A question and a GREAT site

[Peter]

Thanks for that Joyce - I wasn't sure about the exact date that Beethoven ceased lessons with Salieri - I was aware of the note left by Beethoven - I have heard that there was also an entry in Salieri's diary saying 'the pupil Beethoven was here' - it is from that remark that the confusion stems.Perhaps Salieri always referred to Beethoven as his pupil.

[Joyce]

Originally posted by Peter:

Thanks for that Joyce - I wasn't sure about the exact date that Beethoven ceased lessons with Salieri - I was aware of the note left by Beethoven - I have heard that there was also an entry in Salieri's diary saying 'the pupil Beethoven was here' - it is from that remark that the confusion stems.Perhaps Salieri always referred to Beethoven as his pupil.

No, I don't think so. You're right. Beethoven had added the words "the pupil" to that note, but we can safely assume that it was just a reference to the past, to the days when he was Salieri's pupil. The one who saw that note on Salieri's desk was not a little amazed! The famous composer calling himself a pupil... An almost flabbergasting utterance of modesty by an otherwise far from most man.

Joyce

[Rod]

Originally posted by Joyce:
No, I don't think so. You're right. Beethoven had added the words "the pupil" to that note, but we can safely assume that it was just a reference to the past, to the days when he was Salieri's pupil. The one who saw that note on Salieri's desk was not a little amazed! The famous composer calling himself a pupil... An almost flabbergasting utterance of modesty by an otherwise far from most man.

Joyce

I am sure you, Joyce, must be aware that the 'immodest' Beethoven on more than one occasion gave praise to composers far beneath him musically, and openly 'bowed his knee' to those of genuine quality. Beethoven was not far from modest, he spoke the truth of himself, and gave others more than many of them were due. Those musicians he critisised deserved every word of it.

Rod

[Baldric]

Yes, LvB did intend, in time, to replace the finale with an instrumental version. The fact that he didn't has nothing to do with him being happy with it - he simply ran out of time!

Cheers

Baldric

[Peter]

Originally posted by Baldric:
Yes, LvB did intend, in time, to replace the finale with an instrumental version. The fact that he didn't has nothing to do with him being happy with it - he simply ran out of time!

Cheers

Baldric

Sorry Baldric, can't agree with you on this one - Beethoven did not run out of time - he lived nearly another 3 years after the first performance of the ninth - a period of time in which he produced the last quartets and made sketches for a 10th Symphony. Also I doubt that he would have allowed such a major (or any other) work to go to publication were he not satisfied.



------------------
'Man know thyself'

[Chris]

Originally posted by Peter:
Sorry Baldric, can't agree with you on this one - Beethoven did not run out of time - he lived nearly another 3 years after the first performance of the ninth - a period of time in which he produced the last quartets and made sketches for a 10th Symphony. Also I doubt that he would have allowed such a major (or any other) work to go to publication were he not satisfied.

I agree, no question.


------------------
"Wagner's music is better than it sounds." - Mark Twain

[Stephen F Vasta]

<<a Beethoven’s Quartet is more intelligent, deeper, more creative and beautiful than a pop or rap song. Unfortunately, it is also more complicated, and you need –to understand it- something that you don’t need to understand pop, rap, and techno. >>

The basic thrust of your answer leads me to assume that you're referring to education and/or musical understanding, as the things necessary to understand a Beethoven quartet. I would, however, rank another attribute as still more important - namely, patience!

Steve

[Luis]

Hmmm. ok. let's see:
Leo wrote:
"On my opinion there is music that is more complicated and refined than other (...) and you need - to understand it- something that you don’t need to understand pop, rap, and techno"

