Beethoven vs. Mozart - VOTE HERE!

[Ludwig]

Beethoven of course.He is the creator of an whole new era in music-The Romantism.

[HaydnFan]

Mozart, no contest. I love Beethoven's intensity but Mozart is the greatest musical genius who ever lived. period.

I think someone on the first page mentioned that Mozart gets tiring to them. If this is true then either:

a) you have not listened to any good pieces (Mozart DOES have some trivial ones)

b) you are not musically-inclined or very bright and not a classical music enthusiast

This is not to say that a and b hold true for people who PREFER Beethoven, because that is perfectly acceptable. It only goes for those who find Mozart tiring.

[RE Newman]

Beethoven, musically, wins by a long way over Mozart. I also think if we can escape Mozart's undoubtedly sweet songs (as sailors should try to escape being wrecked on rocks by the betwitching sounds of the 'Sirens')we can and will remain musical.

Mozart's music is seductive on the ear, for sure. Was he not the 'Casanova of Music' ? If we as musical men can escape his charms I think we lose nothing. Beethoven knew this I'm sure.

Robert

[HaydnFan]

Beethoven certainly brought music to a new era but so did Mozart (with the help of Haydn). Say what you like about Mozart keeping within the "classical" style (and Beethoven breaking out of this) but please don't refer to Mozart as a "siren" as if he is trying to lure us into danger. His music is a lot more than just "sweet" and if you can't recognize that, I feel sorry for you.

[RE Newman]

Hi HaydnFan,

Yes, Mozart's music (i.e. that which is traditionally attributed to him) is far more than just sweet. Did I not also say that it's highly seductive ?

You say it's not dangerous, musically. I disagree and will try to explain why I say this. (Should you still feel sorry for me, thanks).

Firstly, I don't say Mozart's music (whatever that actually means) is itself dangerous. I said (and say) that it's dangerous to those who wish to learn music.

How so ? Well, is it not a relatively simple thing for a musician/a composer, to write music 'in the style of Mozart' - easier than for him/her to write music in, say, the style of Schumann, or that of, say, Berlioz ? But if you or I were asked to compose a piece of music 'in the style of Beethoven' would that not present us with far greater difficulty than one 'in the style of Mozart' ? And (if you agree this is true)we might ask why this is so.

This is what I mean when I say Mozart's music is highly seductive and why it is a danger to those who are musical. Secondly, we are really discussing (if we think about it) a style which belongs mainly to his mature years, are we not ? For there are many, many works 'by Mozart' which are really extremely ordinary in musical value.

But if you or I can write works in a passable 'style of Mozart' (and countless others since Mozart have done so or have been greatly influenced by him - take Rossini, for example) then it must surely be the case that they, his impersonators, were not truly original. And this is the danger.

Was Mozart 'original' ? Really, I see little evidence of originality other than wonderful melodies and his use of chromaticisms in his 'best' music. There is in fact little in the works of Mozart's contemporaries that could not have been 'Mozartified' (had this been requested) by a clever musical arranger or publisher.

Goodness, we are speaking here of one of the 'safest' composers who ever lived, harmonically, and against which we can certainly list a billion examples of his conservatism.

So you see I hardly think him innovative or revolutionary. He is instead a magician, a 'a spinner of musical candyfloss', and provided we respect this (and similar features in Haydn too) there's no need for much more to be said.

Contrast this with a Beethoven who, in every single musical respect (and in many, many others) was surely at least Mozart's equal and often far superior.

In my honest opinion the greatest composers of the 18th century (judged on their musical achievements) were men such as Vivaldi, JS Bach and CPE Bach, this followed by the phenomenal Beethoven.

That Mozart's music is beautiful is undeniable. That Mozart is the equal of a Bach or a Beethoven I strongly disagree. It was never so and in my view it never will be so.

Regards

Robert

[peter69]

I entirely agree with Robert regarding Mozart. Mozart almost never managed to work out any of his ideas properly; always cutting a theme off when it's about to get interesting. For the rest simplicty prevails in his music and there is hardly any emotional depth. Mozart wrote his music fast and careless. Yet, the simplicity makes his music very accessible to a wide audience and hence his popularity. But to call him one of the greatest composers would be a very large overstatement. He is probably the most over-rated composer of them all.

