Beethoven vs. Mozart - VOTE HERE!

[PDG]

Originally posted by Rod:
Lone? Not quite so, did you not download the mp3 from B's string Quintet op4 at the rare page? Then there is a fantastic fugue and a prelude he also wrote circa 1817 -

Yes, I did, but of course, Op.4 was a re-write of the Wind Octet, Op.103; and the other movements (and the unfinished, late Quintet) do not a complete Quintet make!

[PDG]

Originally posted by Zon:
By the word "POP" I meant it in its own truest sense of the word, derived from POPULAR. I love Mozarts music I listen to him at least once a day.

Thanks for clearing that up - I thought you meant lemonade. Useful for washing down your daily dose of Mozart..............

[Vipercat]

Well, any Mozart lover would say exactly the same thing about Mozart's music being more dynamic and that Beethoven is too bland. It's all a matter of opinion and the person you are - and the moods you're going through. Some days I just want Beethoven, other days I just want Mozart, or Bach or whichever type of music that suits the mood. It differs from person to person! And Mozart and Beethoven are two totally different composers re their music; you can't compare them! I'm not saying either is the best, I think both are great alongside Handel and JS Bach. Each had their own ways of greatness. The reason why many don't like Mozart is because he's too "jolly" sometimes.

I don't think anyone has the right to judge a composer better than another (who is going to believe that person if he has a belief to the contrary?), but you can of course voice your opinion - it takes all kinds to make a world I guess.

[Rod]

Originally posted by PDG:
Yes, I did, but of course, Op.4 was a re-write of the Wind Octet, Op.103; and the other movements (and the unfinished, late Quintet) do not a complete Quintet make!

Op4 is a major re-write, to a large degree as near a new work of an old work as is possible and was I presume B's preferred version considering he held back from publishing the octet. Thus it should be considered. The other two works I mentioned ARE quintets - single movement quintets, certainly the fugue is self contained.

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

[Serge]

-testing password-

[Serge]

Hi again to everyone! Good to see the boards back up.

Okay, about this whole M v. B matter: while it is ultimately fruitless to bother changing other people's opinions, I think that from an objective point of view it can be shown that Beethoven was a "better" composer than Mozart. Beethoven's accomplishments have stood the test of time, just as Mozart's, but a far greater percentage of B's stuff is actually part of artists' and orchestras' repertoire than Mozart's. Consider: all of B's symphonies, sonatas, string quartets, p. concertos, most of his religious music, and even a lot of his first period stuff, which is evidently (by his later standards) Beethoven's lightweight, dry-run material. To get a proper comparison between the 2 composers, people are picking and choosing the BEST that Mozart had to offer and pitting it against ANYTHING of the same genre of Beethoven. That might be a little facile, but it is essentially true. What does that already say about Beethoven?

Mozart's best work I think probably lies with his operatic oeuvre. Even there, though, people are comparing DG, his late, dark work, to Beethoven's rescue opera, considered by not a few to be the BEST opera ever composed. Now, if that's a stretch, it still doesn't diminish the fact the a certain composer's single opera has earned itself perhaps the top spot among hundreds of operas written by so many others. What does that say?

Rod is correct in saying something to the effect that Mozart is easy to interpret, as opposed to B. Like Vivaldi, I find Mozart's 600+ works to be so similar in sound from one to the other that I cannot bear any longer to hear the trite and shopworn sound of "classical" era music. Haydn, I think, is even worse, mind you.

What continues to get me is the fact the the reach of Beethoven's style has extended ever since his second period. It has never stopped. Who knows how popular Bach would be today if Mendelssohn hadn't revived him? What about all the other popular-in-the-day composers in Beethoven's Vienna? Where is their exposure? On CBC Radio 2, our national classical station in Canada, a morning radio host every Tuesday brings out the works of some obscure composer who hardly anyone knows about. They may have been popular in their time, but their influence was minimal, in an almost market-economy kind of way. Only select few composers stand out anymore, with obscure ones enjoying cult status every now and again. It is hardly worth describing the profound and eternal effect of Beethoven on anything having to do with music, be it form, harmony, orchestration, meaning, emotion.

