The Genius of...Beethoven

[Cetto von Cronstorff]

Originally posted by Rod:
think about Mendelsohn - began as a prodigy with great prospects, but by the time of his maturity had descended into musical mediocrity.

Which of course is proven by the total 'mediocrity' of his late masterpieces like the Trio op. 66

[Rod]

Originally posted by PDG:
Why "a confused effort"? Perhaps your effort in trying to understand/appreciate it is confused?

The sonata is a brilliant work, a summation of all Schubert's piano and other chamber music of which there is so much. And most of it worthy of our attention. D.960 is like the last chapter of his "autobiography"; enormous yet fleeting; challenging yet accessible; far-reaching yet always tuneful (melody may have been Schubert's "curse"!). Along with the companion works, D.958 & D.959, played by the dying composer to a small group of supporters, from where no contemporary comment survives of the impression they left. Shame. If Schubert, who was not a piano virtuoso, did these fantastic pieces the justice that I'm sure he would have, I believe he would have accepted his known inevitable fate with some kind of internal satisfaction. No one can begrudge him that. He knew the greatness of the late sonatas of his hero, Beethoven, but still offered sensational, new works in a genre where lesser mortals would have been afraid to follow.

By confused I mean a mish mash of ideas not put together in a convincing way. I'm sure Schubert understood late Beethoven, sometimes you can hear that influence in Schubert (when he's not immitating other composers). But Schubert's ideas and how he puts them together are never as good to my ears as Beethoven's.

------------------
"If I were but of noble birth..." - Rod Corkin

[Rod]

Originally posted by Cetto von Cronstorff:
Which of course is proven by the total 'mediocrity' of his late masterpieces like the Trio op. 66

Quite so.

------------------
"If I were but of noble birth..." - Rod Corkin

[Rod]

Originally posted by Peter:
The very best includes Mozart, Schubert, Schumann, Brahms, Chopin, Berlioz etc...!! Their music hasn't survived for nothing - history sorts out the chaff from the wheat which is why thousands of other composers from the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries are forgotten today. In the past you have equally dismissed Bach and Mozart, setting yourself up as a higher authority than Beethoven himself! "No!" I hear you deny it, "I never said this" - well every comment from you on those 2 composers alone has been negative in complete contrast to Beethoven's enthusiastic remarks.

Please try not to patronise 'us guys' by suggesting you have superior taste, knowledge and judgement, when in fact your lack of appreciation of composers other than Handel and Beethoven combined with your over the top adulation of every note Beethoven wrote reveal you not as highly sophisticated but extremely limited in approach.

I am fully aware of the weaknesses in other composers' works and quite able to recognise a great piece from a mediocre one. Mozart, Haydn and Schubert (to name a few) produced many such average works but they also produced first rate music.

Peter you must not forget that even with Beethoven and Handel it must be performed in a certain manner to meet my satisfaction. I think if I lost my current Beethoven CD collection, a lot of which you can't buy anymore, I doubt I would buy any of the traditional run-of-the-mill offerings we have today. It would be the end of my affair with Beethoven.

The other stuff you mention may be first rate, but I want the best of the first rate stuff, haven't got time for the second division. That's why I am happy to leave it for the rest of you. I will cease to patronise when you cease putting words in my mouth, deal?

------------------
"If I were but of noble birth..." - Rod Corkin


[This message has been edited by Rod (edited 07-22-2006).]

[PDG]

Originally posted by Rod:

By confused I mean a mish mash of ideas not put together in a convincing way. I'm sure Schubert understood late Beethoven, sometimes you can hear that influence in Schubert (when he's not immitating other composers). But Schubert's ideas and how he puts them together are never as good to my ears as Beethoven's.

This is such a preposterous series of ignorant statements that any unrestrained reply would seem like fuel to the fire! So I won't bother.

[Nightklavier]

Rod is a rare breed; I'm not sure if we can understand him. Abandoning Beethoven if a certain CD collection is lost seems psychotic to me.

[Sorrano]

Originally posted by Nightklavier:
Rod is a rare breed; I'm not sure if we can understand him. Abandoning Beethoven if a certain CD collection is lost seems psychotic to me.

