How did you come to love Beethoven?

[Michael]

I had lunch with an erstwhile friend from school (1960s) yesterday and when I told her about my passion for classical music she asked whether I liked Andre Rieu. This happens again and again!! Don't you just hate that???!!! I can never think of a satisfactory reply without offending.

Who he? Wait, I can Google him. Oh, yes, the Waltz King! Well, I like two or three Strauss waltzes, especially the "Emperor" and a few polkas, but that's about it with me.

[Roehre]

Who he? Wait, I can Google him. Oh, yes, the Waltz King! Well, I like two or three Strauss waltzes, especially the "Emperor" and a few polkas, but that's about it with me.

The Strauss waltzes are excellent music (better than the Polkas, though not bad music eiter), so much so that Brahms once wrote the opening bars of the Schöne Blaue Donau with the words Leider nicht von Johannes Brahms (Unfortunately not by J.B.).

Andre Rieu by contrast makes everything he's playing sounding the same, a kind of sweet sauce poured over already very sweetly presented waltzes and other popular music within the "classical range" (Strauss-family, Shostakovich, a.o.)

[Bonn1827]

Well said, Roehre!! And I don't think Rieu plays particularly well either. There's no degree of difficulty there (ok for me to say??)

I don't know why Brahms regretted not writing a melody like J. Strauss Jnr when you listen to his exquisite themes, particularly Symphony No. 3, where he includes a kind of parody of a waltz in the 1st movement, IMO 5 times better than anything written by the "Waltz King". Was Brahms being disingenous? I suspect so. Also, the waltzes are pleasant but after a while that whole 3/4 time gets annoying and I feel like I've got seasickness - round and round and round she goes, and where she stops nobody knows!! So, a good idea is driven too far, IMHO.

[Preston]

I actually don't much fancy the "Ode to Joy": because it has become such a cliché its magic is lost on me. The Symphony No. 9 isn't his best IMO, but sections of it are quite wonderful. I think it a bit ostentatious: apologies!!

What if the Ode to Joy had not become a cliché? How would you feel about it then?

Context is important: ostentatious in comparison with his other works. By this I mean uncharacteristically "showy" for typical Beethoven.

Bonn or Bonnie , would you mind elaborating on what you wrote?

I believe that all Beethoven's symphonies stand out greatly and each are different from each other- though, I imagine them to be anything but "showy". Think of the 5th or the Eroica- monstrous works written by the hand of the master himself- they are both very strong and large works, but, I could not imagine them being boastful of showy. If any of Beethoven's symphony's were considered showy, to my mind, it would be the 5th because that is the one symphony that people who are not classical enthusiasts or people who have never heard of Beethoven always hum (or something) when one says what is your favorite classical piece, so to say.

I just could not see a person as brilliant as Beethoven writing showy music, unless it was for a dance, etc. He spent around 4 years writing the 9th, the reason I bring that up is because a deaf man who spends 4 years writing a symphony surely has an unimaginably important message to write about- which, IMO, would be neither arrogant, showy, pompous, etc.

[Bonn1827]

Thank you, Preston, for your comments. Now, I can't answer your question on "Ode to Joy" because it has become a cliche and I can't put my head in a space where that wouldn't be the situation - very unfortunately!! I've seen it used to advertise cigarettes, rock concerts, news film...you know the story!!
It has been misused terribly and LvB would be horrified, of course.

Now the "ostentation". I said "context" because, of course, it isn't ostentatious in the sense of many modern things, such as architecture, cars etc. But I have a problem with the whole "vocal/choral" thing in Symphony No. 9 and it seems to be, well, operatic. I don't like Mahler's symphonies (or Vaughan Williams etc, for example) with choral accompaniment. So, as I said in another comment, I just love the first 3 movements of Symphony No. 9 but wish LvB had stuck with orchestral instruments instead of moving to another level, if you will, with the human voice. There was some suggestion that he loved opera and wanted to write more of them, so this could be behind his thinking for Symphony No. 9, and I don't blame him. I think he had done so many profound things with just a single piano or a string quartet I felt there was little need to go "over the top". His smaller canvasses could be the most profound and sublime, eg. Adagio in "Hammerklavier". For me, Symphony No. 9 just doesn't work as well. Roger Norrington has said something kind of similar in the film "In Search of Beethoven", but I cannot remember exactly the thrust of it now. LvB's best symphony is No. 3 IMO and I couldn't imagine life without it. Of course, I am terribly cognizant of the deafness; our idol suffered so terribly, but it doesn't mean he should be beyond criticism if one feels that is justified. Isn't it a compliment to him that we've learned so much about his music and come to love it so much we feel "qualified" to make some comments about it? I'm sorry if I offended you; I just wanted to say how I felt.

[Preston]

Well, you did not offend me by any means, so now worries there! You stated how you felt, which is fine, and I questioned what you stated by stating what I felt. Thanks for the reply.

Though, as for the choral in the 9th- I cannot say I do not like it because I do not fully understand what it was he was trying to express- the fault is mine, by all means. And, imo, I just cannot doubt Beethoven and believe in my heart that he had great significance for writing the choral.

[Bonn1827]

It's interesting, what you say, and recalls an old dictum which we used in English teaching at school: Whom do you believe, the tale or the teller?

