John Tavener, can't quite forgive Beethoven

[Peter]

Hello again, Peter. I said I would reflect on what may be unacceptable to me in terms of art / music etc. I must confess that nothing comes to mind, although there are many 'works' out there that I have never seen / heard so maybe I can never post a comment. OK, that it is not strictly true - there is an artist (another YBA / young British artist) whose work makes me uncomfortable (I'm afraid I can't recall his/her name for the moment) : the one with an image of Myra Hindley (60s child killer) made with painted children's hands. The fact that the work 'discomfits' me does not detract from its 'value' however. Again, this is a Beethoven forum so I'll leave it there.

Interesting but don't you leave yourself open to the charge of a lack of discernment? Perhaps unacceptable is the wrong term to use, but do you differentiate between the quality of different composers and their works? After all if you praise everything, in effect you praise nothing.

[DavidO]

What I also find fascinating (and not really part of this thread) are the comments by von Breuning about B's ability as a violinist. To paraphrase, it appears that B was really not a good violinist / violist at all (even before deafness set in). It's interesting because his string writing (in the quartets especially) demonstrates an understanding that one would equate with expert-level playing capabilities on string instruments.

In his old book on Beethoven, John Burk writes:

Krumpholz, once pupil of Haydn & violinist at Esterhaz, gave Beethoven violin lessons out of sheer adoration, so that Beethoven called him "his fool." Beethoven apparently wanted to understand the instrument more fully. He could never play it acceptably. Amenda related how once he persuaded Beethoven to play the violin, with results that sent the two of them into uncontrollable laughter.

[Sorrano]

Sometimes, having a good ear can help one understand some of the nuances of an instrument. For example, there is the anecdote that a horn player told Richard Strauss that the horn parts in Don Juan were impossible, and he, in surprise, replied that he had heard them playing similar types of note sequences in their practice. This may not be true, of course, but if one does listen carefully one can learn a lot.

[Quijote]

Sometimes, having a good ear can help one understand some of the nuances of an instrument. For example, there is the anecdote that a horn player told Richard Strauss that the horn parts in Don Juan were impossible, and he, in surprise, replied that he had heard them playing similar types of note sequences in their practice. This may not be true, of course, but if one does listen carefully one can learn a lot.

For music in its widest context(s) I can think of no better 'tool', Sorrano, than a good ear (linked to a good brain too, by the way!). I have a posting (forthcoming to Peter who has had the intellectual decency to listen to some music I recommended [acousmatic, or 'electro-acoustic' or even 'concrète'], a music that demands nothing more than this : a return to the 'primacy' of the ear). Peter has an understandable reaction to the music I suggested he listen to. It is down to me to try and convince him (and others) otherwise.

[Quijote]

Interesting but don't you leave yourself open to the charge of a lack of discernment? Perhaps unacceptable is the wrong term to use, but do you differentiate between the quality of different composers and their works? After all if you praise everything, in effect you praise nothing.

I do, of course, differentiate the stylistic differences between composers, and also the 'quality', although I admit a certain reluctance to do so. Is Bach's B-minor Mass 'better' than LvB's Missa Solemnis? Is Brahm's E-minor 'cello sonata 'better' than any 'cello sonata by LvB.
Your terminolgy is partly the problem, if I may so so, Peter. It's not that there is just 'praise' and its other extreme 'rejection' (or perhaps you mean 'alienation'). There is a whole continuum at play here.
Your point merits closer examination with a concrete example; you know the context of the original Diabelli 'commission'. I have the full set of variations from the forty or so other composers that responded to the original 'call-to-tender' (including contributions from Schubert, the young Liszt, Czerny et al). How are we to compare them, to appraise their various qualities? It is sure some are very poorly written (incompetent, even), but many are perfectly 'ok' ('acceptable') in and of themselves. The Schubert in particular is a fine variation. Had Beethoven contibuted just one variation (let's say any one of the 33) would we have been able to make such judgements as to its 'superior' quality compared to the other ones?

