Beethoven vs. Mozart - VOTE HERE!

[Chaszz]

I haven't read Brahms's letters and wondered if there was anything there?

I haven't either but I've read two biographies and there was nothing in them.

[EoN]

Hi all,

This is a very interesting thread, I'm glad I came across it.

I don't consider myself an expert on classical music, but I do enjoy it and have read bits and pieces over the years, and have played and produce music for most of my life.

My main point is this - how 'serious' a musicians personality OR music is, has absolutely NO relevance to how 'great' their music is! Where did anybody come up with the idea that this has any bearing?! Music can be described as serious, uplifting, dark, happy, there are many different interpretations and classifications, but it's irrelevant! A frivolous or uplifting piece can be just as technically and musically 'good' as a dark or serious one! If anything it may be that the listener has a preference of one of these styles of music, but that's no bearing on the musicality!

And as for personality, that has even less relevance towards the quality of music. It doesnt matter if Mozart or Beethoven were depressed, happy, sad, mad, angry, glad.. These characteristics of their personalities can't be used in a comparison of the greatness of their MUSIC!

[HaydnFan]

[QUOTE=EoN;35610]Hi all,


I agree with your first point but disagree with your second point, at least in terms of the Romantic composers. I think in the case of the 19th Century and also probably the 20th, the character of the composer has much to do with the music, itself.

That is to say, the artist has to have suffered in order for the listener to really "believe" the sentiments in the music. If you look at all the major composers of the 19th century, they all suffered in some way which helped to contribute to their music. As an example of the opposite is Mendelssohn (if we do not consider his and his sister's early deaths)...I need not say anything about his music because we know how that turned out...

[Chaszz]

I agree with your first point but disagree with your second point, at least in terms of the Romantic composers. I think in the case of the 19th Century and also probably the 20th, the character of the composer has much to do with the music, itself.

That is to say, the artist has to have suffered in order for the listener to really "believe" the sentiments in the music. If you look at all the major composers of the 19th century, they all suffered in some way which helped to contribute to their music...

'And even in our sleep pain that cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart, and in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom to us by the awful grace of God.'

- Aeschylus

[Preston]

Hi all,

This is a very interesting thread, I'm glad I came across it.

I don't consider myself an expert on classical music, but I do enjoy it and have read bits and pieces over the years, and have played and produce music for most of my life.

My main point is this - how 'serious' a musicians personality OR music is, has absolutely NO relevance to how 'great' their music is! Where did anybody come up with the idea that this has any bearing?! Music can be described as serious, uplifting, dark, happy, there are many different interpretations and classifications, but it's irrelevant! A frivolous or uplifting piece can be just as technically and musically 'good' as a dark or serious one! If anything it may be that the listener has a preference of one of these styles of music, but that's no bearing on the musicality!

And as for personality, that has even less relevance towards the quality of music. It doesnt matter if Mozart or Beethoven were depressed, happy, sad, mad, angry, glad.. These characteristics of their personalities can't be used in a comparison of the greatness of their MUSIC!

I disagree with both of your points. You say that music can be serious or dark or whatever but that has nothing to do with the musicality or theory. I agree.

But, theory and musicality are not the only things that make great.

Would Beethoven be described as one of the greatest musicians ever to live if he wrote about candy canes and bubble gum in the most theoretic manner? I would imagine not.

[HaydnFan]

I have already posted my comments on this above and I must say, I think it is a first where Preston and I actually agree, but I also have to say there is a noteable exception of a "great artist" who did not suffer. His name?...,

Haydn. He may be the only one. He wrote, to a great extent, mostly up-lifting music and he is still (in my opinion) on par with Mozart. He is appreciated mainly for his historical significant to Western music but also in his own right.

[Preston]

I have already posted my comments on this above and I must say, I think it is a first where Preston and I actually agree, but I also have to say there is a noteable exception of a "great artist" who did not suffer. His name?...,

Haydn. He may be the only one. He wrote, to a great extent, mostly up-lifting music and he is still (in my opinion) on par with Mozart. He is appreciated mainly for his historical significant to Western music but also in his own right.

Yes I feel that Haydn is truly a great musician.

[HaydnFan]

Preston, you are religious I suppose so do you like sacred music? Have you ever heard Haydn's "Missa in Angustiis" (Nelson Mass)?

If so, what did you think of it?

Which other masses do you like?

[Preston]

Preston, you are religious I suppose so do you like sacred music? Have you ever heard Haydn's "Missa in Angustiis" (Nelson Mass)?

If so, what did you think of it?

Which other masses do you like?

No, I haven't. I am somewhat new to classical music and all I have read about it and really listened to is Beethoven. Not saying that I haven't heard a majority of other works from other composers. There is so much to listen to!... and to me it is so hard to fully understand the emotions, feelings, and visual images that the composer is going for. So I try to pick up on what I can. So far, I have had best luck with Mozart, as far as understanding goes.

I have heard most of the Missa Solemnis but that is a little out of my league. Beethoven's thoughts towards that are far from anything I am thinking.

I have heard some of Mozart's Mass in C. I find the soprano or sometimes used a mezzo soprano, in the Kyrie movement, to be extremely beautiful with the most beautiful choir parts when the soprano is singing. Then I feel the rest of the piece is surrounded by a serious darker side. I ask myself is this what Mozart considers heaven to be (the soprano), that unimaginable beauty. It is hard for me to understand every feeling that Mozart writes for the soprano in the movement, but I give it a shot. I mean you are talking each little note, even the ones I can barely hear!

I am actually listening to parts of Handel's Messiah, of late, as far as messiah goes.

It is hard for me in music to understand all the themes and variations, the repeated themes on different notes or octaves, the same notes repeated with different variations, the list goes on. It is something I am studying though and working on.

The precision of good music is amazing. Each articulation played so perfectly. What does it mean for a note to get louder when it has been quiet, etc.

I would like to hear "Missa in Angustiis". What do you think of the piece?