John Tavener, can't quite forgive Beethoven

[Peter]

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!

You may not, but many do! Here from the Mozart compendium "The Prague symphony is one of the select masterpieces of classical music." Nor was Mozart just an 'experienced symphonist' - he was a great composer and the symphony no.38 belongs with the last 3 as his supreme achievement in symphonic writing.

[PDG]

Well, Peter, It was not intended to denigrate Mozart at all by calling him an experienced symphonist! Beethoven was not so when he unveiled his first. (And I did say the Prague is very fine - much more interesting than his Paris symphony, for example, which I find deadly dull).

I think the Mozart Compendium may be slightly biased in its review!

[Peter]

Well, Peter, It was not intended to denigrate Mozart at all by calling him an experienced symphonist! Beethoven was not so when he unveiled his first. (And I did say the Prague is very fine - much more interesting than his Paris symphony, for example, which I find deadly dull).

I think the Mozart Compendium may be slightly biased in its review!

OK PDG - it's just that we could for example also call Boccherini or Sammartini 'experienced symphonists'. Interesting actually that Beethoven and Mozart were around the same age when writing the works we're discussing. Actually the Mozart compendium is written by eminent musicologists who I think offer pretty fair appraisals - criticisms as well, for example saying of the later symphonies that the Linz offers the least individuality. I think you only have to listen to the introduction to the Prague symphony to realise it is a work of great profundity and the development section of the first movement is a marvel of invention. I don't think Beethoven approached this in his symphonies until the 2nd.

[Sorrano]

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!

Isn't the Prague Symphony in three movements because it was written in the Italian style (Fast-slow-Fast)?

[Quijote]

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.

Let us take your criteria for defining "better" : harmonic complexity, architectural complexity ... blah blah. Then, as per your argument, Mahler (or at a push Bruckner) is "better" than Beethoven (in terms of symphonies); Bartok is "better" than Beethoven (in terms of quartets) And, according to your criteria, Bach wrote "better" counterpoint than Beethoven. Yes? This is your argument?

Your answers make me think you do not carefully read what I have written : I never wrote that we should "compare" B's Ninth with Bartok quartets.

[Quijote]

Your arguments remind me of the person who thought the entire world was crazy but himself.

An added thought for Sorrano : what do you hope to gain with such a comment?

[Preston]

Your arguments remind me of the person who thought the entire world was crazy but himself.

Sorry Philip, but Sorrano I have to agree. Philip, it is like you go against what everyone, and not just on this forum, believes and says, and feel that you are right You keep going on and on with pointless debate when we have proven our points and you have stated yours. It is like this could go on forever. Just relax and enjoy the forum, although I honestly don't know if you can. I mean lighten up.

[Peter]

Let us take your criteria for defining "better" : harmonic complexity, architectural complexity ... blah blah. Then, as per your argument, Mahler (or at a push Bruckner) is "better" than Beethoven (in terms of symphonies); Bartok is "better" than Beethoven (in terms of quartets) And, according to your criteria, Bach wrote "better" counterpoint than Beethoven. Yes? This is your argument?

Your answers make me think you do not carefully read what I have written : I never wrote that we should "compare" B's Ninth with Bartok quartets.

It certainly isn't my argument - I take the works on their own merit and I think Beethoven's 9 symphonies are the greatest contribution by any composer to that genre, unsurpassed by those of Mahler or Bruckner, despite the great music they contain. Beethoven was simply the greatest master of symphonic form who ever lived. As to Bach being a greater contrapuntal writer, of course he was - that doesn't mean Beethoven couldn't write a great fugue, just that Bach's achievement in that field is unmatched.

For some reason you obviously have a problem with the words 'better' and 'superior' - well I prefer to call a spade a spade and if A is a better pianist than B I'll say so. What criteria would you use I hear you cry? - musical criteria - rhythmic awareness and control, harmonic understanding, balance of sound, technical control, beauty of tone etc ... the same that allows a jury at an international competition to distinguish between a Murray Perahia and a competent student.

[Sorrano]

Let us take your criteria for defining "better" : harmonic complexity, architectural complexity ... blah blah. Then, as per your argument, Mahler (or at a push Bruckner) is "better" than Beethoven (in terms of symphonies); Bartok is "better" than Beethoven (in terms of quartets) And, according to your criteria, Bach wrote "better" counterpoint than Beethoven. Yes? This is your argument?

Your answers make me think you do not carefully read what I have written : I never wrote that we should "compare" B's Ninth with Bartok quartets.

For someone who eschews the usage of superlatives, better and best, you have fallen into your own trap. You assume that Bach's counterpoint is "better" than Beethoven and that Mahler's music is "better" than Bruckner's. And why would I say that Bartok's quartets are superior to Beethoven's? This is YOUR inference, not mine. My point, which you do not consider is that to consider quantitative measuring of music requires certain criteria relative to the music. Perhaps Bruckner's sonata-allegro form is more expansive than Beethoven's. But is he as successful in developing his ideas as Beethoven? Are his harmonic progressions within that form as effective as those of Beethoven? That is my point.

[Sorrano]

An added thought for Sorrano : what do you hope to gain with such a comment?

What do you think? You're the philosopher.

[Quijote]

Sorry Philip, but Sorrano I have to agree. Philip, it is like you go against what everyone, and not just on this forum, believes and says, and feel that you are right You keep going on and on with pointless debate when we have proven our points and you have stated yours. It is like this could go on forever. Just relax and enjoy the forum, although I honestly don't know if you can. I mean lighten up.