Van Beethoven was a very emotional man and this clearly reflects in his music, which thrives on passion and expression. But this also was Van Beethoven's biggest hindrance. I called his music "more transpiration than inspiration" and although this statement may not seem to bring justice to the indisputable genius that he was. But he often forgets himself amid all of this passion and this clearly shows in e.g. the fact that Van Beethoven rarely managed to make a proper ending to his music. Carrying on and on and on, adding more and more unnecessary notes before the final blow eventually comes.

Especially if you compare this with JS Bach, for whom the finale of a piece was a true speciality. Bach never needed any horns or drums to announce an end, nor did he spin-off a theme until it almost becomes boring. The end naturally comes and you just "feel" that it is the end. Just like you "feel" that everything is "right" in the entire piece. And, no composer has so many surprises in store for the audience. Take the last bars of the Fugue in C sharp minor of the first book of "Das Wohltemperirte Klavier". At one moment you would expect that the only possible notes that can follow is the main chord of C sharp and that this would be the end. But... in the bass, in stead of the normal G sharp, he suddenly puts an A (normal) in contrast with the G sharp in the upper voice, after which he works to a much more dramatic and powerful end. Just brilliant! Before you challenge me here with what I said about Van Beethoven's endings, please listen to the piece first. You'll know what I mean! It is possible to change the music of all composers without most people noticing the difference. All, except JS Bach. Change one seemingly unimportant note, and the entire music falls to pieces. This is unique in musical history, although of course it has also a lot to do with the fact that Bach wrote in a contrapunctual way most of the time. His music demonstrates a stylistical and semantical perfection unseen by any other composer. In fact, he is the only composer who never made an error of such kind. It is not for nothing that both Mozart and Van Beethoven, along with most of the other composers, took Bach as their big example, or even as their "God" as Van Beethoven described Bach.

It is mentioned that Van Beethoven changed the history of music. This is also an exaggeration. I would daresay that Schubert changed music more than Van Beethoven. One should not mistake a clear and distinct style to "changing musical history". Van Beethoven's music may have often been of a superior quality, it did not at all cause the process of Classicism turning into Romanticism which had started after Mozart. Like I said, what about e.g. Schubert?

I say that no composer in history has changed the face of music as much as JS Bach. I will recall here that Bach not invented, but introduced the Well-tempered Klavier, a fact which changed music for ever! In fact, although Bach was often regarded as being "old-fashioned" by his contemporaries and those who followed shortly after him (and obviously didn't understand his music!), the harmonies developed by Bach were so advanced that they were only taken up again about 150 years after his death by people like Debussy, who started the second revolution in classical music - after Bach that is. I challenge everyone of you to listen to e.g. Contrapunctus 11 from "Die Künst der Fugue", preferably in the string-version by Musica Antiqua (Reinhard Goebbel). If you wouldn't know it was Bach, you would almost think that it was 20th century music! No-one made such brilliant use of chromatic, diatonic and dissonantic harmonies like Bach. Another nice example are the "Goldberg Variationen" where Bach experiments with canons in all possible intervals, from second to ninth note. A canon with the reply in the second??? Yes! Bach did it and it works!

And one last argument. Bach's music was so unique that he is rightly called the "Founding Father of Jazz". Forget Jazz being invented by early 20th century African Americans. They merely introduced a more syncopic rhythm. But the harmonies, the variations and improvisations, the themes which appear and re-appear in all voices,... these originated with Bach. Ask the Swingler Sisters and others who have made Jazz arrangements with Bach's music, as if it were only natural to do so.

Cheers,

Peter

[This message has been edited by peter69 (edited 03-27-2006).]

[This message has been edited by peter69 (edited 03-27-2006).]

[atserriotserri]

Humbly, I clearly consider than Beethoven is a better composer than Mozart.

I believe (again humbly, with the greatest respect and stating that I love Mozart music) that by whatever reason or reasons (his determination to be freelance and be able to achieve it, socioeconomical reasons, his talent, his personality, his high standards, a mixture of all of them, any others...) Beethoven's compositions are not trivial, while for whatever reason or reasons, a significant part of Mozart works is trivial (and I repeat that love Mozart music, both trivial and non trivial). That difference creates a sense that Beethoven is a better composer, more "serious composer".

