Sometimes I wonder if Beethoven’s deafness is partly responsible for his later works. Not that he couldn’t have written those things if he could hear, but that he sort of used it as an excuse to get away with ridiculously radical things:
“I know! I’ll write a ragtime piece 80 years before ragtime is invented. And I’ll do it in 12/32. And if anybody complains, I can just say ‘Dude! I’m deaf!’”
Your not alone. My sense is that when Mozart had an idea or two he jotted down a symphony. Beethoven’s symphonies have more ideas and surprises in one movement than Mozart’s have in four. Mozart doesn’t really leave me cold, but he doesn’t leave me breathless the way Beethoven does.
Finally, in addition to his actual music, Beethoven personally happened to perfectly fit the central-casting ideal of the Romantic Artist. Brooding, intense looks; radical hair; commitment to romantic ideals (e.g. his un-dedicating a piece to Napoleon); and the tragedy of his deafness and relatively early death.
I’m not saying that if he had been healthy and never had that bust made of him, he would never be more famous than, say, Brahms, but it certainly didn’t hurt.
Also known as “1820’s Death Ray.”
for the string quartets try the version by emerson string quartet. the best recording i’ve heard.
for the symphonies i like the collection by john eliot gardiner and the revolution and romantic orchestra. gardiner hand picked the musicians and put the orchestra together they way it would if beethoven was conducting.
Though I’m very familiar with that piece, I’ve never actually seen the score or wondered about the time signatures. OMFG, I have a new level of respect for any pianist who can master it technically . . . and make it sound musical.
I would like to hear a musician comment on the objectivity of what makes music sounds good. Why does a major chord sound happy and a minor chord sound sad? I think that starting with the basics of melody and rhythm, you could say that Beethoven used variations of the two in new and exciting ways that at the same time were timeless and lasting.Daniel Barenboim has a good handle on what makes Beethoven great but you’ll notice that it eludes even him in the end. Something to do with creative resolution of chords in “his” sonata form.
To be fair, a composer would be able to “hear” the notes in his head because he can read sheet music. Although it would be impossible for him to verify if the orchestra was playing it the way he wanted it to sound at that point.
Are there any famous blind painters?
I suspect most people would attribute this to conditioning, but I’m not convinced; it seems to be way too complex for that explanation. A more interesting question is: why does instrumental music make us feel anything . . . let alone powerfully intimate emotions? And how does a composer combine all the elements to produce a particular feeling?
What panache45 said - conditioning. Or, indeed, indoctrination. From the very first days of life in western society, we are surrounded by music, mostly tonal, and mostly conforming to major=happy/minor=sad. On the other hand, and perhaps as evidence that the conflict between different emotions is significant (and that the happy-sad continuum isn’t necessarily the one on which to place all the focus), ambivalence is a significant element in classical music. Is the slow movement of Beethoven 7 happy or sad? It can be equally valid as either, or as something in between, depending on how it’s played.
To put it another way: show me a Bach fugue that is demonstrably ‘happy’ or ‘sad’!
Give us a citation that makes you think he was the “best of the best”.
Beethoven was a very capable composer, and deserves a great reputation. He is not in the same category as Mozart.
I once had this conversation with a professor of organ performance at Stanford. She pointed out that, at best, Beethoven was a transition between the “Classical” and “Romantic” styles of Western European music. In comparison, Mozart was both a prodigy and a genius.
Mozart started out as a child prodigy. Had he died at age 16, he’d still be remembered for all his accomplishments as a child. From all accounts, he was as good a musician and composer at age 11 as any adult professional.
Mozart went on to set a standard of classical music, with a remarkably adroit mixture of lyrical melody and sophisticated harmony that even Shostakovich admired and copied. He was equally adept at writing concertos (for piano, oboe, and clarinet, among others), symphonies, operas, and other works. For each of these, he contributed enduring classics. I can’t think of any other Western European composer that can claim the same.
In comparison, Beethoven eventually became a symphonic master. He was very good as a young man, but no prodigy. His early symphonies are nice but hardly memorable, fashioned in a clearly classical style. I would say that the 5th, 7th, and 9th are his best, by far. He also contributed great piano works, but in defense of Mozart, the piano was a brand-new instrument during most of Mozart’s life. Beethoven’s operas are only so-so, though because of his reputation, they get played often.
Beethoven stands out because his symphonies have powerful melodies and structure, and show an intensity that Mozart lacked. Most of Mozart is light, airy, and a bit blithe. Only the Requiem shows maturity. In comparison, Beethoven’s 9th is awe-inspiring. Without the 9th, no Romantic movement.
Also, Beethoven’s music has entered the popular musical vocabulary, in a way that Mozart has not.
Finally, Beethoven broke the unfortunate mold that musicians, composers, and artists of all types had been forced into. He was among the first, and by far the most famous, composers who made a living composing and performing music on their own, instead of getting patronage. Bach made his living as a Kappelmeister. Mozart either struggled creatively under the idiot Emperor of Austria, or struggled monetarily on his own. Beethoven managed to survive in a middle/upper-class milieu. As a result, his death provoked a massive public mourning, and people lined the streets to watch his funeral procession.
And Mozart got buried in a potter’s graveyard.