I believe Bach had a similar effect on music, but it was all structural effect. Beethoven was structure and emotion. The composers after him who I admire-- Liszt, Berlioz and not many others-- also innovated, but there was not much left to innovate (before modern classical, which I hate and won't discuss).

[Peter]

Originally posted by Serge:
I think that from an objective point of view it can be shown that Beethoven was a "better" composer than Mozart. Beethoven's accomplishments have stood the test of time, just as Mozart's, but a far greater percentage of B's stuff is actually part of artists' and orchestras' repertoire than Mozart's. To get a proper comparison between the 2 composers, people are picking and choosing the BEST that Mozart had to offer and pitting it against ANYTHING of the same genre of Beethoven. Rod is correct in saying something to the effect that Mozart is easy to interpret, as opposed to B

Well naturally I totally disagree! - To use the criteria of percentages of a composer's works in the repertoire as a measure of worth is as pointless as saying Mozart wrote twice as much music as Beethoven in nearly half the time. Of course we pick the best a composer has to offer for comparison - I'd hardly make a claim for Beethoven as the greatest composer on the strength of Wellington's victory or Fur Elise, so why pick a mediocre Mozart piece? As a pianist I can assure you that Mozart is definitely not easy to interpret, he is in fact one of the hardest of all to bring off convincingly - the deceptively simple opening of the Rondo in A minor reveals the quality of the pianist instantly. Your tastes are very much of the Romantic era which is why you are so hostile to the Classical period, including first period Beethoven, but I suspect in time you will change your outlook - I certainly have.

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

[chopithoven]

Originally posted by SR:
Chopithoven....

Just where do you see Beethoven or Mozart polls at Audio Galazy ? I went to www.audiogalaxy.com and found Detroit Techno hip hop club threads, whatever the hell that is.

Steve

Enter audiogalaxy.com and type "beethoven" or "mozart", then press enter. All the downloadable music by any of them will appear, and on the bottom of the page, a list of threads. There you'll find Beethoven vs. Mozart.

[chopithoven]

Originally posted by Peter:
I think I'm pretty familiar with Beethoven's music - I wonder how familiar with the really great Mozart works you are? The String Quintets K.515, K.516, and K.593 for example. The Divertimento K.563 or the Serenade K.388. There are a dozen or so of the 27 piano concertos that stand comparison with the Beethoven piano concertos, and at least 6 of the symphonies that are truly great, not to mention the operas! If none of that convinces you that Mozart was not some 2nd rater, then try the Ave Verum Corpus - 46 bars of the most sublime music ever written.

Of course Beethoven was great, but he wasn't the only great composer! As I said for me the greatest 4 were Bach, Handel, Mozart and Beethoven - this is a personal choice and you can't say that is wrong, you can only say you disagree and that is your personal opinion not fact.

First of all, I never said that Beethoven was the only great composer. It looks like you're having a confusion between 'one of the great composers' and the 'greatest'.
I have already said that Beethoven is my opinion the greatest composer, but that doesn't mean that the others aren't great.
Of course, there is a level of greatness where, considering each one's characteristics, we can say that there is ONE that is the greatest. I think it is Beethoven, but it might be another one.
There is one truth, one fact about THE GREATEST COMPOSER, but my opinion is not a fact.

[~Immortal Beloved~]

Originally posted by Serge:
-testing password-

Hey Serge! *hugs* Welcome back my friend!

------------------
freedom for all- Ludwig Van Beethoven

[This message has been edited by Chris (edited 01-15-2002).]

[chopithoven]

I used the word great and its family of words too much times in my las thread!

[Gman]

Originally posted by Serge:
Hi again to everyone! Good to see the boards back up.

Okay, about this whole M v. B matter: while it is ultimately fruitless to bother changing other people's opinions, I think that from an objective point of view it can be shown that Beethoven was a "better" composer than Mozart. Beethoven's accomplishments have stood the test of time, just as Mozart's, but a far greater percentage of B's stuff is actually part of artists' and orchestras' repertoire than Mozart's. Consider: all of B's symphonies, sonatas, string quartets, p. concertos, most of his religious music, and even a lot of his first period stuff, which is evidently (by his later standards)


But if you consider what is in the basic classical reportoire, Mozart probably has a larger number, if not a higher percentage. A list of works in basic list contains a large number of Mozart pieces, and he died at a very young age.