Hello Preston.
You don’t have to apologise! I’m sorry my debate(s) strike you as pointless (I’m a little hurt, there). I’m afraid you haven’t proved anything to me, but we have indeed stated our respective positions and I hope it continues. By the way, I am relaxing and am enjoying myself enormously. This is all great fun !!!

[Quijote]

For someone who eschews the usage of superlatives, better and best, you have fallen into your own trap. You assume that Bach's counterpoint is "better" than Beethoven and that Mahler's music is "better" than Bruckner's. And why would I say that Bartok's quartets are superior to Beethoven's? This is YOUR inference, not mine. My point, which you do not consider is that to consider quantitative measuring of music requires certain criteria relative to the music. Perhaps Bruckner's sonata-allegro form is more expansive than Beethoven's. But is he as successful in developing his ideas as Beethoven? Are his harmonic progressions within that form as effective as those of Beethoven? That is my point.

A little correction to start with : ‘better’ is a comparative adjective, ‘best’ the superlative form. Secondly, I don’t eschew the use of comparative and superlative adjectives as a general point of principle, but admit reluctance for reasons I hope to outline below. And no, I have not fallen into any trap; I am simply taking your ‘logic’ that B’s Ninth is ‘better’ than his 1st because of ‘greater’ (read ‘better’) motivic development, ‘greater’ (read ‘better’) harmonic resource and so on. That the Ninth shows ‘growth’ is a given, but you seem to imply that this ‘growth’ is in fact an ‘improvement’ (read ‘better’). How might LvB ‘improve’ his 1st? Should he have done so? Of course not, as the work (in my view) is a consummate example of classical symphonic writing. I have nothing against ‘comparative’ analyses of B’s oeuvre, as it is indeed fascinating to ‘compare’ B’s symphonic output in order to reveal important developments and also throw light on the musical culture and politics at work during his time in Vienna.

Still, if I have read you correctly, you lead me to believe that you hold a ‘linear’ conception of musical development, which is why I asked if you consider Bartok’s quartets to be superior to LvB’s, or Mahler’s symphonies superior. Or indeed even Boulez to be superior (to use your terminology, in terms of harmonic resource, motivic development, orchestration, handling of timbre, rhythmic invention ...).

On a more general level, the point I am trying to get across is that terms such as ‘better’ do not give us any particular insight into the music, and seem to be part of our culture’s obsession with ‘The Best Of’. This is to some extent reflected in Susanwen’s posting about some radio station having a listener poll. So B’s Ninth won the vote. Hip hip hooray. Another poll in another city and on another radio station (let’s say Hicksville, Arkansas, for the sake of argument) would, I feel sure, give another result. Which ‘proves’ absolutely nothing about the merits of any of B’s symphonies.

To continue, I am a little suspicious of the term ‘quantitive measuring of music’, and of course you are not suggesting one should count the number of bars (this is an attempt at a joke). However, you seem to be implying that Bruckner is not quite as ‘good’ as LvB when you ask (rhetorically) if Bruckner is as ‘successful’ in developing his ideas, or that his harmonic progression ‘within that form’ is as ‘effective’. (To give you a quick ‘sound-bite’ answer : as far as Bruckner’s 5th, 7th, 8th and 9th are concerned, I would tend to say yes). But ‘successful’ and ‘effective’ according to whom, may I ask? Is there some sort of template operating here that I am unaware of? Or is this merely a consensus opinion or even your own personal opinion? Or perhaps even received opinion? Whatever the case may be, it all merits questioning, in my view.

I hope my reasoning is a little clearer to you now. Do let me know.

[Quijote]

What do you think? You're the philosopher.

You have sidestepped the question, Sorrano. In your responses, you may now refer to me as Jean Paul Sartre. I look forward to your answer.

[Quijote]

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.

When it comes to paying good money to hear Brendel or an able student, or buying a CD of the same, then sure, you know which I would prefer. That said, I would have no real objection to hearing an able student play some sonata by Beethoven. It would not be up to the standard of Brendel, but an honest (and reasonably technically-competent) reading of any musical work surely cannot be dismissed. I do wonder (and I hope you don't think me a 'heretic') what we would think of B's playing if he came back from the grave and performed his works today. Would we be impressed? Would his style of playing be considered 'old hat'?

[Peter]

When it comes to paying good money to hear Brendel or an able student, or buying a CD of the same, then sure, you know which I would prefer. That said, I would have no real objection to hearing an able student play some sonata by Beethoven. It would not be up to the standard of Brendel, but an honest (and reasonably technically-competent) reading of any musical work surely cannot be dismissed. I do wonder (and I hope you don't think me a 'heretic') what we would think of B's playing if he came back from the grave and performed his works today. Would we be impressed? Would his style of playing be considered 'old hat'?

Well we are sort of in agreement on a few points - firstly I share your views on 'the most popular' polls and secondly I have no problem listening to students play - indeed as a teacher it is my job! However you seem to be acknowledging that Brendel's interpretation would be preferable, dare I say it 'better', No? So presumably you are applying some form of musical judgement to arrive at that conclusion - why can you not extend that to the works of a composer? I think that a musicologist would be able to provide very sound reasons as to Beethoven's mastery of form (read Charles Rosen), indeed you yourself have acknowledged a slight lapse with the triple concerto and the Battle symphony, so again you appear to be contradicting your own argument.

As to Beethoven's playing, I really can't say - no doubt he deterioated as his hearing worsened, and many of the reports are from this time. So we can say with certainty that he was a 'better' pianist in his youth than in middle age!