When being paraded around Europe, he did so alongside his sister. He wasn’t a singular prodigy. He wouldn’t be remembered for what he did by the age of sixteen, other than as a minor composer of a few operas.
Why ‘even’? Shostakovich certainly knew the time and place for ‘correct’ harmony!!
With regard to the first comment, as was said earlier, Mozart was mostly a synthesizer. The classical genre, of which many agree he was the most stellar composer, owes much more to the likes of C.P.E. Bach and Haydn than to Mozart. Beethoven, on the other hand, was instrumental in defining what people later expected Romantic music to sound like. His early works, though in Classical style, already show a clear desire to try to break free from existing formal ideas.
Secondly, the fact that Mozart was buried in a common grave is often trotted out. It’s true but it doesn’t mean anything. At the time the vast majority of Viennese were buried that way. Mozart lived a financially comfortable life. The only real tragedy in his life was his untimely death.
In the score for his last string quartet, he wrote: “Muß es sein?” (Must it be?), which he answers later with: “Es muß sein!” (It must be!). To which I feel like asking: “why must it be?” I know the answer would probably be: “Because I fucking can!”
I’ve heard a story about how the 5th symphony 1st movement came to be the single most famous tune in the English speaking world. I can’t vouch for the veracity of the tale, but it’s what I heard. During World War 2, somebody realised that the repeated notes dum-dum-dum-dah sound a lot like the morse code dot-dot-dot-dash, which means V for victory. The tune was thus broadcast on the radio over and over again.
As for why he is considered a genius, one word: volume. He wrote a huge amount that is good. Go into any record shop, look at the classica; music section. You can see the CDs of the Best of various composers, the best of Chopin, Brahms and Rinsky-Korsakov fit on a single CD, but the best of Beethoven is a five volume set. Personally speaking, I have no education in Music. To me, The flight of the Bumblebee is just as good as the 5th symphony. They are both wonderful. The difference is that Beethoven wrote a vastly larger number of great tunes than Rimsky-Korsakov did.
Yes, but he’d be remembered more as a curiosity than as a serious composer.
The Eroica?
Beethoven wrote exactly one opera, Fidelio. It is much better than “so-so,” yet is not performed very often.
Yes and no. Chopin may fit onto one CD because most of his works were short. The best of Brahms is at very least a hefty box set - you’ve got the four symphonies and assorted other overtures, the Requiem (which is achingly good) and other choral music, the songs, the chamber works, etc. Rimsky-Korsakov…dunno…not really a fan - he was a far better orchestrator than a composer. But yes, in that Beethoven took enormous care in what he produced, and as a result so much of it is very high quality indeed.
True, but let’s not be too dismissive - he did it much, much better than his contemporaries. The opening of Eine Kleine Nachmusik is just a couple of arpeggios and they’re known worldwide 200+ years later.
I’m also not quite sure why all the Bach hate in this thread. Bach wrote some incredibly sublime and intricate music, much of which was largely ignored in his lifetime. He was far overshadowed by his sons C.P.E. on the Continent and Johann Christian in London, and was better known as an organist, yet Mozart rated him highly (von Swieten gave him some of Bach’s scores) and of course Mendelssohn did too. The Cello Suites alone are works of genius, never mind the all the organ works, chamber and choral music, and the rare comic turn.
I’ve always thought Pergolesi got a bum rap by comparison. He wrote two of the most influential works of the 18th century - La Serva Padrona, an intermezzo that more or less launched the comic opera genre, and his Stabat Mater which completely transformed choral music for the rest of the century - then died at age 26 of tuberculosis. Not much in the way of quantity, but you can’t fault the quality.
Oh, I’m not being dismissive at all, after all I did say he was stellar. However, I’d probably put only one “much” before “better.” I think that singling out the likes of Mozart, Beethoven of J-S Bach has the unfortunate consequence that other composers have been undeservedly cast into the shadows. In your average record store Mozart might have a whole wall dedicated to him while C.P.E. Bach has three CDs filed under “Bach (sons)”, this despite him being one of the most influential and talented composers ever. Salieri is remembered wrongly and unfairly as a jealous hack.
I haven’t seen any Bach hatred in this thread. I did mention that he wrote somewhat repetitive church music for money, which is true. We can hardly fault him for reusing material, considering that this music was only meant to be played once and he had to produce massive quantities of it. There’s no question that he was a towering giant and his reputation and fame is entirely deserved. He does, however, also cast maybe too big a shadow nowadays. (His sons are the most obvious casualty, but I think Buxtehude also suffered fame-wise from having been an influence on JS.)
Fair enough.
For the record, my wife is a J.C. Bach scholar - I get all this on a daily basis.
More than volume, I’d argue it is the percentage of great works that was important. Compared to Mozart Beethoven hardly wrote anything. The highest opus number for him is in the 120s, IIRC; Haydn wrote over 100 symphonies alone. It’s the average quality of this work that counts.
As for the first movement of the 5th, I don’t know about during WW II but in the '50s there was a TV series, a documentary, called Victory at Sea about the US Navy in WW II, and that used the famous notes as its theme.
Beethoven’s Opus numbers refer to works that were published in his lifetime. He had over 200 works that were not published, generally referred to as the WoO (Werke ohne Opuszahl). That puts his output at roughly half Mozart’s. Still considerably less, yes, but not by nearly as large a margin.