Though even if Mozart lived for many more years, he was not the type of composer that Beethoven was. I do not believe for a second that he would be able to write the Eroica anymore than Beethoven could write so many operas. Mozart was more suited to smaller scale works and vocal works.

Beethoven's lightweight, dry-run material. To get a proper comparison between the 2 composers, people are picking and choosing the BEST that Mozart had to offer and pitting it against ANYTHING of the same genre of Beethoven. That might be a little facile, but it is essentially true. What does that already say about Beethoven?

Mozart's best work I think probably lies with his operatic oeuvre. Even there, though, people are comparing DG, his late, dark work, to Beethoven's rescue opera, considered by not a few to be the BEST opera ever composed. Now, if that's a stretch, it still doesn't diminish the fact the a certain composer's single opera has earned itself perhaps the top spot among hundreds of operas written by so many others. What does that say?

Rod is correct in saying something to the effect that Mozart is easy to interpret, as opposed to B. Like Vivaldi, I find Mozart's 600+ works to be so similar in sound from one to the other that I cannot bear any longer to hear the trite and shopworn sound of "classical" era music. Haydn, I think, is even worse, mind you.


Although I agree with you here, I don't think the conclusion that "Beethoven is better" follows. Yes, Mozart's works are often easier to interpret. What is there to interpret in an opera?? And I do get tired of it. But that is a matter of personal taste, not a measure of greatness.

I'm sure lots of people also get tired of Beethoven. I even read a review in the Wall Street Journal that said Beethoven gets tiring because Beethoven had trouble expressing emotion! To this day I do not understand what that reviewer meant. If anyone can help, I would appreciate it.


What continues to get me is the fact the the reach of Beethoven's style has extended ever since his second period. It has never stopped. Who knows how popular Bach would be today if Mendelssohn hadn't revived him? What about all the other popular-in-the-day composers in Beethoven's Vienna? Where is their exposure? On CBC Radio 2, our national classical station in Canada, a morning radio host every Tuesday brings out the works of some obscure composer who hardly anyone knows about. They may have been popular in their time, but their influence was minimal, in an almost market-economy kind of way. Only select few composers stand out anymore, with obscure ones enjoying cult status every now and again. It is hardly worth describing the profound and eternal effect of Beethoven on anything having to do with music, be it form, harmony, orchestration, meaning, emotion.

I believe Bach had a similar effect on music, but it was all structural effect. Beethoven was structure and emotion. The composers after him who I admire-- Liszt, Berlioz and not many others-- also innovated, but there was not much left to innovate (before modern classical, which I hate and won't discuss).

You don't think Bach has emotion? I personally find it hard to believe!

[Gman]

Originally posted by Serge:
Hi again to everyone! Good to see the boards back up.

Okay, about this whole M v. B matter: while it is ultimately fruitless to bother changing other people's opinions, I think that from an objective point of view it can be shown that Beethoven was a "better" composer than Mozart. Beethoven's accomplishments have stood the test of time, just as Mozart's, but a far greater percentage of B's stuff is actually part of artists' and orchestras' repertoire than Mozart's. Consider: all of B's symphonies, sonatas, string quartets, p. concertos, most of his religious music, and even a lot of his first period stuff, which is evidently (by his later standards) Beethoven's lightweight, dry-run material. To get a proper comparison between the 2 composers, people are picking and choosing the BEST that Mozart had to offer and pitting it against ANYTHING of the same genre of Beethoven. That might be a little facile, but it is essentially true. What does that already say about Beethoven?

Mozart's best work I think probably lies with his operatic oeuvre. Even there, though, people are comparing DG, his late, dark work, to Beethoven's rescue opera, considered by not a few to be the BEST opera ever composed. Now, if that's a stretch, it still doesn't diminish the fact the a certain composer's single opera has earned itself perhaps the top spot among hundreds of operas written by so many others. What does that say?

