Early Philharmonic Society

[Droell]

Greetings to all -

I am curious if anyone knows the early history of London's Philharmonic Society. (They commissioned the 9th.)

They were founded in 1813. In 1815, Ferdinand Ries was elected a director, of which there seems to have been around 25-27 in all.

In 1820 there was a scandal with William Ayrton, who was one of the founding directors. Ries proposed a motion that Ayrton be asked to resign. The motion passed, but Bill refused. Whereupon Ferdinand said, It's me or him, and tendered his own resignation. Which was refused, but Ayrton got the hint & left.

Almost certainly because of the fallout, Ries himself left the society on 18 June 1821, but there seems to have been more.

In December 1823, Ries celebrated the birth of his only son, James (wonder who the godfather was). Meanwhile Ayrton had founded the Harmonicon. A guess would be that sometime in January, 1824, Ayrton contacted Ries with a view to publishing a Memoir, as he had previously done with other musical notables. Ries agrees. Judging by what was eventually published in the March, 1824 issue, the interview was extensive. There was also a newly commissioned portrait.

This was the celebrated interview in which it was announced to the world that Ries was shortly to leave London & return to the Rhineland, the place of his birth. Various reasons are given. A farewell concert is announced, but the date was not a fortnight away (as would be expected), but in May, two full months later.

In looking at the article critically (see it here:

http://books.google.com/books?id=E2s...A1-PA34-IA1,M1 )

in examining Ries's surviving letters prior to the appearance of the Memoir, in considering his home life (his wife was a native of London, he had three children, one of them a newborn infant), as well as his actions upon arriving in Germany (he was looking for work almost immediately), I get the impression that Mr. Ayrton had played Mr. Ries a mean trick.

In other words, Ries ran Ayrton out of the Society, whereupon Ayrton returned the favor four years later by running Ries out of London by presenting his "Memoir" in the form of a professional obituary. Such is my suspicion.

In support of this is the curious fact that while Ries's history, prior to his arrival in the UK, is given in great detail in the Memoir, his eleven years in London is glossed over. So far as Mr. Ries is concerned, this is of no small moment, as the Memoir has long been the foundation of all of his biographies.

So I am wondering if anyone knows what it was that caused this flap. What Bill Ayrton may have been guilty of. Other names associated with this are a Mr. Cramer, who Mr. Ayrton allegedly abused, Thomas Welsh, who seconded Ries's original motion, and Charles Meyer, who moved for a second meeting to resolve the deepening crisis.

More details of the life of William Ayrton would be appreciated as well. The publishing of fake obits can be traced at least as far back as the famous Bickerstaff (aka Jonathan Swift) / Partridge flap of 1708-9. (Those make for amusing reading.)

The details I have given, along with a few others (the exact dates) are from Ferdinand Ries, A Study and Addenda, by Cecil Hill (pgs. 23-24), published by the Department of Music, University of New England, sometime in the 1980's.

Many thanks -

David R. Roell

[Peter]

Interesting - thanks for that, but can't help further as you appear to know more than anyone else about this here already!

[Droell]

Hello Peter,

I've been pondering this, trying to find out what Mr. Ayrton could have done to Mr. Cramer (presumably John Baptist Cramer, the composer) that Mr. Ries would have objected to & that the board would have agreed with.

So a more general question for you.

In your experience & opinion, would a successful board of directors - and the Philharmonic Society's directors were certainly successful - be composed merely of interested amateurs, working together for the betterment of their chosen field, or,

Would they have specifically sought out qualified people to perform specific jobs necessary to the proper functioning of the society itself?

If in the later case, they would presumably want an impresario to stage events (Salomon), composer(s) for new music, accomplished soloists on piano & violin, and a conductor or two. And, come to think of it, someone who could engrave & publish the music they needed.

If societies, in general, are organized along these lines, then Mr. Ayrton would have been the go-to person to get the music on the stands. A glance at the Harmonicon proves he could do that, and from what I know about publishing, that was no mean feat.