Could have Beethoven write as fast, as many works as Mozart? We'll never know, but if he had to, I guess he could. But I think that his perseverance in being independent means that he didn't wanted that way of working perhaps knowing that it would imply to simplify his compositions. What had Mozart composed if he would had more time to compose? We'll never know.

I only draw the line when someone puts in the same cathegory Mozart and Pop. Sorry, but that's nonsense.

Also it seems to me most of us have some sort of Group of composers that we distinguish as the best more than a clear classification from 1 to, I don't know, 20, 30, or whatever. That's what explains that topics like this "who's better than who" always end on everybody saying their preferred 4-5 and discussing over particular bodies of work instead of general analysis, which adds depth to the argument; those are mine:

Bach, Beethoven, Chopin, Mozart, Haydn, Haendel, Vivaldi


Beethovens Symphonies, Violin Concerto, Piano Sonatas and String Quartets.

Mozart's String Quintets, Religious Music.

Even Piano Concertos.

[atserriotserri]

Sorry but I left one thing to clarify my position. With my friends or girlfriend I prefer to compare performances of the same piece, or two works of different composers (2 sonatas, concertos, quartets, etc... from different composers) that composers in abstract. It focus you more on the point, and after all, I'm always influenced by my particular mood when choosing music, and many people is.

[Rod]

Originally posted by peter69:

Van Beethoven was a very emotional man and this clearly reflects in his music, which thrives on passion and expression. But this also was Van Beethoven's biggest hindrance. I called his music "more transpiration than inspiration" and although this statement may not seem to bring justice to the indisputable genius that he was. But he often forgets himself amid all of this passion and this clearly shows in e.g. the fact that Van Beethoven rarely managed to make a proper ending to his music. Carrying on and on and on, adding more and more unnecessary notes before the final blow eventually comes.

Especially if you compare this with JS Bach, for whom the finale of a piece was a true speciality....

Peter

I have said similar things about Mozart's treatment of his material often being less than satisfactory. However nobody makes a better ending to a piece than Beethoven, so I don't know what you are talking about here!!

You overate Bach to my mind, I could spend all day on this subject but I'll pass this occasion. Although Beethoven Beethoven had great respect for Bach it was Mozart and then in the 'Late' period Handel who were his 'gods', there is no disputing this fact. For me only Handel ranks in Beethoven's league.

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

[Rod]

Originally posted by peter69:
[B]

I say that no composer in history has changed the face of music as much as JS Bach. I will recall here that Bach not invented, but introduced the Well-tempered Klavier, a fact which changed music for ever! In fact, although Bach was often regarded as being "old-fashioned" by his contemporaries and those who followed shortly after him (and obviously didn't understand his music!), the harmonies developed by Bach were so advanced that they were only taken up again about 150 years after his death by people like Debussy, who started the second revolution in classical music - after Bach that is. I challenge everyone of you to listen to e.g. Contrapunctus 11 from "Die Künst der Fugue", preferably in the string-version by Musica Antiqua (Reinhard Goebbel). If you wouldn't know it was Bach, you would almost think that it was 20th century music! No-one made such brilliant use of chromatic, diatonic and dissonantic harmonies like Bach. Another nice example are the "Goldberg Variationen" where Bach experiments with canons in all possible intervals, from second to ninth note. A canon with the reply in the second??? Yes! Bach did it and it works!

And one last argument. Bach's music was so unique that he is rightly called the "Founding Father of Jazz". Forget Jazz being invented by early 20th century African Americans. They merely introduced a more syncopic rhythm. But the harmonies, the variations and improvisations, the themes which appear and re-appear in all voices,... these originated with Bach. Ask the Swingler Sisters and others who have made Jazz arrangements with Bach's music, as if it were only natural to do so.

Cheers,

Peter
[B]

Sorry can't help myself. I agree to a fair degree your assessment of Bach technically but my conclusion is the opposite of yours. Indeed I have said before Bach's contribution to the art of music is more a technical one than an artistic one hence he is the darling of the academies and conservetoires. Yet to my mind the increasing interest in Bach post-Beethoven coincides with the demise of music as an art form. Perhaps there is a link or perhaps there is not, but name me a good composer after Beethoven. The academisation of classical music has killed the development of it. Thus what did Bach contribute that is positive to musical development at this time when most of the music produced was embarrassingly bad by Beethoven standards?

