Better Beethoven?

[mspaceray]

Why was it that composers(like Mahler) tried to make Beethoven bigger and better?

[Rutradelusasa]

Ego?

[Chaszz]

Originally posted by mspaceray:
Why was it that composers(like Mahler) tried to make Beethoven bigger and better?

I think because the large Romantic orchestra was seen as the perfect ideal, and the larger the better and more perfect. This brought an inevitable reaction in the neoclassicism of composers like Stravinsky in the early 20th century, who went back to a smaller orchestra and were inspired by baroque and classical styles rather than Romanticism.


[This message has been edited by Chaszz (edited April 30, 2003).]

[Joy]

Larger did, indeed, seem better to the 'folks' back then I guess. Look at Wagner and his interpretation of Beethoven's 9th. Some 300 choir members I believe to sing the 'Ode to Joy'.

[Chaszz]

It's always interesting to me to see how 'perfect' styles in art were quickly replaced by others. The classicism of Haydn and Mozart seemed perfected to music lovers in 1790, as if it would reign forever, and it was quickly expanded by Beethoven and then replaced by Romantic music. Wagner's orchestra seemed to people of 1890 the final development in orchestral evolution, and was quickly deconstructed by the moderns. The pure classical idealism of 5th century BC Greek sculpture was very soon replaced by a grittier, more realistic and at the same time more Romantic style. The 'perfect' painting style of the High Renaissance was replaced within 15 years by the near-surrealism of Mannerism. The jazz Big Bands of the 1940s seemed to the people who grew up with them to be perfect as jazz, not to be improved on, yet were replaced in less than 10 years by bebop. All these developments leave middle-aged connoisseurs despondent, sadly wondering how the the perfected styles of their favorite artists could be rejected by youth. Even as a lonely group of obsessives in Brooklyn today are trying to bring about a 'rebirth' of bebop, wishing that rock and roll had never happened.

[This message has been edited by Chaszz (edited April 30, 2003).]

[Stargazer]

Originally posted by Chaszz:
It's always interesting to me to see how 'perfect' styles in art were quickly replaced by others. The classicism of Haydn and Mozart seemed perfected to music lovers in 1790, as if it would reign forever, and it was quickly expanded by Beethoven and then replaced by Romantic music. Wagner's orchestra seemed to people of 1890 the final development in orchestral evolution, and was quickly deconstructed by the moderns. The pure classical idealism of 5th century BC Greek sculpture was very soon replaced by a grittier, more realistic and at the same time more Romantic style. The 'perfect' painting style of the High Renaissance was replaced within 15 years by the near-surrealism of Mannerism. The jazz Big Bands of the 1940s seemed to the people who grew up with them to be perfect as jazz, not to be improved on, yet were replaced in less than 10 years by bebop. All these developments leave middle-aged connoisseurs despondent, sadly wondering how the the perfected styles of their favorite artists could be rejected by youth. Even as a lonely group of obsessives in Brooklyn today are trying to bring about a 'rebirth' of bebop, wishing that rock and roll had never happened.

[This message has been edited by Chaszz (edited April 30, 2003).]

Possibly, because they all existed in a unique social context and none of them can survive without it.

As the old saying goes, art cannot be understood in a vacuum...

[Marta]

Bigger doesn't mean better, the size of the work has nothing to do with the quality.
Also I think that any piece of art when is truly of greatness, will stand by itself through the pass of time, and any comparation with other works has no meaning.
A *masterpiece* always will be that...no matter how many other masterpieces are created after, each one will have its unique value.
I don't think that composers as Brahms, Mahler, Bruckner...wanted intentionally to be better than Beethoven, they just had him as a great teacher, as an inspiration that aloud them to developed their own musical creativity in the context of their times.

Marta

[Gurn Blanston]

I tend to agree with Marta, these guys knew that they couldn't improve upon Beethoven, even though they were egotists in the main, they also readily conceded that they were creating their own standards with their works, not trying to surpass B's, I think that they just wanted to see how B would sound with a contemporary orchestra. I for one would be intrigued to hear an orchestra of 150 and 300 choristers belting out Ode to Joy. Certainly it would not be an improvement over "authentic" performance, as though such a thing could possibly be recreated today (witness Rod's justified critical dissatisfaction over most attempts), but it would nonetheless be interesting. Just my opinion, I may be wrong.
Regards, Gurn

[Peter]

Originally posted by Gurn Blanston:
I tend to agree with Marta, these guys knew that they couldn't improve upon Beethoven, even though they were egotists in the main, they also readily conceded that they were creating their own standards with their works, not trying to surpass B's, I think that they just wanted to see how B would sound with a contemporary orchestra.

And any great artist knows he is not an improvement on the past but creating something new - not for a moment would Beethoven have considered he was an improvement on Bach, Handel or Mozart.

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