If that was the overall setup, then I can imagine a scenario where Ayrton has taken pieces by Herr Ries, intended for the use of the Society, & published them as his own. Ries discovers this & quietly puts a stop to it, but when he learns that Mr. Cramer - presumably a director himself - has had the same problem, he takes it to the board with an ultimatum.

In this case, once Mr. Ayrton had left, the Society would presumably have selected another printer for its directors. A list of early directors might be helpful.

I am looking at the RPS website. I might send an email in their direction.

many thanks -

Dave

[Peter]

Well this is all the information I have. The Philharmonic society was formed in 1813 with 30 members and an unlimited number of associates members; from amongst the members, 7 directors were chosen annually 'for the management of the concerts' the number of which was fixed at 8. The original members and associate members included Bridgetower, Clementi, Cramer, Neate, Salomon and Smart. It seems that Ries's ties with the society were not entirely severed after his departure in 1821 as he wrote to Beethoven in November 1822 with the offer of the directors to pay Beethoven £50 for a new symphony.

[Droell]

Peter,

This is very helpful. My thanks.

Dave

[Peter]

Peter,

This is very helpful. My thanks.

Dave

You're welcome - let us know of any further developments!

[Droell]

Ries in London

Hello Peter,

I am happy to share with you what a friend and I (she's in Australia) have puzzled out concerning Mr. Ries and his life in London.

As 1812 opens, Ries, born November, 1784, is nicely settled in Petersburg & for all I know would have remained (John Field actually did), but for Napoleon's invasion. Napoleon, his armies, and the local reaction to those armies, had dogged Ries for a full decade. With his characteristic luck, he presumed they always would, and so set off for a destination beyond the reach of the French. London.

He arrived in 1813, aged 28. He had been on the road continually since he was a teenager. In a year he is married, in two years a member of the Philharmonic Society, as well as an executor of Salomon's estate. How did this happen?

What follows is a lot of logical deduction. It goes like this:

If I were an accomplished pianist/composer who found myself on the road looking for work, and if I should find myself in London town, desiring venues, I would get a local paper, I would look for upcoming concert announcements, I would go to those locations, I would ask the people there who the promoters were, I would then go to those promoters & present myself. As there was a continual need for new faces & new pieces, I would be assured of an eager reception.

One of the people Ries would have found in the very first week was Johan Peter Salomon, the impressario who had brought Haydn to London 20 years before. Haydn was the best thing JP had ever found, until Ries landed on his doorstep. He wasn't going to let him get away, to some other town or some other promoter.

It is of casual interest that both Salomon & Ries were natives of Bonn. Both spoke the same exact local dialect of Rhenish (aka Switzerdeutsch, aka Alsacian). The same dialect that Beethoven himself spoke, which was a critical factor underlying the relationship between Ries & Ludwig. But Salomon knew that mere camaraderie would not be enough. Ries was too well-travelled for that. The best he could offer the young pianist was a debut in 4-6 weeks. He had to keep Ferdinand occupied until then. And he did. He had an ace up his sleeve.

Salon. Salon was the dreary afternoon recitals given in great houses throughout the city. Salomon could get Ries on that circuit in two days flat. And he did.

One of the first houses he visited was that of Pierre Mangeon. Pierre was an Alsacian-born riverboat captain (up & down the Rhine) who eventually plied the Amsterdam-London route. He fled the revolution of 1789 (Roget de Lisle wrote La Marseilles in Strasbourg, it was that kind of town) & settled permanently in London. For a second wife he married an Alsacienne refugee. Their one & only child, Harriet, was born in London in 1798. It seems that Ferdinand & Hat (as she was known) fell in love on sight, but I also suspect piano four-hands had a little to do with it. They were married in 1814, in St. Marylebone, ages 16 & 29. The church at that time was undergoing extensive reconstruction.

As is known, there was a strong German community in London at this time. Much of it was Rhenish, and, starting in 1790 or so, a good many were Alsacian. With good work & good money, London's German culture meant there was every reason to think that Ries had "come home". The Ries had three children before they left London, they lived in Chelsea, though I forget exactly where. Ries had his office on Great Russell Street, which, at the time, was where many major musicians were located. The Argyll Rooms, location of Philharmonic concerts, was nearby.

