven than heavy metal that is your perogative, only don't expect someone who understands just what Beethoven achieved to agree with you. If it makes no difference to you to hear a bad musical performance, since by your criteria there is no such thing, fine, listen to amateurs instead of professionals.

If fun is all that matters in art, not spiritual or intellectual values why not simply go out for a few drinks, go sky-diving or whatever you're into!
Classical music offers more than just fun, it offers deep, true spirituality, not the false, drug induced hell that for many accompanies the metal scene.



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

[atserriotserri]

Originally posted by Uniqor:
Peter, for a moment I thought that we were onto some Aesthetics, but now... You gave away again! "The greats aren't popular"? Are you getting desperate? "Politicallly comforting"? Get real man! "Young lady, go get married"? It reminded me of John Wayne!

Have you asked youself what art is for? For showing off technical, spirirual and intellectural capabilities? Oh no! Art is for fun! That artwork gives you joy, comfort and satisfaction, that artwork is great! For a heavy metal fan, which is a superior piece, Inferno or Fidelio? What's Beethoven so great to them, if his sipratual depth fail to make them 'cream and craw?

To compare in many cases, is a lost cause, this is certainly one of them.

Art is for fun, agree, and where each one of us find fun is a personal subject, depending on interests, education, environment, and even more, depending on the mood any of us is at a given day.

There are times in my life that I wouldn't change Metallica's "Fade to Black", "Wherever I may roam"... to put 2 examples, for any song or piece of music. But many other times, I'd rather listen Bach, Beethoven, Rachmaninoff, Chopin....
What makes us come to this site and talk about music is that we love it and find fun in it, and generally, people who love music and invests his/her time and puts his/her attention on pieces of music don't consider proper music 3 chords, 1 theme, no change over and over again, song after song, record after record, we look for more.

Composition to express feelings, or impressions on an event or a place, or on a weather station, or a journey, or composition with the purpose to create a musical structure without links on anything special tends to complicate, to intrincate... and let's face it, it involves technical display.

Consider that usually for a heavy metal fan it's "superior" the band that plays, for instance faster, or that plays the most intrincated solos, or that makes more rythm changes, or more complex riffs... and that implies care in composition and technical display too, it's not unique from classical music fans to have interests in technique and abilities of the performer. And that's why live performances, musically, are really important to heavy metal fans.

Why do you assume that LvB fails to make them "cream and craw"?? That's personal, random. Don't generalize, please. I'm member of the Metallica Fan Club and post here.
I've attended more concerts of metal bands than classical ones, but have more classical records than metal records. On the Rammstein concert I attended 3 weeks ago (1 week after attending at a Scriabin Piano Concerto 1 & Dvorak symphony no. 4 concert, and before a Respighi, Benguerel and Strauss concert) there was a guy with a Brahms t-shirt. Most of my friends share records and interest both in Bach and Maiden, Brahms and Metallica....

So why bother trying to decide who's superior to who? Some moments I find more pleasure on Paganini than in any other, sometimes I desperately need Bach. I give great credit to the work of LvB, but I agree with Haffner & Big D, no one is "greatest ever".

Because is a matter of taste, sensibility, preferences and what do you put into consideration to decide who's best; it's not maths, 'cos everyone of us would put the stress in some aspects instead of anothers.

[Peter]

Originally posted by atserriotserri:
So why bother trying to decide who's superior to who? Some moments I find more pleasure on Paganini than in any other, sometimes I desperately need Bach. I give great credit to the work of LvB, but I agree with Haffner & Big D, no one is "greatest ever".

Because is a matter of taste, sensibility, preferences and what do you put into consideration to decide who's best; it's not maths, 'cos everyone of us would put the stress in some aspects instead of anothers.

But if we are talking about the value of a work of art it is not about personal preference, the whim of the moment on a particular day. Some days I'd rather listen to a Strauss waltz than a Beethoven symphony but I don't put them on the same level. Beethoven's 9th symphony IS superior to his 1st. His 4th piano concerto IS superior to his 2nd. Beethoven IS a superior composer to Paganini. The 5th century BC was the high point in ancient Greek culture. 16th century English music IS superior to 15th century English music. The 13th century was one of the most astonishing in the development of western music and the French school was the greatest representative of this. These are facts, not personal preferences - it is important to be able to sort the wheat from the chaff or else we "know the price of everything and the value of nothing".

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

[Ellery]

Sorry about my englis but i have a lot of time without practice

Everybody Have to understand some things. You cant compare Beethoven with anyone else... Beethoven himself has created a music category in the time just for him. He is only one in all the times. He is not only a transition composer. He is one of the first independient composers. He understand (as Hegel say) his historic moment and put it in his music. His music its ritmic, armónic and tecnically "invadora". You cant compare him with Bach... he is just a traditionalist who take the music of his time to the extreme. He take te art of fuge and counterpoint to levels beyond anyone else in his time and in other times, but is just a traditionalist. Beethoven was musically invator. Beethoven is the greates... no jus because of his music but because his "ideales".

[Uniqor]

Finally, some exciting new conrtibutions...

Amalie:

I'm in agrement with you that classical music is "deep". Hence non-classical music is not "serious", only in comparison with classsical.

