The Genius of...Beethoven

[Rod]

Originally posted by Rod:
Well in my opinion it's not bad but not as good as it could be from a direction point of view. But it is the ONLY recording of this oratorio that exists, as is typical with every big Handel piece other than Messiah.

Sorry I recall that Naxos recorded Deborah too! Though it did not get a particularly good review.

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

[This message has been edited by Rod (edited 07-20-2006).]

[Rod]

Originally posted by PDG:
So he said but, frankly, I'm not convinced it was ever a serious consideration. He was too beloved.

Well suicide is only ever a 'serious consideration' when it is actually undertaken. Nevertheless it was a deep depression for sure.

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

[Peter]

Originally posted by Rod:
Forgive me Peter, but my ears have been finely tuned with 20 years of listening to the ideal musical formula. That I can, with little effort, detect the flaws of lesser composers is not my loss, it is my curse...

Forgive me Rod but I have been listening for just as long as you (and certainly from a younger age), I am a professional musician but unlike yourself I don't claim to be the world's authority on matters musical.

For what it is worth I don't think you are able to detect the flaws in other composers accurately as you rate even the most trivial Beethoven piece as superior to the masterworks of others.



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

[Rod]

Originally posted by Peter:
Forgive me Rod but I have been listening for just as long as you (and certainly from a younger age), I am a professional musician but unlike yourself I don't claim to be the world's authority on matters musical.

For what it is worth I don't think you are able to detect the flaws in other composers accurately as you rate even the most trivial Beethoven piece as superior to the masterworks of others.

You may recall my notion of the ideal 'musical solution' or 'musical formula'? Something I always refer to but it seems not to have yet clicked with yourself. When I listen to a piece of music I am instantly drawn to the underlying method of composition, including form and structure, not just whether it has a good tune or whatever. So for me even a small and relatively insignificant piece by Beethoven uses the same stylistic formula as his bigger better known music. So this is why I can say a minor piece by Beethoven can hold my interest more than a big piece by Schubert, because by comparison Schubert's compositional style is consistantly flawed by Beethoven's standards. Which is why even the arrangements of Beethoven's own works done by others but corrected by himself (and included in his opus list) fail to hold my interest, because despite Beethoven's efforts, it is clear the compositional style is alien despite the familiarity of the thematic material.

The reason I approve of Handel is because his method from my experience seems similarly perfect, it is an ideal musical solution - so it is possible to have more than one ideal solution even for me.

I doubt they teach this manner of consideration at music school? If pushed I'm sure you would have to admit Beethoven is a greater composer than Schubert. At the end of the day you have to ask yourself why you prefer one style to another.

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

[This message has been edited by Rod (edited 07-20-2006).]

[robert newman]

I think Rod is quite right in saying the great composers know that form is hugely important. We say that a work is musically great if it is a successful fusion of both form and content.

Some suspension bridges are very ugly although they may be marvels of engineering. I think a valid criticism of some music and some composers is that the balance does not exist or is poorly done between form and content. Some of the most glorious works in music are highly repetitive. But the same is true of much musical rubbish. I personally think Beethoven homed in on the idea that good music emerges from form - that all begins with form (rather than content) and that the great composers (such as Beethoven) emphasise form in some places and hide it from us in others to have maximum musical effect. At no point in a great piece of music are form and content equal although the work as a whole is judged by whehter it is a successful fusion of both. What is right for a piece and when it is right is really a matter of inspiration or intuition. This Beethoven had in ways superior to many other composers. That the symphonies of Beethoven really are superior to even those of, say, Schubert seems to me not just an opinion but a fact.

The main reason we always seem to struggle in being objective about the merits of composers is that the personality of each composer is that which fuses form and content in their work. It seems that much great music (called such) is really as much the product of human personality, humab endeavour and even human vanity as knowledge.

But there is the old idea that the poets (who were the musicians of ancient times) had almost nothing to do with the works they created - that they were only the vessels used to bring it in to the light of day.

Its also curious that we, today, are so much more involved in matters of content than form. Books, films, music etc. may be banned for their content. But who would ban a work for its form ? Such a thing is almost unknown.

It is form and the way Beethoven dealt with form that marks him out as being one of the truly greatest and most original composers. Forms were surely what he worked so hard at in his notebooks, until they surrendered their melodies and their own solutions.