What is not so much appreciated is the Prince Consort himself spoke German as his mother tongue. Ries had access to him (he mentions such in his letters to Beethoven), though I do not know if the relationship was more than casual. This is an area for exploration.

It is unlikely that Ries would have given all of this up for the comparative cultural desert of his native Rhineland, but it seems as if he did. Or did he?

In 1820 comes the flap with Ayrton. Which, by all accounts, was bitter. Three years later, Ayrton starts the celebrated Harmonicon. Each issue began with a "Memoir" of a celebrated London musician.

Just after the birth of his third child (and only son), James, in December, 1823, Ries was contacted by someone who wanted to write an article about him. I doubt it was Ayrton himself, I doubt it was anyone known to be associated with Ayrton, as Ries was too astute to think there were no hard feelings from a few years before. Perhaps giddy from the birth of his son, he agrees.

I suspect he was taken by surprise by the resulting article in the March, 1824 issue of the Harmonicon, and amazed by the very last paragraph, announcing his sudden departure for the Rhineland. In support of this thesis was the announced date of the "Farewell Concert", two full months away, in May. Concerts normally take a month to schedule, and are announced a fortnight in advance.

In actual fact, in the May, 1824 issue of the Harmonicon was a brief review of a "Farewell Concert" given in early April. According to the note, the Argyll Rooms were packed to capacity. All the leading musicians of London were in attendance, including the elusive Clementi, with the notable exceptions of JB Cramer (part of the 1820 feud) and Kalkbrenner. The Harmonicon describes both of these as "casualties". It was such an odd word that I looked it up. It took three dictionaries to determine that a casualty refers to someone lost in battle. It does not mean "indisposed". Kalkbrenner, for his part, had left for Paris the previous year. What battle could that be? The Ries - Ayrton battle, presumably. Is Ayrton hinting that he ran Kalkbrenner out of town the previous year, and that he was responsible for Johan Baptist Cramer taking up publishing in the year 1824 ? (Cramer had come to London at one year of age. He clearly wasn't going anywhere.)

There is a report that Ries was in attendance at Franz Liszt's debut concert on 21 June 1824, again, at the Argyll Rooms, though I find that hard to believe. I suspect that by then, he's long gone. The Liszt myth-makers took his (presumed) apology & best wishes for his actual presence in the hall, though I expect I will hear from them.

This is enough for one post. In the next, Ries after his return to Germany.

Dave

[Droell]

Ries's return to Germany

I am still puzzling in my mind if the Ries "Farewell Concert" on 8 April 1824, was, in fact, a going-away type of event, or if, instead, it was a show of support for the embattled Mr. Ries. So far, we have only the Harmonicon's report of May, 1824, which reads (complete):

Mr. Ries's Farewell Concert

On Thursday April 8, this celebrated composer and performer gave a concert at the Argyll Rooms for the purpose of bidding farewell to a country where he had been established for many years, and by which he has been both admired for his talents, and esteemed for his private worth. We lose him with regret, and he will carry with him the good wishes of the English, wherever his own choice, or accident, may lead his steps.

The rooms have rarely been so full as upon the present occasion; the public flocked to them in crowds without any solicitation, and thereby manifested, in the strongest practicable manner, their opinion of the artist they assembled to honour. Mr. Ries gave an excellent concert, in which he was assisted by most of the first performers in London. Messrs. Cramer & Kalkbrenner were prevented from attending by casualties; but Mr. Clementi conducted a new overture, composed by himself, in person.

One way or another, Ries & family left London that same year. As has been noted, there was a whiff of panic in the air in their final days.

In earlier days, Ries had gone back to Bonn when he was between locations. He did so again, but, now that he had a family & some money at his disposal, the cheap rooms in the center of town were no longer appropriate. He settled instead in the ritzy suburb of Godesberg, which is now part of Bonn itself. He has reconciled himself with "retirement" and "going home", but it was not to last.