[Peter]

I do, of course, differentiate the stylistic differences between composers, and also the 'quality', although I admit a certain reluctance to do so. Is Bach's B-minor Mass 'better' than LvB's Missa Solemnis? Is Brahm's E-minor 'cello sonata 'better' than any 'cello sonata by LvB.
Your terminolgy is partly the problem, if I may so so, Peter. It's not that there is just 'praise' and its other extreme 'rejection' (or perhaps you mean 'alienation'). There is a whole continuum at play here.
Your point merits closer examination with a concrete example; you know the context of the original Diabelli 'commission'. I have the full set of variations from the forty or so other composers that responded to the original 'call-to-tender' (including contributions from Schubert, the young Liszt, Czerny et al). How are we to compare them, to appraise their various qualities? It is sure some are very poorly written (incompetent, even), but many are perfectly 'ok' ('acceptable') in and of themselves. The Schubert in particular is a fine variation. Had Beethoven contibuted just one variation (let's say any one of the 33) would we have been able to make such judgements as to its 'superior' quality compared to the other ones?

This is an interesting point and I think we need to deal with it. I also possess the entire Diabelli Commission, however lets just stick with Beethoven (bearing in mind this forum!) and compare like with like, piano sonata with piano sonata and in the same key. Few would argue that Beethoven's early f minor sonata WoO47 (fine as it is) is as 'great' a work as the Appassionata - but why? What is it that marks the later work out from the early one as being in its own right a superior composition? Is it a fact or is it personal preference?

[Quijote]

This is an interesting point and I think we need to deal with it. I also possess the entire Diabelli Commission, however lets just stick with Beethoven (bearing in mind this forum!) and compare like with like, piano sonata with piano sonata and in the same key. Few would argue that Beethoven's early f minor sonata WoO47 (fine as it is) is as 'great' a work as the Appassionata - but why? What is it that marks the later work out from the early one as being in its own right a superior composition? Is it a fact or is it personal preference?

Shows more 'mastery'? Probably. Is B's 1st symphony 'infererior' to his 9th? They are vastly different. Can we not simply judge them on their individual merits? The Op 18 quartets are fine early examples of B's grasp of quartet writing. The late quartets outstanding examples of another direction.
Where I am prepared to make (comparative) value judgements are in two works :
a) the Battle Symphony (even LvB described it as a 'rag' when he handed the ms over to the engraver);
b) the Triple Concerto : we have here what I would term the 'wine' similie; he produces Grand Cru Classé most of the time, but here he produces a 'second' wine, or Cru Bourgois. Still very drinkable, but ...

[Peter]

"Can we not judge them on their individual merits?" Well yes I think a work should be judged on its own merits regardless of its composer. However I think you are using that argument to suggest comparisons cannot and should not be made (although you are slightly contradictory in allowing yourself those two exceptions!) - x is neither better nor worse than y only different seems to be what you are saying and therefore how do you sort the wheat from the chaff? Beethoven himself had no qualms about such matters, for example stating that the F# sonata Op.78 was a finer work than the Moonlight. If you extend it further then you are unable to say that Beethoven was a finer composer than his contemporaries such as Reicha, Ries or Czerny, only 'different'.

[Sorrano]

What exactly is your point, Philip?

[PDG]

Your point merits closer examination with a concrete example; you know the context of the original Diabelli 'commission'. I have the full set of variations from the forty or so other composers that responded to the original 'call-to-tender' (including contributions from Schubert, the young Liszt, Czerny et al). How are we to compare them, to appraise their various qualities? It is sure some are very poorly written (incompetent, even), but many are perfectly 'ok' ('acceptable') in and of themselves. The Schubert in particular is a fine variation. Had Beethoven contibuted just one variation (let's say any one of the 33) would we have been able to make such judgements as to its 'superior' quality compared to the other ones?

I think that with the Diabelli, the wonder of this work lies in LvB's variations when compared to his other own variations, and the way the whole Opus progresses; I think if you take any single variation and have it stand alone, it's dramatic impact is all but lost (especially with the later ones, added by Beethoven after he was originally satisfied that 23 variations were enough!). Amazing that he was prepared to do so much work on the waltz he described as a "cabbage patch" or something similar.