Peter:

Fun is everything. You're into classical because you can have fun from it. By "fun" I mean satisfaction and joy, which is pretty much what fun means really.

Classical artistic value = intelectual depth+ spiratual depth + x

Modern artistic value = coolness + letoutness + y

Artistic value so far = classical artistic value + modern artistic value = Fun

Pete, I don't give a ratass about heavy metal, but I don't attack its value in order to glorify if you like, classicl value. Does money measure value in some aspects? Tell me who's the richest, Speares or Nyman? Oh, maybe a lame reference - you wouldn't consider Nyman truely classical right?

atserriotserri:

For the aesthetic content in your post, I like it. But can't anyone say: modern music fans don't give a shit about classical? You and your friends are an exception though, and statistically, you don't count very much do you? So do I have to add the word "most" to sort this out?

Ellery:

Some interesting concepts there! What's not interesting is the fact that you said that Beethoven is the greatest. "Invadora" doesn't idealise beethoven over bach the "traditionalist". Just like Edison doesn't rank above Newton. How do you distinguish invetion between tradition anyway? Hasn't bach "invented" anything at all? If the anwser is no for whatever unreasonable reson, then I doubt that beethoven would've "invented" anything later as he actually did.

[Peter]

Originally posted by Uniqor:
Peter:

Fun is everything. You're into classical because you can have fun from it. By "fun" I mean satisfaction and joy, which is pretty much what fun means really.

Pete, I don't give a ratass about heavy metal, but I don't attack its value in order to glorify if you like, classicl value. Does money measure value in some aspects? Tell me who's the richest, Speares or Nyman? Oh, maybe a lame reference - you wouldn't consider Nyman truely classical right?

I do not attack any form of music in order to glorify classical music which stands on its own merits. All musical styles are valid from Gregorian chant through folk, jazz to pop - I'm simply saying the greatest music is to be found in the 'classical' genre and Beethoven is one of the greatest composers ever. I have no intention of rubbishing any music or people's enjoyment of it.

Fun is the wrong word to use - there isn't much fun or joy in one of the greatest song cycles, Schubert's Winterreise which is actually quite despairing, the same can be said for the finale of Tchaikovsy's 6th symphony (again generally regarded as his finest achievement). Yes of course there are great works that abound with joy, the finales to Beethoven's 5th and 9th symphonies.

I don't know if you are a professional musician (not that I think that is necessary to appreciate music) but I'm sorry but from your arguments I don't think you are (If I am wrong in what is I admit an unfair assumption, I apologise!) - I doubt that you have ever studied a musical score, harmony, counterpoint, composition. I doubt that you have had to correct a student's attempts at 4 part harmony or teach a Beethoven sonata. I teach piano and if I was unable to determine what is good and bad in performance or regarded all my students as having equal ability, none of them would get anywhere.

As for you refernce to Spears and Nyman, it is irrelevant, riches have nothing to do with this debate as money is certainly no measure of quality, nor is mere virtuosity as some of the worst excesses in Liszt reveal. To be fair, Liszt also did write some fine music!



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

[Uniqor]

"Fun" isn't the strict word to use, as far as philosophy of language's concerned, no word is perfect enough to describe aesthetic value. A leibesleid gives me satisfaction by helping me expressing and fantasising, that I call "fun". So puleeez, don't object to defy my common sense and basic reasoning.

Money can't measure a lot of things, not at all, but the popularity of a musician can be measured from his relevant income, especially in the modern economic societies.

Popularuty... Yes, everthing goes back to the fundamentals doesn't it? To ask about the significance of popularity, is to ask how significant is utility gained in consumption. All I've been trying to say is: it is significant. Additionally I say, technical related factors should be disregarded when assessing the value of art. That's why I provided the arguement with a much more relevant consideration - market worth. It seems to me that you haven't been bothered to read my posts with adequate care Peter.

Oh by the way, do you teach TU or To or both?

[Peter]

Originally posted by Uniqor:
"Fun" isn't the strict word to use, as far as philosophy of language's concerned, no word is perfect enough to describe aesthetic value. A leibesleid gives me satisfaction by helping me expressing and fantasising, that I call "fun". So puleeez, don't object to defy my common sense and basic reasoning.

Money can't measure a lot of things, not at all, but the popularity of a musician can be measured from his relevant income, especially in the modern economic societies.

Popularuty... Yes, everthing goes back to the fundamentals doesn't it? To ask about the significance of popularity, is to ask how significant is utility gained in consumption. All I've been trying to say is: it is significant. Additionally I say, technical related factors should be disregarded when assessing the value of art. That's why I provided the arguement with a much more relevant consideration - market worth. It seems to me that you haven't been bothered to read my posts with adequate care Peter.

Oh by the way, do you teach TU or To or both?

Oh I've read your posts - your main argument comes down to popularity, in your own words:

"Is Beethoven liked by the most? I think that should be the question, if we want an anwser to: who's the 'greatest'?"

I disagree with you. I have demonstrated this even within Beethoven's own works, the most popular are generally not his finest. His greatest works which he himself recognised such as the C# minor quartet Op.131 are far from the most popular. Rossini was a far wealthier and more popular composer than Beethoven - I really don't understand your point.

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