There was little work, few students, no commissions in Bonn. What little there was, was the property of his aging father, Franz Ries. He saw his son, who was more talented & better-known, as a rival. This surprised Ferdinand. And there was unease in the town generally. Bonn was the birthplace of Salomon, Beethoven & Ries & there was the feeling that Ries pere could & should have done more for his son long, long ago. That more could & should have been done for Beethoven, and that Franz was one of the ones who had been negligent.

For her part, Ferdinand's wife, Hat, had never traveled outside of London. She was 26, with three small children. Up to March, 1824, she had every reason to think she would live her entire life in London. She is a city girl, born & raised. While she speaks Bonn's local patois well-enough, she is completely lost. It is not just that Bonn is rural while London is urban. London is a very particular kind of city, and the Rhine a very particular kind of river. The two have little in common, and much that is contradictory.

Letters exist from 1825 of Ries begging for work, which puts lie to the claim that he was rich. Yes, there was some money salted away. One had to think about retirement, and there were three daughters, each of whom would need a dowry.

After two years they gave up & moved to Frankfurt. It was a city, at least. There Ries was under the thumb of a Mr. Guhr, who ran the musical scene. Guhr's tastes were vulgar, as Hector Berlioz would discover for himself in the 1840's.

Frankfurt was not London. There was little musical life. Anton Schindler had settled there after Beethoven passed. There were few students. Ries wrote sophisticated, complex, avant-garde works. These went straight over the heads of local audiences. He came to focus much effort on opera, believing that if he could have a hit, it would give him the financial security he craved. (Rossini was at that time the most famous composer in the world.)

He passed up offers in Liege & Brussels. He wasn't enthusiastic about either, but would have gone, but Hat said no. She had been nearly destroyed in the move from London. She did not want another, nor did she want the additional burden of learning Flemish. And, truth to tell, Ries had been a flop, or had been run out of every town he had been in (among them: Vienna, Paris, Petersburg, London). He had no desire to be a foreigner all over again if that was the treatment he would get. He applied for, but did not get, jobs in Munich & Dresden. Which he would have taken.

He sinks into a depression. He largely stops writing, as he no longer has venues. With the death of one of his daughters in 1829, it deepens. Immediately thereafter, in an effort to lighten the mood, a family portrait is made, which I suspect is now in Australia. Ries is on the right. Cecil Hill, I believe, made a casual snapshot of it, but cut out the other family members. You can see that portrait here: http://www.rieserler.de/geschichte.php It presumably was the property of Marie Gertrude Ries, a pianist & great-great-niece of Ferdinand. She died in 1974.

Ries enters a composition contest, submits a symphony, it is ignored. He is so severely depressed, his wife becomes ill.

Meanwhile, in the background, is the specter of Beethoven. Schindler is pestering him to write a joint biography, but Ries wants nothing of him. Sometime in 1837, Franz Wegler comes into view & the two of them set about to write the famous Biographical Notes, which were only translated into English in 1987 as Beethoven Remembered.

Throughout his life, Ries wrote very carefully, as if there was someone peering over his shoulder, ready to rap his knuckles if he said anything his unseen censor did not approve. With this in mind, here is his opening Foreword from that book:

My friend Wegler has frequently urged me to collect a few incidents from the life of my immortal teacher & affectionate friend Beethoven and, should I not wish to make other arrangements, to publish the material jointly with some of his reminiscences. So I have been persuaded, not without a certain feeling of anxiety, to set down a few particularly memorable recollections and to place these notes, as well as some of Beethoven's letters, of which I possess a large number, at the disposal of my friend for him to use as he sees fit. The truth of the facts recorded here and the fame of the man whom they concern should alone lend value to these notes. My remarks should serve as a continuation and an elaboration of the proceeding notes by my friend Wegler, and our mutual endeavors should form, as we intend, a genuine source on which a complete biography of our immortal friend can be based. The plainness of style will, I hope, be graciously overlooked, since hitherto I have communicated with the public only through musical compositions. The same goes for a possible lack of order in presentation. I shall relate the events as they occur to me; should the reader be of a mind to do so, he will find it easy enough to put them in order. And so without further ado I will begin.
Frankfurt/Main, December 1837 (pgs. 63-64)

Note carefully these two sentences:

So I have been persuaded, not without a certain feeling of anxiety, to set down a few particularly memorable recollections and to place these notes, as well as some of Beethoven's letters, of which I possess a large number, at the disposal of my friend for him to use as he sees fit.

and,

I shall relate the events as they occur to me; should the reader be of a mind to do so, he will find it easy enough to put them in order.