[Quijote]

What exactly is your point, Philip?

I have made many points in this thread, Sorrano. Can you specify which point in particular you would like me to respond to? Thanks.

[Quijote]

"Can we not judge them on their individual merits?" Well yes I think a work should be judged on its own merits regardless of its composer. However I think you are using that argument to suggest comparisons cannot and should not be made (although you are slightly contradictory in allowing yourself those two exceptions!) - x is neither better nor worse than y only different seems to be what you are saying and therefore how do you sort the wheat from the chaff? Beethoven himself had no qualms about such matters, for example stating that the F# sonata Op.78 was a finer work than the Moonlight. If you extend it further then you are unable to say that Beethoven was a finer composer than his contemporaries such as Reicha, Ries or Czerny, only 'different'.

Fair questions, Peter, but you reveal an ulterior agenda, do you not? We agree then that there is no epistemological difference in B's 1st and 9th symphonies. Very well. You say that LvB said that Op. 78 was a finer work than the Moonlight. He said the same about the C-sharp quartet by the way, saying it was his finest. OK, a bit of heresy for you : Beethoven said that, but I (as listener, consumer, musician) think differently - I think Op 132 is his finest. OK? And what now?
Please don't misunderstand me - I am perfectly capable of saying if such-and-such a work is inferior to such-and-such. Did I not already say so in regard to the other contributors to the original Diabelli "call-to-tender". Some are incompetent. Bad. Horrible. Ugh.
Another example : let us take Ries (student) and Beethoven. I am familiar with some of Ries's oeuvre. Yes, it is 'gesture' more than 'content'. Yes, it is 'second division' rather than 'Premier' league. More important is to pinpoint where/why/how. And even then ... I find the work of Ries fascinating for its historical context. And musically? ... Angels on the side of hindsight, Peter?

[Peter]

Fair questions, Peter, but you reveal an ulterior agenda, do you not? We agree then that there is no epistemological difference in B's 1st and 9th symphonies. Very well. You say that LvB said that Op. 78 was a finer work than the Moonlight. He said the same about the C-sharp quartet by the way, saying it was his finest. OK, a bit of heresy for you : Beethoven said that, but I (as listener, consumer, musician) think differently - I think Op 132 is his finest. OK? And what now?
Please don't misunderstand me - I am perfectly capable of saying if such-and-such a work is inferior to such-and-such. Did I not already say so in regard to the other contributors to the original Diabelli "call-to-tender". Some are incompetent. Bad. Horrible. Ugh.
Another example : let us take Ries (student) and Beethoven. I am familiar with some of Ries's oeuvre. Yes, it is 'gesture' more than 'content'. Yes, it is 'second division' rather than 'Premier' league. More important is to pinpoint where/why/how. And even then ... I find the work of Ries fascinating for its historical context. And musically? ... Angels on the side of hindsight, Peter?

Hello Philip - I don't actually have a mysterious hidden agenda! I'm simply and honestly trying to discover exactly what it is in a work of art that makes it 'great'. Now you have raised a good example with Op.132 and Op.131 - yes Beethoven considered Op.131 his greatest work, but to you Op.132 is superior - I've no problem with that as to me it's like splitting hairs, both are first rate. What happens though if someone declares that all Beethoven's music was rubbish and believes Rossini to be the greatest composer ever? How do we respond to that? Clearly we believe they are wrong, but why? In other words does a composition itself possess certain qualities outside of our own personal preference? I believe it must or else we cannot answer my point about Rossini.

Surely by claiming Ries as 2nd division you yourself are guilty of applying the value judgements you condemn in others? I of course think you are right about Ries, though I would have placed him 3rd division.

[PDG]

Surely by claiming Ries as 2nd division you yourself are guilty of applying the value judgements you condemn in others? I of course think you are right about Ries, though I would have placed him 3rd division.

Peter, he got relegated last night and is now in the Conference. He has since sacked his manager...

[Peter]

Peter, he got relegated last night and is now in the Conference. He has since sacked his manager...

Ah, thanks for clearing that up PDG!