It's not so much a case of Rod liking Beethoven. It's a combination of Beethoven's music, a particular style of performance, and a particular type of orchestra. The same is true of Handel.

And a word of caution for you, Rod: I've heard it on the grapevine that if you continue to insult other people's musical tastes that you will die and go to hell and be *FORCED* to listen to the Eugene Ormandy/Philadephia Orchestra's rendition of Messiah with the Mormon Tabernacle Choir forever.

[robert newman]

I can think of a worse fate for Rod. To be forced to listen day and night to the cantatas of a certain Leipzig Kapellmeister ! Ha !
The musical equivalent of a spoonful of cod-liver oil every ten minutes, for all aeons of time.

But we could strike a deal. I could happily stand in for you. But only if you promise not to rave too much about certain works and certain recordings of a certain Herr LvB. Mmmm ! Is that not Faustian ?



[This message has been edited by robert newman (edited 07-23-2006).]

[Nightklavier]

Originally posted by robert newman:
The musical equivalent of a spoonful of cod-liver oil every ten minutes, for all aeons of time.

Lol, now that's funny =)

[This message has been edited by Nightklavier (edited 07-23-2006).]

[Rod]

Originally posted by PDG:
This is such a preposterous series of ignorant statements that any unrestrained reply would seem like fuel to the fire! So I won't bother.

That read like a unrestrained reply to me!

------------------
"If I were but of noble birth..." - Rod Corkin

[This message has been edited by Rod (edited 07-23-2006).]

[Rod]

Originally posted by Nightklavier:
Rod is a rare breed; I'm not sure if we can understand him. Abandoning Beethoven if a certain CD collection is lost seems psychotic to me.

I am not abandoning Beethoven himself per se, just the performers who after 200 years still have no idea what this music is about. I'd rely on my memory.

------------------
"If I were but of noble birth..." - Rod Corkin

[Rod]

Originally posted by Sorrano:

It's not so much a case of Rod liking Beethoven. It's a combination of Beethoven's music, a particular style of performance, and a particular type of orchestra. The same is true of Handel.

This is true. I said earlier in my defence I'm not a classical music 'fan' in the traditional sence, or indeed any sence. I'm on a mission.

Originally posted by Sorrano:

And a word of caution for you, Rod: I've heard it on the grapevine that if you continue to insult other people's musical tastes that you will die and go to hell and be *FORCED* to listen to the Eugene Ormandy/Philadephia Orchestra's rendition of Messiah with the Mormon Tabernacle Choir forever.

Don't worry I'm used to that, when I was Moderator of the infamous (but for a few years fantastic) Edepot Beethoven forum I received death threats on a regular basis.

I have Ormandy's Christus am Oelberge, I'm sure his Messiah would literally burn my ears.

------------------
"If I were but of noble birth..." - Rod Corkin

[This message has been edited by Rod (edited 07-23-2006).]

[Rod]

Originally posted by robert newman:
I can think of a worse fate for Rod. To be forced to listen day and night to the cantatas of a certain Leipzig Kapellmeister ! Ha !
The musical equivalent of a spoonful of cod-liver oil every ten minutes, for all aeons of time.

But we could strike a deal. I could happily stand in for you. But only if you promise not to rave too much about certain works and certain recordings of a certain Herr LvB. Mmmm ! Is that not Faustian ?

I'm exhausted, all these responses at 9am on a Sunday morning. I imposed your sentance on myself during the BBCs complete Bach transmission. I was on leave and I really listened to a lot of it to try to understand why this was the greatest collection the art of music has to offer. At the end of it I was still unconvinced. For sure you can stand in for me.

------------------
"If I were but of noble birth..." - Rod Corkin

[robert newman]

Dear Rod,

You have a conception of Bach and his music that I believe Beethoven himself did not have. It's one that's nevertheless fashionable to hold - the idea that JS Bach was a stern, stiff extremist in areas of music theory and practice, and that Beethoven and others liberated us from his icy grip - taking us far beyond anything Bach conceived of and in to a world of musical freedom etc.