Why does he say these things? Authors of such works normally say, "well, I've done my best but if you should find anything amiss, please let me know & I will gladly correct it." Why does Ries leave everything in the hands of Wegler, and the reader? As if he, himself, was not there?

One month later, Ferdinand Ries was dead. Wegler's introduction starts with these words:

Just as these memories of Beethoven's life, jointly collected by Ries and myself, were about to be published, the first report of Ries's illness reached me on the twelfth of January. Then on the following day I was stunned to hear the painful and unexpected news that at one o'clock in the afternoon my find friend had passed away in the arms of his wife and my son. The shock was especially severe because only a short while before I had spent a week with him and then had received a long letter from him written in the best of spirits on the twenty-eighth of December. All our friends and acquaintances would have been justified in believing he would outlive me by thirty years. (pg. 1)

I read the Foreword, and then the Introduction, and the question arises in my mind, if Ferdinand Ries was a suicide, and his Foreword a carefully worded suicide note? I suspect he steeped a poison in one of his flasks of ale. In Frankfurt, ale was bottled in ceramic, as Mosel wine is to this day.

He had the misfortune to be interred in the family crypt of one J.C. Klotz: http://www.knerger.de/Die_Personen/m...usiker_60.html , where he remains to this day (scroll down).

I will write a third note on his compositions.

Dave

[Droell]

Some compositions by Ferdinand Ries

I have not surveyed all the available recordings of Ferdinand Ries's music. I can mention three of note:

Of the symphonies, the 6th, in D, is probably the best. The first movement has an heroic, Beethovenesque feel to it, the second has been compared to Bruckner. The fourth movement, with its Turkish embellishments, is a complete surprise. It is lighter than any previous symphonic finale (so far as I am aware) and may have been the inspiration for Schubert's 9th.

His final symphony, the 8th (which the CPO recording insists on calling his 7th) is dark. Anger & depression are mixed. It was neither published nor performed in Ries's lifetime. It sounds to me as if he never quite finished it, as parts are still rough. Cecil Hill held it to be his best. It is certainly very good, and rather surprising.

The finest work I have yet found is the Swedish National Air, a fantasy for piano & orchestra of 1813. This must be heard to be believed. Nothing like it had been written before, nothing like it would be written until Camille Saint-Saens more than half a century later.

I look forward to hearing volumes 3 & 4 of the concerti series (recorded, but not yet released), as well as the two CDs of string quartets & the piano sonatas. A year ago I caught a snatch of a sonata by Clementi & was awed. In every respect, a match for late Beethoven. Based on the Sonatina in A, op. 45, Ries is going to be close to that level. I'm also looking forward to the 1835 oratorio, Die Könige In Israel, on CPO.

As a composer, on an average day Ferdinand Ries was a match for Mendelssohn. On a good day, he could go eyeball to eyeball with Ludwig himself. And that, for me, was the biggest surprise of all.

Dave

[PDG]

A year ago I caught a snatch of a sonata by Clementi & was awed. In every respect, a match for late Beethoven. Based on the Sonatina in A, op. 45, Ries is going to be close to that level.

As a composer, on an average day Ferdinand Ries was a match for Mendelssohn. On a good day, he could go eyeball to eyeball with Ludwig himself. And that, for me, was the biggest surprise of all.

Dave

Well, Dave, your post was a big surprise to me! Either you would seem to have wildly over-estimated Ries or the rest of the world would seem to have wildly under-estimated Beethoven.

Ries on a par with Mendelssohn? I think not. On a par with Beethoven? I know not. I am enthralled and entranced by the music of Schubert, possibly the greatest melodist of them all, but even he was no match for Beethoven as an overall composer.

[Droell]

Well, Dave, your post was a big surprise to me! Either you would seem to have wildly over-estimated Ries or the rest of the world would seem to have wildly under-estimated Beethoven.