(refined) what is refined for you might not be for other person. Many consider Mozart refined but many others consider his music banal.
(Complicated). That's an attribute which gradual and objetive appearance cannot bacame operative: Mahler´s symphonys are more complicated than Beethoven´s but I prefer B´s. So both, the complexity and the refinement don' t have or can't be considered as objetive or universal criterions. The same goes to depth, and creativity.(what´s intelligence in music!?).
The musical taste is certainly related to education, habit, culture as well as it´s related to identity, and other psicologiacal dispositions that all togeather made the personal link to certain music a unique complex universe of significances. This is what makes that, as Leo said, "you need -to understand the classical music- something that you don’t need to understand pop, rap, and techno. But in the same way, other education, culture, habits, identities, etc. might result in other complex that you or I would need to "understand" rap, etc. But I can't in any way state my personal education, culture... as "better" than another (as Leo seems to do, since he talks about all that contrasting it to "taste"). Hey! I can't even say why to live is better than to die! (good for you if you can!). But don't misunderstand me, this is not nihilism. Althought I can't get to the ultimate basement of my values, I have them and I indeed act with them in terms of hierarchy since they are related to other people, and so I would try to inculcate them if I had children. But for music I can enjoy a total freedom to care only about my very personal likes. So if I like a piece of music, I will continue liking it no matter what other people can say aobut it's complexity, originality, accordance to the composer intentions or what ever. This terms are too simple to describe something that is itself indescribable.
So I will apply the same conviction to not reduce the value of the pleasure that other person might experiment listenning to other music I don't like.


[This message has been edited by Luis (edited 11-02-2000).]

[Rod]

Originally posted by Luis:
Hmmm. ok. let's see:
Leo wrote:
"On my opinion there is music that is more complicated and refined than other (...) and you need - to understand it- something that you don’t need to understand pop, rap, and techno"

(refined) what is refined for you might not be for other person. Many consider Mozart refined but many others consider his music banal.
(Complicated). That's an attribute which gradual and objetive appearance cannot bacame operative: Mahler´s symphonys are more complicated than Beethoven´s but I prefer B´s. So both, the complexity and the refinement don' t have or can't be considered as objetive or universal criterions.... ]

Don't worry too much about Leo's remark, he goes (or rather he used to go since I suspect he has had a complete nervous breakdown by now) a little over-the-top with regard to the superiority of Classical music over other music genres. With regard to Mahler, this is a prime example whereby more can in fact be less. Such indiscipline, self-indulgence and simple lack of taste were prime qualifications for composers at that time.

Rod


------------------
"If I were but of noble birth..." - Rod Corkin

[Luis]

[QUOTE]
With regard to Mahler, this is a prime example whereby more can in fact be less. Such indiscipline, self-indulgence and simple lack of taste were prime qualifications for composers at that time.

Rod


Do you all think the same way about Mahler?
What about Tchaikovsky? To me his 6th symphony can only be surpassed by B's 9th, 3rd and 7th. (in that order). May be we could think about romantic composers as tormented sons by the ghost of an infinitely talented father. But of course that doesn't applies to all composers or all music genres.

[Rod]

[quote]Originally posted by Luis:

With regard to Mahler, this is a prime example whereby more can in fact be less. Such indiscipline, self-indulgence and simple lack of taste were prime qualifications for composers at that time.

Rod


Do you all think the same way about Mahler?
What about Tchaikovsky? To me his 6th symphony can only be surpassed by B's 9th, 3rd and 7th. (in that order). May be we could think about romantic composers as tormented sons by the ghost of an infinitely talented father. But of course that doesn't applies to all composers or all music genres.

Quite simply, I don't like this brand of music and never have done, this is an OPINION so don't ask me why, because all you will get is a load of waffle. For the record I don't rate T either, he was the man who said of B's late quartets: 'There are glimmers and nothing more...the rest is chaos.' Smart chap indeed. T's music just does not hold my interest. Like all Romantic music, it is drama without intelligence or sincerity - art for arts sake!

B's grovelling admiration of Mozart and Handel did not turn him into a 'tormented son'! Both Handel and Beethoven were men of great intelligence. I read somewhere that Handel was described as a man who possessed an 'inner calm'. I see Beethoven as a man who possessed 'inner strength'. Composers personalities are reflected in their music, and for me no man, certainly no Romantic composer, has imbued music with such personal qualities as H and B. Art ultimately serves a function other than art. But I doubt they would teach you that at music school.

Rod


------------------
"If I were but of noble birth..." - Rod Corkin

[Peter]

Originally posted by Rod:
Both Handel and Beethoven were men of great intelligence. I read somewhere that Handel was described as a man who possessed an 'inner calm'. I see Beethoven as a man who possessed 'inner strength'. Composers personalities are reflected in their music, and for me no man, certainly no Romantic composer, has imbued music with such personal qualities as H and B. Art ultimately serves a function other than art. But I doubt they would teach you that at music school.