Rod is correct in saying something to the effect that Mozart is easy to interpret, as opposed to B. Like Vivaldi, I find Mozart's 600+ works to be so similar in sound from one to the other that I cannot bear any longer to hear the trite and shopworn sound of "classical" era music. Haydn, I think, is even worse, mind you.

What continues to get me is the fact the the reach of Beethoven's style has extended ever since his second period. It has never stopped. Who knows how popular Bach would be today if Mendelssohn hadn't revived him? What about all the other popular-in-the-day composers in Beethoven's Vienna? Where is their exposure? On CBC Radio 2, our national classical station in Canada, a morning radio host every Tuesday brings out the works of some obscure composer who hardly anyone knows about. They may have been popular in their time, but their influence was minimal, in an almost market-economy kind of way. Only select few composers stand out anymore, with obscure ones enjoying cult status every now and again. It is hardly worth describing the profound and eternal effect of Beethoven on anything having to do with music, be it form, harmony, orchestration, meaning, emotion.

I believe Bach had a similar effect on music, but it was all structural effect. Beethoven was structure and emotion. The composers after him who I admire-- Liszt, Berlioz and not many others-- also innovated, but there was not much left to innovate (before modern classical, which I hate and won't discuss).

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Serge:
Hi again to everyone! Good to see the boards back up.
Okay, about this whole M v. B matter: while it is ultimately fruitless to bother changing other people's opinions, I think that from an objective point of view it can be shown that Beethoven was a "better" composer than Mozart. Beethoven's accomplishments have stood the test of time, just as Mozart's, but a far greater percentage of B's stuff is actually part of artists' and orchestras' repertoire than Mozart's. Consider: all of B's symphonies, sonatas, string quartets, p. concertos, most of his religious music, and even a lot of his first period stuff, which is evidently (by his later standards)

Okay, I'm reposting this since my first response came out wrong.


If you consider what is in the basic classical reportoire, Mozart probably has a larger number, if not a higher percentage. A list of works in basic list contains a large number of Mozart pieces, and he died at a very young age.

And although I agree Mozart is easier to interpret, I don't think the conclusion that "Beethoven is better" follows. Yes, Mozart's works are often easier to interpret. What is there to interpret in an opera?? And I do get tired of it. But that is a matter of personal taste, not a measure of greatness.

I'm sure lots of people also get tired of Beethoven. I even read a review in the Wall Street Journal that said Beethoven gets tiring because Beethoven had trouble expressing emotion! To this day I do not understand what that reviewer meant. If anyone can help, I would appreciate it.

[SR]

You know Serge....

Your entire post is the biggest load of BS, I can't even begin to comment. You state YOUR opinion as though it's fact. The whole concept that Beethoven or Mozart is the BEST is just the most absurd thing I've run across. I am a lifelong lover of Beethoven who has now also become a student of Mozarts life and music. Your statement that all Mozart sounds the same proves you know nothing of Mozarts work. Have you ever delved deeper than renting Amadeus ?

Both men were absolute geniuses. That is my opinion and that is fact. I repeat my earlier statement that if you don't listen to both you are short changing yourself.

Steve

[Tom Kristof]

Originally posted by Peter:
Well I can't think of a single Symphonic composer after Beethoven who matched his achievement. Brahms comes the closest, but they're not in the same league. The Symphony did reach the summit with Beethoven, particularly the 9th which spawned many pale immitations from the Romantics. Having said that, I do actually quite like many 'Romantic' symphonies, but I don't regard them as an advance on Beethoven.

I don't disagree with you. But, in short, if you believe that no other symphonic composer was able to move his audience to the ability of Beethoven, then I would have to disagree with you.

If you are saying that there was no other symphonic composer who matched the technical ability of Beethoven, as a symphonist, then I would agree with you, to an extent.

There is no way a symphony by any composer can be classified as an 'advance' on Beethoven, unless that composer intentionally went out to mimic Beethoven's style and emotive thought through music, and managed to produce a superior product (which, of course, no one has).

Tom.