Ries on a par with Mendelssohn? I think not. On a par with Beethoven? I know not. I am enthralled and entranced by the music of Schubert, possibly the greatest melodist of them all, but even he was no match for Beethoven as an overall composer.

Hello PDG,

I confess I can only talk about individual pieces & not the man's work overall, as we don't have enough to judge, and a good many people are still uncomfortable with Ries being a contender. I still hear that Ries was a "precursor" to Mendelssohn & Schumann & Chopin, when in fact, he was widely known, his scores were published, the later composers studied & profited from them. This in stark contrast to Beethoven, who, for the most part, was a stylistic dead end. The principle reason for this is that, in his middle period, Beethoven composed stories in music. Not music per se. That overlay made his name, but for the most part, eliminated much direct influence. Ries & Weber are the two great exceptions.

So far as Mendelssohn goes, how anyone can listen to the orchestration of the Italian symphony & be pleased is beyond me. In an effort to ape Beethoven's 9th, he recomposed the Italian (or the Scottish, I forget which) & turned it into a huge mess. It is rarely played.

So far as Beethoven, Ludwig never composed anything that matches the Swedish Airs. The Emperor comes close, the 4th concerto is a great tone poem. Remember that piano & orchestra was not really Beethoven's thing, much as we like to think otherwise. Ries composed far more in this genre, one of which is a clear masterpiece. Most of the rest have yet to be recorded.

Schubert is a fine melodist, but in chamber works often gets lost & goes on & on. Which, regrettably, ruins his fine melodies. With the exception of the Unfinished (unfinished because he did not know how to complete it), Schubert's symphonies are simple things that sound good. As can be seen by glancing at the scores. The 9th is a bigger version & the question is why. Would he have done better had he lived? Yes, and that's the pity. Gershwin's early pieces - hardly more than student works - were edited by others into the pieces we know today (American in Paris, Rhapsody in Blue), which reminds me that Schubert's 9th was edited by Mendelssohn. Maybe he only corrected the odd wrong note. Almost all scores have a few of them, but it is curious that many of Schubert's sonatas & chamber works are repetitive, whereas the symphonies are, uniquely, tightly structured. Which implies an unseen hand - Mendelssohn's or Brahms'. Gershwin lived long enough to write mature scores. Schubert did not.

People have monolithic views of Ludwig, even while he still lived. By 1822, Ries had had enough. The greatest composer of the age had spent the last ten years sitting on his hands. Offering up piano sonatas & variations. On which he had spent years and which, in fact, are amazing pieces, but they were, in the end, journeyman works. In an effort to get him going, Ries persuades the Philharmonic Society to commission a symphony. But instead of getting down to work (as he had with the 4th, another commission), Beethoven dawdles & sends excuses. For years. It does not arrive in London until after Ries has left. Was the mess with Karl a factor? Yes, and more than is commonly realized, but there is still the work of composing, if Ludwig really wanted to do it.

Which might just be as well. The first movement of the 9th is a mess which, to this day, is rarely played well. (Mahler's reorchestration only made things worse, if you've ever heard it.) The second has moments that are very good. The third whines. The fourth is trash. I'm sorry if this comes as a shock or seems to be rude & out of place. I have no interest in hero worship, not even for Ludwig.

Beethoven's friends had waited a quarter century for him to set Schiller's Ode & the final result left most of it on the cutting room floor. The actual music of the 4th movement was clearly composed straight off the top of his head (he was that good), with hardly a second glance. After the premiere, Beethoven resolved to write an orchestral finale, along the lines of the finale to the 15th string quartet. But it was not to be. You want choral? That's the Missa. Composed side by side with the 9th. It is clearly beyond mere human work. In that respect, Beethoven trumps Ries, and, for that matter, everyone who ever lived, so far as composition is concerned.

Ries conducted an early performance of the 9th at Aix in May, 1825. He cut the second movement entirely, as well as part of the third. If he had done that in London, it might have shaped what we now think of the work as a whole. Flawed. It shows that by 1825, Ries & Beethoven were becoming distant.