If this is your opinion (and you've listened to a lot of Bach, for sure) I won't strongly disagree with it. But your perceptions are, I believe, based on a number of assumptions that I think are flawed.

Perhaps the chief difference between, say, the fugues of Bach and those of Beethoven are in the written descriptions Beethoven himself gives of his own treatment of them. For example, in the 'Hammerklavier' Sonata 'fuga con ulcune licence', and in the quartet Op.133 there is 'Grand Fugue tanto libre, tanto recherchee' - descripions/justifications we simply do not find in Bach's own works.

There is a textbook on fugue by Ebenezer Prout that was published in the late 19th century. It opens with Prout's observation that the use of artistic 'licence' in fugue (the sort Beethoven specifically refers to in the works above) 'has grown to incredible dimensions within a century'. But Prout also points out that JS Bach was NEVER setting himself up as a model - that he was in fact well aware such licence would come and that it was entirely right that it should come. Prout proves this by refering to the fact that 'Bach himself is NOT a strict and good model because he purposely allows himself too many exceptions in fugue to be accused of imposing strict rules'. And in the same book he writes (this time of Bach's 48 Preludes and Fugues) -

'There is not, in actual fact, a single fugue in the whole '48' which is strictly, correctly written'.

Prout is entirely correct. But this is the whole point. Bach was actually NOT setting down rigid rules. He was doing the very opposite. He remained within recognisable limits because he wanted to leave a legacy worthy of his phenomenal talents as a musical pedagogue. He knew the rules. Better, perhaps, than any man before or since. He encouraged the very licence that Beethoven and others were to take. But he was a responsible and wise teacher - he wanted students to first of all have a fair idea of the principles. Not as dogmas. So Bach's great works are in a sense all that has ever been in fugue and also (in embryo) all that Beethoven or others will ever be. That's why I think it's wrong for people to portray Bach as some stern zealot of musical theory. He was in actual fact the very opposite.

I believe Beethoven knew this very well. That is why he described Bach as the 'god of harmony' and why there is really no rivalry or contradiction.

You say you often do not hear Bach's music fully developed. Yes, that's right. He condenses what he wrote. He rarely fleshes out what he does. Note too how free of tempo markings and other instructions his works are. He believed these things would be clearly understood by those of talent who came after him.

I think it's true to say nothing done in music since Bach's time escaped Bach's notice, not even Beethoven's great music. The licence Beethoven used was, in a very real sense, written first for him by Johann Sebastian Bach.

I personally believe we are right to recognise in JS Bach a supremely gifted musical teacher. Not in the letter of what he wrote or even in the examples he inspires. But in sending us on our own way with his care and his blessing. The importance of such a mentor to music lovers is the difference between music and anarchy and that between academia and Art.

Regards


[This message has been edited by robert newman (edited 07-25-2006).]

[Rod]

Originally posted by robert newman:
Dear Rod,

You have a conception of Bach and his music that I believe Beethoven himself did not have. It's one that's nevertheless fashionable to hold - the idea that JS Bach was a stern, stiff extremist in areas of music theory and practice, and that Beethoven and others liberated us from his icy grip - taking us far beyond anything Bach conceived of and in to a world of musical freedom etc...

I agree my perception of Bach is not the same as Beethoven’s, but it never could be, my perception is based on a view of music that includes Beethoven himself as the ultimate benchmark.

I agree Bach never set himself as the model composer of any sort. I have said here a few times my grievance is not with Bach. I’m sure he did his work in good faith and got paid for it. It is the many influential people who regard Bach as the ultimate the art of music has to offer I have the grievance. For I believe they are doing the art of music a disservice.

I agree also about Bach’s subsequent influence and that also is a problem as I see it. If you want to hear what music can sound like without any influence from Bach whatsoever that is easy – listen to Handel. But I suggest Bach’s direct influence on Beethoven was not that great, considering all his other influences.

I agree with you again regarding Bach the teacher, maybe the supreme teacher. But his productions to not entitle him to the rank of supreme composer.

------------------
"If I were but of noble birth..." - Rod Corkin



[This message has been edited by Rod (edited 07-25-2006).]