This was something which was regularly discussed, for example, in relation to G.B. Shaw in a text like "Pygmalion" where he wrote a detailed post-lude because he didn't want people to think Eliza Doolittle married Higgins. He said he was opposed to that idea. The idea behind the dictum is "the text is out there in the public domain and must stand on its own merits REGARDLESS of what its creator has said or done". Do you follow my meaning? So, in relation to your not wanting to question Beethoven's intentions it is a similar kind of idea - the "text", in this case a massive symphony, should stand on its own "two feet", if you will, and our response is the final 'TRUTH'. I can't think of a better way to put this also; that Beethoven is my IDOL.

[Preston]

I think I "kind-of" "sort-of" am following you! If I understand your post correctly then I guess I should explain why I do not doubt the genius of Beethoven.

One, because my knowledge of music is quite feeble compared to his. Though, this is insignificant when compared with the other reasons (listed below) concerning Beethoven and his art.

The primary reasons are these:

I believe that there is no higher form of art than music. Then, I believe that art is a pathway to the divine, or, divine feelings if you prefer. I also believe that Beethoven achieved a point of spirituality that very few achieve.

These all are the basic reasons I do not doubt or have speculation about Beethoven's music or soul.

[Bonn1827]

I completely agree with you! I simply say that we must "hear" the text on its merits without necessarily any extra-musical ideas (i.e. what he said etc.) influencing our final response to it. It all comes into play, of course, but the text alone is the final artefact for consumption. This is maybe getting a bit academic, sorry.

Keats tried to put it this way when he wrote "Ode on a Grecian Urn". He said that the poem itself was the thing that would last (beyond his own mortality, and one of his themes was death itself). His final lines in the poem are telling:

When old age shall this generation waste
Thou shalt remain a friend to man to whom thou sayest,
Beauty is Truth, Truth Beauty;
That is all ye know on earth and all ye need to know.

Well, the beauty of Beethoven is the final Truth for the listener - not necessarily his life story.

[Preston]

I simply say that we must "hear" the text on its merits without necessarily any extra-musical ideas (i.e. what he said etc.) influencing our final response to it.

If I understand you correctly you are saying what is important is what we hear and not what Beethoven heard? Therefore making it- subjective- the one thing I do not like about music- subjectiveness. Yet unfortunately (IMO unfortunately), subjective is what it is for a lot of music.

Anyway, if I understand you correctly, which I am not sure I do, , then I disagree that we should take what we hear and base our opinions around that, when there is- for a fact- a far greater vision and musical thought at work- Beethoven.

It is hard, for me, to judge something I do not fully understand.

[Bonn1827]

Yes, there is a far greater vision and thought but it's all right there in the music. I'm saying that we need to put the "back story", if you will, to one side and concentrate on what is contained in the music. Each person will bring his or her own interpretation to that - and this in no way diminishes the "vision" - despite the known "facts" about Beethoven's life. The text is the thing. I'm explaining this poorly, but we ARE actually on the same page!! Re: subjective. All responses are subjective, which is the opposite of "objective", which means our personal opinion. I'm listening as I write this to Symphony No. 2 - how wonderful that is, and yet it was written during the dark "Heiligenstadt Testament" year. Again, the text doesn't convey that but is every bit as beautiful and joyous as any piece of music could be and we appreciate it on those terms.

[Preston]

I was talking strictly about the music when I referred to the music, but the music is the man and the man is the music, IMO.

Either way, I disagree in full, when you speak of each person's vision not diminishing the true vision of a work. This is a very complex aspect, to my mind. That is, to fully understand what feelings the composer is expressing. I imagine there are many who can understand the vision of a composer- unfortunately, I am not one of them, at least not yet. One of my goals is to understand Beethoven as best I can, which with my feeble skills is probably some kind of an impossibility. Though, I will not give up until I am dead or gone, .

Anyway, my point is that it is the artist's vision that we must take into count, for it is their work, and not our own. If this is not done then the vision, to my mind, is fully diminished.

[Peter]

Yes, there is a far greater vision and thought but it's all right there in the music. I'm saying that we need to put the "back story", if you will, to one side and concentrate on what is contained in the music. Each person will bring his or her own interpretation to that - and this in no way diminishes the "vision" - despite the known "facts" about Beethoven's life. The text is the thing. I'm explaining this poorly, but we ARE actually on the same page!! Re: subjective. All responses are subjective, which is the opposite of "objective", which means our personal opinion. I'm listening as I write this to Symphony No. 2 - how wonderful that is, and yet it was written during the dark "Heiligenstadt Testament" year. Again, the text doesn't convey that but is every bit as beautiful and joyous as any piece of music could be and we appreciate it on those terms.

Yes and this is just one reason why Beethoven's music belongs to the classical and not the Romantic. Had he been a Romantic that 2nd symphony would have been full of tragic despair!

[Sorrano]

Yes and this is just one reason why Beethoven's music belongs to the classical and not the Romantic. Had he been a Romantic that 2nd symphony would have been full of tragic despair!

Who named the "Pathetique" Sonata? That sounds like a Romantic.

[Hofrat]

Sorrano;

Beethoven gave nicknames to only two of his 32 pianoforte sonatas:

"Pathetique" in C-minor opus 13.
"Farewell, Absence, and Reunion" in E-flat major opus 81a.

Pathetique is in reference to the general character of the work. As for the other sonata, Beethoven was referring to the fleeing on his patron (and part time pupil) Archduke Rudolph from Vienna.