One reason I gave up this board two or three years ago was all the people for whom Beethoven was a god. Above all, beyond all, greater than all. I found him much more interesting when I could look him square in the eye. I was trying to avoid the "Who is greatest? BEETHOVEN !" argument, but it seems I failed. Apologies.

[Quijote]

Well, Dave, your post was a big surprise to me! Either you would seem to have wildly over-estimated Ries or the rest of the world would seem to have wildly under-estimated Beethoven.

Ries on a par with Mendelssohn? I think not. On a par with Beethoven? I know not. I am enthralled and entranced by the music of Schubert, possibly the greatest melodist of them all, but even he was no match for Beethoven as an overall composer.

I will deal first with PDG's bagatelle above, and respond to Droell's posting after.
In all honesty, PDG, I don't give two hoots if the rest of the world values Beethoven more than Ries, or the inverse. I never let myself (I certainly try not to) be influenced by what "the rest of the world" thinks; I prefer to think for myself.

I am also not happy with trying to "match" composers as if it were some sort of wine tasting exercise. Indeed, for one to make such comments as Schubert being a match (or not) for Beethoven really does require some sort of value-judgement system, which nobody has ever (hopefully never) realised. Aesthetic value(s) cannot be tabulated in Excel spreadsheet format.

As to my opinion concerning Ries - please see my posting to Droell, which follows.

[Quijote]

Hello Droell.
First, I much appreciated reading your Ries postings and speculations, as they were new to me. Very interesting indeed.

I don't wish to be drawn into some of your arguments, namely, comments about Mendelssohn, Schubert et al. However, what did attract my attention was your last comment :

Quote : "One reason I gave up this board two or three years ago was all the people for whom Beethoven was a god. Above all, beyond all, greater than all. [...] I was trying to avoid the "Who is greatest? BEETHOVEN !" argument, but it seems I failed. [...]".

I know what you're saying, but I think if you read the postings that have been made since you first abandoned this forum (and yes, including my own postings - please see elsewhere on this site), you will see that the "Isn't Beethoven a God?" crowd has certainly thinned (with certain notable exceptions) somewhat, and this is for the better. Not all of us are slavish Beethoven fans, and some of us (not just me) take a certain pride in offering rational critiques of Beethoven. So please, don't go just yet, I'd like to read more about what you have to say about Ries.

As to Ries' music : I must confess no great familiarity with his music, but the little I have heard did strike me as "formulaic" (this is a French term I employ), more "gesture" than "content", but your posting regarding the piano concertos and so on has aroused my curiosity; and for this I thank you.

[Peter]

Hello Droell.

I know what you're saying, but I think if you read the postings that have been made since you first abandoned this forum (and yes, including my own postings - please see elsewhere on this site), you will see that the "Isn't Beethoven a God?" crowd has certainly thinned (with certain notable exceptions) somewhat, and this is for the better. Not all of us are slavish Beethoven fans, and some of us (not just me) take a certain pride in offering rational critiques of Beethoven. So please, don't go just yet, I'd like to read more about what you have to say about Ries.
.

Well I don't know who your 'notable exceptions' might be (though I sense a slight dig) but I can assure you that I myself have never belonged to the only composer is Beethoven brigade and have been quite willing to criticise works that fall below par in my opinion - I have had many debates defending other composers on this forum. This is however primarily a Beethoven forum and will draw people who have a natural affinity with his music. You say you offer rational critiques so it would be interesting to hear if you concur with Droell that the 9th symphony 1st movement is a 'mess' and the finale 'trash' and if you think valid arguments have been presented to substantiate that view?

[Quijote]

Well I don't know who your 'notable exceptions' might be (though I sense a slight dig) but I can assure you that I myself have never belonged to the only composer is Beethoven brigade and have been quite willing to criticise works that fall below par in my opinion. This is however primarily a Beethoven forum and will draw people who have a natural affinity with his music.

I am glad to hear it (that you are not a slavish LvB fan), Peter, though you have made this clear on at least one occasion, I am happy to relate. You (we?) must do more to retain members such as Droell.

A natural affinity, you say? Oh, another time, I think ....

Out of interest, why haven't you addressed some to comments to Droell?