John Tavener, can't quite forgive Beethoven

[Quijote]

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.

I believe Beethoven considered his Missa Solemnis to be his 'greatest' work, and Op. 131 to be his best quartet. If someone declares all B's music to be rubbish and Rossini the greatest ever, then we cannot really argue against one's personal tastes, of course.

But, as you say, why is it that most people say B's music far surpasses that of Ries for example? Frankly, I don't have an answer, but I think it has something to do with 'being too much of its time', which is to say that the music of B's so-called 'lesser contemporaries' (cf the other contributors to the original call-to-tender for the Diabelli variations) is locked into stylistic gestures that merely respect convention instead of 'pushing the envelope', if I may employ that term. To an extent what distinguishes B's music from other (lesser) composers of his period is exactly that - expectation and the thwarting of it. Beethoven was a consummate master of this. Even in B's own music we can hear works that are not up to his usual level (Battle Symphony, Triple Concerto) in this respect.

There are of course sometimes technical reasons why his contemporaries were not of the same calibre; again, if you look at some of the contributions to the original Diabelli Variations you will see clumsy, unidiomatic writing, monotonous (or unadventurous) use of tonality and so on.

It is very hard to avoid value judgements, I admit. What I am not prepared to say is that B's Ninth is 'greater' than his First, that the Razumovsky quartets are 'better' than the Op.18 set. They are different works written at different periods in his career. If you say that the Razumovsky quartets are superior to the Op. 18 then you could say the same for Haydn, could you not?

I think we cannot reduce the argument to a set of values applied as a template - that would be too easy and we could all be great composers. Did I not read somewhere that there is no formula for writing a great novel?

Sorry if my posting is too rambling.

[Peter]

I believe Beethoven considered his Missa Solemnis to be his 'greatest' work, and Op. 131 to be his best quartet. If someone declares all B's music to be rubbish and Rossini the greatest ever, then we cannot really argue against one's personal tastes, of course.

I thought that was just what you were doing to all those who expressed their opinion on Emin, but let's not go there again!




It is very hard to avoid value judgements, I admit. What I am not prepared to say is that B's Ninth is 'greater' than his First, that the Razumovsky quartets are 'better' than the Op.18 set. They are different works written at different periods in his career. If you say that the Razumovsky quartets are superior to the Op. 18 then you could say the same for Haydn, could you not?


Why not when it is true? The 9th is a greater work than the 1st symphony and the Razumovsky quartets are superior to the Op.18 set and for the reasons you yourself stated.

[Quijote]

For the nth time, I have never said one cannot express personal opinion and taste. My objection was that dismissing Emin out of hand without supporting reasons is weak argumentation. My other objection was the blanket assumption that we all shared the views expressed (Emin is 'crap' etc etc ad nausaum). The same goes for those who say Rossini is the "best" and B's music "rubbish" : without intelligent reasons why should such an opinion merit my engagement with it?

As to B's Ninth being 'greater' than the 1st, the Razumovsky quartets being 'superior' to the Op. 18 set : I maintain my position, i.e. they are different works within B's oeuvre and I am not prepared to say that one is 'better' than the other. At a push, perhaps B has 'more to say' comparing one to the other. Is this what you mean by 'greater' or 'superior', perhaps?

[Preston]

For the nth time, I have never said one cannot express personal opinion and taste. My objection was that dismissing Emin out of hand without supporting reasons is weak argumentation. My other objection was the blanket assumption that we all shared the views expressed (Emin is 'crap' etc etc ad nausaum). The same goes for those who say Rossini is the "best" and B's music "rubbish" : without intelligent reasons why should such an opinion merit my engagement with it?

As to B's Ninth being 'greater' than the 1st, the Razumovsky quartets being 'superior' to the Op. 18 set : I maintain my position, i.e. they are different works within B's oeuvre and I am not prepared to say that one is 'better' than the other. At a push, perhaps B has 'more to say' comparing one to the other. Is this what you mean by 'greater' or 'superior', perhaps?

First, I think that pretty much everyone (musicologist, philosophers, Beethoven enthusiast, etc.) agree that the 9th is greater than the 1st. I mean the musicality, compositional writing, musical form, counterpoint, harmony, etc., of the 9th far exceeds that of the 1st. Also, the level of spirituality, the feeling of the music is greater, the meaning in the music is greater, etc. To say that the 9th is not greater than the 1st would be like saying that the "Hammerklavier" is not better Beethoven's earlier keyboard attempts in 1783.