Rod

Whilst agreeing with your comments about B & H , I don't agree entirely with your comments about the Romantics . Just take the work mentioned by Luis - Tchaikovsky's 6th - It is a work as intensely personal as you could possibly find.It is 100% autobiographical.You may not like what Tchaikovsky has to say or how he says it, but you cannot deny that he does say it ! Nor would I say that Tchaikovsky's coolness towards Beethoven (Mozart was his idol) makes him stupid - it simply means that he did not respond to B's style as you yourself do not to any composers other than B & H !


------------------
'Man know thyself'

[Rod]

Originally posted by Peter:
...Nor would I say that Tchaikovsky's coolness towards Beethoven (Mozart was his idol) makes him stupid - it simply means that he did not respond to B's style as you yourself do not to any composers other than B & H !

That's because, in all seriousness, I'm a hell of a lot smarter than T!! This 'personal' element in T does not for me have the simultaneous 'universal' dimention that has long been recognised even in B's most subjective music. Romantics wallow in themselves, or simply wallow in the idea of Romaticism (what I meant by 'art for arts sake'). It's all about the latent impression I get whilst listening to the music - when I listen to Beethoven I know I am listening to a 'good egg' without reading his biography. With some other composers the words 'pathetic' or 'arrogance without the brains to back it up' are the thoughts that come to mind. But don't ask me to explain it. I've said to much waffle already on the matter and will say no more.

Rod



------------------
"If I were but of noble birth..." - Rod Corkin

[Luis]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Rod:
[B] That's because, in all seriousness, I'm a hell of a lot smarter than T!!

Well, we all now at this point that humility is not your most outstanding attribute .

(Rod)
This 'personal' element in T does not for me have the simultaneous 'universal' dimension that has long been recognized even in B's most subjective music. Romantics wallow in themselves, or simply wallow in the idea of Romanticism (what I meant by 'art for arts sake'). It's all about the latent impression I get whilst listening to the music - when I listen to Beethoven I know I am listening to a 'good egg' without reading his biography. With some other composers the words 'pathetic' or 'arrogance without the brains to back it up' are the thoughts that come to mind. But don't ask me to explain it. I've said to much waffle already on the matter and will say no more.

I always thought Beethoven and Mozart would be liked for centuries and not many other composers specially romantics. (not to mention XX C. classical music, which I would never understand or like). [I don't now from Handel anything but his most famous works like his Messiah, Royal Fireworks, Water Music and some of his concerti grossi and organ music. So instead of criticize me on this point recommend me some of his music!]

Both Mozart's and Beethoven's music are related to human generic, universal experiences (love and almost infantile or innocent joy with Mozart, and, for Beethoven...well hope, struggle, sadness, fear, angst, loneliness, etc.)* and they expressed that emotions in a very effective musical way. For romanticism we have another whole situation. Generalizing, we don’t have human kind hope. I’ve never studied this issue but it seems, effectively, romantics wallow in themselves, as R said, but I won’t describe that metamorphosis on their music as a simple act of arrogance. Instead, disappointment on universalizing movements and the artistic height reached by Beethoven in so many music genres would had have a devastating effect not only on their music but also their lives!. The turn towards not universal experiences (vg. localisms) and the impetuous search for originality, which are not bad for themselves, hasn’t driven them to a total avoid of conventionalisms and make much of their music, in my opinion at least, much more characterized by it’s time than M’s or B’s. Yet, I can enjoy much of their music. Tchaikovsky is one of my favorites, but I also like Mandelssohn, Brahms, Schubert, Chopin, Rachmaninoff.

* regarding Joyfulness on B's music I think is not abstract, pure joy as in M. Instead, his joy has always passion (which on its original meaning refers to pain). His most characteristic joy tends to be a goal experienced as a triumph (personal or universal/human) against all the above-mentioned sufferings]

[Rod]

[quote]Originally posted by Luis:
[b]

Originally posted by Rod:
That's because, in all seriousness, I'm a hell of a lot smarter than T!!

Well, we all now at this point that humility is not your most outstanding attribute .

If some unknown simpleton had posted words such as those said by T in this forum, which one of you would give him the time of day? Zero, and rightly so. Therefore such ignorance must censured is a thousand times more is it comes for a man of T's (apparent) musical stature!!!

Rod

------------------
"If I were but of noble birth..." - Rod Corkin