Beethoven was of course a great improviser and inventor. But he is chiefly one of the supreme workers also. Always mining in the quarry of forms. Perhaps more than virtually any other composer. His workmanlike approach was/still is revolutionary. A small thing (maybe a motif) becomes eventually suggestive of a form to Beethoven. Its this he works so hard on until everything else (including melody etc) has surrendered to him.

This process is so far removed from Haydn/Mozart that I really do think Beethoven was a musical revolutionary. His deafness and his personal circumstances only emphasised his gifts still more.

[Peter]

Originally posted by Rod:
You may recall my notion of the ideal 'musical solution' or 'musical formula'? Something I always refer to but it seems not to have yet clicked with yourself. When I listen to a piece of music I am instantly drawn to the underlying method of composition, including form and structure, not just whether it has a good tune or whatever. So for me even a small and relatively insignificant piece by Beethoven uses the same stylistic formula as his bigger better known music. So this is why I can say a minor piece by Beethoven can hold my interest more than a big piece by Schubert, because by comparison Schubert's compositional style is consistantly flawed by Beethoven's standards. Which is why even the arrangements of Beethoven's own works done by others but corrected by himself (and included in his opus list) fail to hold my interest, because despite Beethoven's efforts, it is clear the compositional style is alien despite the familiarity of the thematic material.

The reason I approve of Handel is because his method from my experience seems similarly perfect, it is an ideal musical solution - so it is possible to have more than one ideal solution even for me.

I doubt they teach this manner of consideration at music school? If pushed I'm sure you would have to admit Beethoven is a greater composer than Schubert. At the end of the day you have to ask yourself why you prefer one style to another.

I don't deny that Beethoven was the greater composer, but it doesn't make me dismissive of others achievements. Schubert was not some 3rd rate hack - he was a great composer who died too young to fulfil his undoubted potential. Schubert was moving towards mastery of his material in late works such as Winterreise and the last sonata, which offers just such an alternative to the Beethoven way you describe.

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

[Rod]

Originally posted by Peter:
I don't deny that Beethoven was the greater composer, but it doesn't make me dismissive of others achievements. Schubert was not some 3rd rate hack - he was a great composer who died too young to fulfil his undoubted potential. Schubert was moving towards mastery of his material in late works such as Winterreise and the last sonata, which offers just such an alternative to the Beethoven way you describe.

I am not dismissive of others in their own right, and I do not recall using the term '3rd rate hack'. I just compare everyone with Beethoven and judge on that basis. Ultimately by your own admition your position is no different from my own, other than you have made no effort so far to explain it.

I disagree about 'late' Schubert, certainly the last sonata I think is a confused effort. Regardless, think about Mendelsohn - began as a prodigy with great prospects, but by the time of his maturity had descended into musical mediocrity.

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

[Sorrano]

Originally posted by Rod:
You may recall my notion of the ideal 'musical solution' or 'musical formula'? Something I always refer to but it seems not to have yet clicked with yourself. When I listen to a piece of music I am instantly drawn to the underlying method of composition, including form and structure, not just whether it has a good tune or whatever. So for me even a small and relatively insignificant piece by Beethoven uses the same stylistic formula as his bigger better known music. So this is why I can say a minor piece by Beethoven can hold my interest more than a big piece by Schubert, because by comparison Schubert's compositional style is consistantly flawed by Beethoven's standards. Which is why even the arrangements of Beethoven's own works done by others but corrected by himself (and included in his opus list) fail to hold my interest, because despite Beethoven's efforts, it is clear the compositional style is alien despite the familiarity of the thematic material.

The reason I approve of Handel is because his method from my experience seems similarly perfect, it is an ideal musical solution - so it is possible to have more than one ideal solution even for me.

I doubt they teach this manner of consideration at music school? If pushed I'm sure you would have to admit Beethoven is a greater composer than Schubert. At the end of the day you have to ask yourself why you prefer one style to another.

What you describe is what I was taught as "through composing", that is there is no rigid form or structure to follow so that it is a bit more of a fantasia type, or improvisational. That you fail to appreciate this style is of no surprise to me, however it became increasingly common in the 19th and 20th Centuries.