I agree absolutely with your connection with Bach and Jazz, Bach invented the genre. Just add a drum-kit and a bass to any Bach keyboard piece and you have a pure jazz. But I hate jazz in all its embarrassignly self-indulgent forms so what are you saying here?

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

[Frank H]

Originally posted by RE Newman:

Was Mozart 'original' ? Really, I see little evidence of originality other than wonderful melodies and his use of chromaticisms in his 'best' music. There is in fact little in the works of Mozart's contemporaries that could not have been 'Mozartified' (had this been requested) by a clever musical arranger or publisher.

Goodness, we are speaking here of one of the 'safest' composers who ever lived, harmonically, and against which we can certainly list a billion examples of his conservatism.

So you see I hardly think him innovative or revolutionary. He is instead a magician, a 'a spinner of musical candyfloss', and provided we respect this (and similar features in Haydn too) there's no need for much more to be said.

Dear Robert

This is getting a little "complicated".

You have been trying to "prove" that Mozart's music was actually by Luchesi, Kraus, and others.

Now it appears that you don't think that much of the music anyway. I wonder if Giorgio Taboga is aware of this! I get the impression that the various Italians who are trying to attribute Mozart’s music to Luchesi, Sammartini, and other Italians, are doing so at least partly through national pride. I’m not sure they would be too pleased at your strictures on “Mozart”’s music. It would be like someone allying himself to the Afrocentrists in “proving” that Beethoven was black, while at the same time, “dissing” his music as third-rate.

And how about Kraus, one of your heroes? Does his music too come into the “candyfloss” category.

I remember that in a previous post in another thread, you were complaining that Kraus was being neglected, as compared with Mozart, in the present anniversary celebrations. That seemed to you to be another of the misdemeanours of the Mozart-worshippers. But of course that is simply because of the music, not because of any particular regard for Mozart, the man, whom I suspect many people think of as the giggling fool of “Amadeus”. If it becomes accepted that Mozart’s music was actually by Kraus and/or Luchesi, I am sure that those gentlemen would begin to receive the adulation that Mozart now receives in certain circles. Or perhaps not, if the music is actually as second-rate as you seem to think.

As for your actual views on the quality of the music of “Mozart”/Luchesi/Kraus/ Sammartini/etc., they are surprisingly “conservative” for someone with your iconoclastic tendencies. They are precisely the views I had on the music, views I picked up largely as the received opinion at the time. However when, a few years ago, I started to listen to a wider selection of the Mozart oeuvre than “Eine kleine Nachtmusik” and the like, I began to see how inadequate the usual view was.

Your post reveals another attitude which, if common among lovers of "romantic revolutionaries", is nevertheless, I believe, profoundly mistaken. It is that such features as chromaticism and dissonance are, ipso facto, desirable. But surely they are of importance in music not for themselves but as a means to an end. Thus Wagner could write a great opera, Die Meistersinger, which is very largely diatonic, while also writing a great opera, Tristan, which is extremely chromatic. It may sometimes be as courageous and “unsafe” to be “conservative”, as it is to be “revolutionary”.

Regards

Frank

[Frank H]

Originally posted by Rod:

For me only Handel ranks in Beethoven's league.

Which only goes to show how subjective this sort of subject usually is.

Frank

[Rod]

Originally posted by Frank H:

Originally posted by Rod:

For me only Handel ranks in Beethoven's league.

Which only goes to show how subjective this sort of subject usually is.

Frank

True, but I also have the added and uniquely rare benefit that I actually know what I am talking about when it comes to a critical assessment of Handel.

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

[Rod]

Originally posted by Frank H:
...Thus Wagner could write a great opera, Die Meistersinger....while also writing a great opera, Tristan....
Regards

Frank

Which only goes to show how subjective this sort of subject usually is.

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

[This message has been edited by Rod (edited 03-27-2006).]

[Frank H]

Originally posted by Rod:
Which only goes to show how subjective this sort of subject usually is.

Absolutely!

I disagree with you about Bach and Handel, but of course you have a right to your opinion, as I have to mine.

That's all I was trying to say.