We did give reason, and intelligent reason, supporting why we do not approve of Emin. For instance, there are men that are not moral and then there are men that are moral, or if you want to put it simply there are great men and then are not so great men. This type of stuff can also be related to higher truths. Higher truths can be things such as living a moral life, positive spirituality, goodness, caring about another, not getting involved with the waste in life, etc. Great men hold moral values while not so great men do not. While these things may seem easy, they take maturity... it is good to keep in mind what Beethoven said to Karl, "you have know idea the sacrifices it takes to be a good human being!". People, like Emin, get caught up in the wasteful side of life, and therefore the are not moral.

[Sorrano]

As to B's Ninth being 'greater' than the 1st, the Razumovsky quartets being 'superior' to the Op. 18 set : I maintain my position, i.e. they are different works within B's oeuvre and I am not prepared to say that one is 'better' than the other. At a push, perhaps B has 'more to say' comparing one to the other. Is this what you mean by 'greater' or 'superior', perhaps?

With regards to the comparing the 1st to the 9th would you suppose the harmonic content, formal structures, motivic development, and general appeal put the 1st symphony over the 9th in terms of superiority? I do not understand your line of reasoning. In terms of growth and development of Beethoven's musical language that the 9th is far superior to the youthful 1st.

[Quijote]

First, I think that pretty much everyone (musicologist, philosophers, Beethoven enthusiast, etc.) agree that the 9th is greater than the 1st. I mean the musicality, compositional writing, musical form, counterpoint, harmony, etc., of the 9th far exceeds that of the 1st. Also, the level of spirituality, the feeling of the music is greater, the meaning in the music is greater, etc. To say that the 9th is not greater than the 1st would be like saying that the "Hammerklavier" is not better Beethoven's earlier keyboard attempts in 1783.

Hello Preston.
First point : to take your exact terms, I think B's 1st symphony extremely musical, its compositional writing assured, and its form and use of harmony impeccable; in short, an absolute "gem" of a symphony.

[Quijote]

We did give reason, and intelligent reason, supporting why we do not approve of Emin. For instance, there are men that are not moral and then there are men that are moral, or if you want to put it simply there are great men and then are not so great men. This type of stuff can also be related to higher truths. Higher truths can be things such as living a moral life, positive spirituality, goodness, caring about another, not getting involved with the waste in life, etc. Great men hold moral values while not so great men do not. While these things may seem easy, they take maturity... it is good to keep in mind what Beethoven said to Karl, "you have know idea the sacrifices it takes to be a good human being!". People, like Emin, get caught up in the wasteful side of life, and therefore the are not moral.

To take your next point : you (Preston) did indeed give supporting reasons why you do not approve of Emin. OK, whilst I do not agree with you, you have stated your position with supporting reasons and we must therefore agree to differ. I am also a little uncomfortable with the term 'approve', but let's pass on that one for the moment. I am ignorant of any moral values that Emin is attempting to convey in her work, but do you really consider Emin to be an immoral person? I am also not at ease with the term 'moral' as I believe such issues to be ... not fixed. As to 'higher truths', well, we've already visited this point and I think we can never resolve it unanimously.

[Quijote]

With regards to the comparing the 1st to the 9th would you suppose the harmonic content, formal structures, motivic development, and general appeal put the 1st symphony over the 9th in terms of superiority? I do not understand your line of reasoning. In terms of growth and development of Beethoven's musical language that the 9th is far superior to the youthful 1st.

Hello Sorrano.
The harmonic content? The 1st has harmonic content. Formal structure? The 1st has an assured formal structure. Motivic development? The 1st has indeed such development. General appeal? One man's meat and another's poison, n'est ce pas? My reasoning is not so complex, really.

My point is the semantics of the issue, and at issue is the word 'better'. Of course, I am not such a cretin (as you seem to believe) as to pretend that the Ninth is not a work of maturity compared to the 1st, nor that the Razumovsky quartets display the same approach as the Op. 18 set. In your argument, are harmonic content, formal structure and motivic development 'superior' in the quartets of Bartok therefore? Or even that B's quartets are 'superior' to Mozart's and Haydn's? With your same criteria in mind, are Mahler symphonies 'better' than Beethoven's?

It seems an obesession in our culture to have these pointless 'Best of' arguments : Brendel was the 'best' interpreter of Beethoven, Casals the 'greatest' interpreter of the Bach unaccompanied suites, Beethoven's Ninth the 'greatest' symphony ever and so on and so forth ad nauseam. I simply wish to take each work on its individual merits. More interesting to me would be to compare B's 1st symphony with works close to its time - Mozart and Haydn for example, and other so-called 'lesser' composers working in the same period, circa 1790/1800. This would be a more fruitful discussion than trying to establish some sort of 'Top 10'.