[Rod]

Originally posted by Sorrano:

What you describe is what I was taught as "through composing", that is there is no rigid form or structure to follow so that it is a bit more of a fantasia type, or improvisational. That you fail to appreciate this style is of no surprise to me, however it became increasingly common in the 19th and 20th Centuries.

I don't think this is what I was describing, I would accept any form that actually works,
but for sure any sence of structural integrity went out the window as the C19th progressed.

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

[Peter]

Originally posted by Rod:
I am not dismissive of others in their own right, and I do not recall using the term '3rd rate hack'. I just compare everyone with Beethoven and judge on that basis. Ultimately by your own admition your position is no different from my own, other than you have made no effort so far to explain it.

I disagree about 'late' Schubert, certainly the last sonata I think is a confused effort. Regardless, think about Mendelsohn - began as a prodigy with great prospects, but by the time of his maturity had descended into musical mediocrity.

I don't find Schubert's last sonata 'a confused effort' - I find it a sublime masterpiece. Obviously if you think Beethoven's way is the only acceptable way then you will blind yourself to other composers. Since form is so important to you I'm surprised that of the 19th century composers Brahms doesn't appeal to you, and of the 20th century I would have thought Schoenberg right up your street!

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

[Rod]

Originally posted by Peter:
Obviously if you think Beethoven's way is the only acceptable way then you will blind yourself to other composers...

Peter with respect I sometimes wonder how much attention you apply when reading my posts. I have stated clearly in this chain there can be more than one 'way':

"...The reason I approve of Handel is because his method from my experience seems similarly perfect, it is an ideal musical solution - so it is possible to have more than one ideal solution even for me."

Concerning the Schubert sonata we agree to differ. But I do not judge on structure alone, I just mention it as one consideration. I've never heard anything by Brahms I liked, there is nothing in it, just noise like the other late romantics.

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

[Nightklavier]

Rod, even if I feel the Romantic period pales in comparison with Beethoven or Handel, I can't have such disdain for other classical composers because they didn't reach the same heights. They reached different heights, and think about this: This music is indeed *classical* and for a reason. The world will not have anything like Beethoven ever again. Nor will it have a Mozart, a Chopin or Brahms. We have Eminem, Dixie Chicks, and an insane invasion of "rap" from people who actually call themselves "artists." The world is in a dark age of music and might not ever see light. Music is no longer art, it's dance music. So taking in the scope of things that the art of music is gone, maybe even forever, I tend to appreciate most classical composers and at least find something in them. They reached the summit of the artform, and we would be fools to think that one day music will return to that state.

[Rod]

Originally posted by Nightklavier:
Rod, even if I feel the Romantic period pales in comparison with Beethoven or Handel, I can't have such disdain for other classical composers because they didn't reach the same heights. They reached different heights, and think about this: This music is indeed *classical* and for a reason. The world will not have anything like Beethoven ever again. Nor will it have a Mozart, a Chopin or Brahms. We have Eminem, Dixie Chicks, and an insane invasion of "rap" from people who actually call themselves "artists." The world is in a dark age of music and might not ever see light. Music is no longer art, it's dance music. So taking in the scope of things that the art of music is gone, maybe even forever, I tend to appreciate most classical composers and at least find something in them. They reached the summit of the artform, and we would be fools to think that one day music will return to that state.

I do not have 'disdain' for anybody, but the likes of Brahms have done me no favours so I tell it like it is. I am not a fan of the classical music genre per se. I take from it what is the very best and leave the remainder to you guys. I'm like this with every music genre, forgive me.

Remember we have to pay good money to experience music, be it live or on a CD. It is not our duty to appreciate everything on offer, the is the duty of the composer to entertain us with something worthy of our money. Everyone here knows I put my money where my mouth is, you've all benefited from it, doubly so for the few of you who were wise enough to join my Handel site.

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

[Peter]

Originally posted by Rod:
I do not have 'disdain' for anybody, but the likes of Brahms have done me no favours so I tell it like it is. I am not a fan of the classical music genre per se. I take from it what is the very best and leave the remainder to you guys. I'm like this with every music genre, forgive me.

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.

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

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

[PDG]

Originally posted by Rod:


I disagree about 'late' Schubert, certainly the last sonata I think is a confused effort. Regardless, think about Mendelsohn - began as a prodigy with great prospects, but by the time of his maturity had descended into musical mediocrity.

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.