[Sorrano]

Philip, it's obvious that the 1st symphony has harmonic content, formal structure, etc. But you sidestepped my question. My point is that the differences with the 9th and the 1st demonstrate Beethoven's growth and development; that based on content and general appeal that the 9th is simply a better work than the 1st. This does not demean the 1st symphony, but to say that it is on equal footing as the 9th is ridiculous. Your arguments remind me of the person who thought the entire world was crazy but himself.

[Quijote]

Philip, it's obvious that the 1st symphony has harmonic content, formal structure, etc. But you sidestepped my question. My point is that the differences with the 9th and the 1st demonstrate Beethoven's growth and development; that based on content and general appeal that the 9th is simply a better work than the 1st. This does not demean the 1st symphony, but to say that it is on equal footing as the 9th is ridiculous. Your arguments remind me of the person who thought the entire world was crazy but himself.

Yes and no... Yes, that the Ninth displays B's growth and development is a given. No, general appeal is not an argument.

That the Ninth is 'seminal' and the 1st not, I would agree. I am not prepared to use the word 'better' or 'superior' for these two marvellous works.

I never sidestep, I am a full 'front-on' sort of person.

You have sidestepped (rather, ignored) my point about Mahler v. Beethoven / Bartok v. Beethoven / Beethoven v Mozart & Haydn in terms of your criteria.

Over to you.

[Sorrano]

Yes and no... Yes, that the Ninth displays B's growth and development is a given. No, general appeal is not an argument.

That the Ninth is 'seminal' and the 1st not, I would agree. I am not prepared to use the word 'better' or 'superior' for these two marvellous works.

I never sidestep, I am a full 'front-on' sort of person.

You have sidestepped (rather, ignored) my point about Mahler v. Beethoven / Bartok v. Beethoven / Beethoven v Mozart & Haydn in terms of your criteria.

Over to you.

I did not sidestep your question. I simply chose to ignore it because arguing semantics and opinions is pointless. But to compare works by the same composer that show growth in harmonic and formal structure is not. To me, better indicates improvement. That the 9th shows improvement over the 1st indicates to me that it is, indeed, a better work.

[Sorrano]

An added thought for Philip: When one speaks in terms of superlatives to another there really should be an agreed upon consensus as to what defines the word "better". If better in a musical work is defined by such things as harmonic complexity, architectural complexity, contrapuntal complexity, and etc., then the word "better" can apply. In those terms, as well as in terms of general appeal of the works being compared, the 9th is simply "better" than the 1st. But to say that the 9th is better than one of Bartok's quartets requires more detailed examination within the determined criteria whatever that may be.

[Peter]

Hello Sorrano.
It seems an obesession in our culture to have these pointless 'Best of' arguments : Brendel was the 'best' interpreter of Beethoven, Casals the 'greatest' interpreter of the Bach unaccompanied suites, Beethoven's Ninth the 'greatest' symphony ever and so on and so forth ad nauseam. I simply wish to take each work on its individual merits. More interesting to me would be to compare B's 1st symphony with works close to its time - Mozart and Haydn for example, and other so-called 'lesser' composers working in the same period, circa 1790/1800. This would be a more fruitful discussion than trying to establish some sort of 'Top 10'.

So are you saying that we cannot say a Brendel performance of one of the sonatas is not better than one by an able student? Where do you draw the line? It seems obvious to me that up to a point we can differentiate between the quality of different works and different performances, except when they are on the highest level. If you want to compare Beethoven's 1st symphony with Mozart - fine. It of course depends on which Mozart symphony you choose - If you compared it to the Prague symphony, I'd say Beethoven's 1st is an inferior work. I don't mean by that that it is not of very high quality, just that Mozart's Prague is a supreme masterpiece and the 1st is not quite at that level.

[PDG]

I wouldn't call Mozart's Prague a supreme masterpiece. It's a very fine 3-movement symphony written by a very experienced symphonist.

Beethoven's Op.21 is a daring challenge from a newcomer to the field. Underrated. Unfailingly interesting. Vigorous. Exciting. And it has four movements!

[Michael]

I wouldn't call Mozart's Prague a supreme masterpiece. It's a very fine 3-movement symphony written by a very experienced symphonist.

Beethoven's Op.21 is a daring challenge from a newcomer to the field. Underrated. Unfailingly interesting. Vigorous. Exciting. And it has four movements!

And Beethoven has more letters in his surname than Mozart .........