PDA

View Full Version : A question and a GREAT site


Luis
09-07-2000, 09:40 AM
Hi, nice to read you again!

It is a pity that neither this nor the other forum are now so live as the other one used to be. I donīt know the reasons of the separation but I hope the two forums to improve so I can continue learning in the course of the discussions.

Well, here's the question: Why since Verdi there are people that reject the last movement of the 9a symphony? As far as I know the argument is related with the treatment of the human voice. In that case, which the supposed "lack" is? And, does any of you shares this or another critic related to this last movement?
The second part of my message refers to an incredible Beethoven site that I visited and I wanted to know if I' m allowed to publish its address on this forum.

Greetings, Luis.

PS: I even read that a Beethoven friend, Carl Czerny (I have no idea who he was) said that after the first performance of Bīs 9th, B himself revealed to a small circle of friends that the choral finale was a mistake and that he was planning to replacing it with an instrumental one. What do you know about this?

Chris
09-07-2000, 12:17 PM
Well, I love the finale. Beethoven is not known for being a great composer of vocal music, mostly because (I think) he treats voices like instruments, where most believe they should be used more delicately. Perhaps singers may find awkward things in the music, but I think the effect on the listener is fantastic. I think that is the "treatment" issue.

And sure, give us the URL to the site you found.

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

Peter
09-07-2000, 02:20 PM
That beethoven had difficulty with vocal composition is evident by the fact that he himself continued lessons with Salieri, possibly as late as 1809 - when he was nearly 40 years of age and with Fidelio,all the concertos and the first 6 symphonies to his credit ! - Beethoven tended to set texts not for their literary value, but rather for the ideals they contained , hence many of his favourite poets - (with the exception of Goethe) - Shakespeare,Homer,Ossian,Schiller and Klopstock he rarely set to music. Prominent amongst his vocal settings are words such as God,Stars,Hope,Sun,longing - themes that were important to him.
With regard to the 9th Symphony, the choral finale has always attracted the most criticism, the other 3 movements being regarded as perfection,super-human and beyond criticism.Apparently Beethoven had at one time intended an instrumental finale using the theme from the A minor Quartet Op.132. It was Leopold Sonnleithner writing as late as 1864 who quoted the remark made by Czerny.The fact that hardly anyone has heard of Leopold Sonnleithner,yet the finale of the 9th is probably one of the best loved and known Beethoven works answers the question !

Rod
09-07-2000, 03:14 PM
Originally posted by Luis:
Hi, nice to read you again!

It is a pity that neither this nor the other forum are now so live as the other one used to be. I donīt know the reasons of the separation but I hope the two forums to improve so I can continue learning in the course of the discussions.

Well, here's the question: Why since Verdi there are people that reject the last movement of the 9a symphony? As far as I know the argument is related with the treatment of the human voice. In that case, which the supposed "lack" is? And, does any of you shares this or another critic related to this last movement?
The second part of my message refers to an incredible Beethoven site that I visited and I wanted to know if I' m allowed to publish its address on this forum.

Greetings, Luis.

PS: I even read that a Beethoven friend, Carl Czerny (I have no idea who he was) said that after the first performance of Bīs 9th, B himself revealed to a small circle of friends that the choral finale was a mistake and that he was planning to replacing it with an instrumental one. What do you know about this?



For the forum to improve people must continue to write in!

A host of famous composers have found fault with the choral finale. Yet where does the fault lie? With the famous composers of course, because they simply couldn't understand it!! It is well above and beyond the likes of Verdi, that's for certain!

B had contemplated a instrumental finale but abandoned the idea in the sketch stage. This is the first time I have heard of your story regarding Czerny (a pupil of B's who became a virtuoso pianist and composer). Why would he want to change it when it received such great applause at the premiere??!! Not for musical reasons, maybe for commercial ones perhaps (the cost of staging this production was enormous, giving B little, if any, profit). I will look into this matter.

Suzie
09-07-2000, 03:49 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Luis:
[B]Hi, nice to read you again!

It is a pity that neither this nor the other forum are now so live as the other one used to be. I donīt know the reasons of the separation but I hope the two forums to improve so I can continue learning in the course of the discussions.

Well, here's the question: Why since Verdi there are people that reject the last movement of the 9a symphony? As far as I know the argument is related with the treatment of the human voice. In that case, which the supposed "lack" is? And, does any of you shares this or another critic related to this last movement?
The second part of my message refers to an incredible Beethoven site that I visited and I wanted to know if I' m allowed to publish its address on this forum.

Greetings, Luis.

PS: I even read that a Beethoven friend, Carl Czerny (I have no idea who he was) said that after the first performance of Bīs 9th, B himself revealed to a small circle of friends that the choral finale was a mistake and that he was planning to replacing it with an instrumental one. What do you know about this?

Hi Luis.

I think the choral movement is too ingenious. I know their have been complaints that B was truly deaf because the choral is difficult to sing w/some very high notes. I have several copies of the 9th and I have not detected any suffering by the singers. Only in one video of the 9th did I see the singers get out of sync(most likely they were 4 big names trying to get out front?).

In fact I read complaints of many of B's pieces only because they were ahead of their time and not understood. Maybe someday, way off in the future, when I'm 90, I will 'understand' rap?

S

Peter
09-07-2000, 05:16 PM
Originally posted by Rod:
For the forum to improve people must continue to write in!

A host of famous composers have found fault with the choral finale. Yet where does the fault lie? With the famous composers of course, because they simply couldn't understand it!! It is well above and beyond the likes of Verdi, that's for certain!

B had contemplated a instrumental finale but abandoned the idea in the sketch stage. This is the first time I have heard of your story regarding Czerny (a pupil of B's who became a virtuoso pianist and composer). Why would he want to change it when it received such great applause at the premiere??!! Not for musical reasons, maybe for commercial ones perhaps (the cost of staging this production was enormous, giving B little, if any, profit). I will look into this matter.

I'm not sure that a 'host' of composers have found fault with the finale - critics have for sure, but I don't recall any deflamatory remarks made about it by Brahms,Wagner,Mahler,Bruckner etc.. As I said in my reply to Luis, the remark about Beethoven being disatisfied himself with the finale was reputedly reported by Czerny to Leopold Sonnleithner, who mentions it in the Allgemeine Musikalische Zeitung 6 April 1864 whilst reviewing a performance of the 9th - he goes on to say that it was regrettable that Beethoven did not replace the last movement !! The fact remains that Beethoven did not replace it or make revisions, which he most certainly would have done had he not been satisfied.

Rod
09-07-2000, 07:23 PM
Originally posted by Peter:
I'm not sure that a 'host' of composers have found fault with the finale - critics have for sure, but I don't recall any deflamatory remarks made about it by Brahms,Wagner,Mahler,Bruckner etc.. As I said in my reply to Luis, the remark about Beethoven being disatisfied himself with the finale was reputedly reported by Czerny to Leopold Sonnleithner, who mentions it in the Allgemeine Musikalische Zeitung 6 April 1864 whilst reviewing a performance of the 9th - he goes on to say that it was regrettable that Beethoven did not replace the last movement !! The fact remains that Beethoven did not replace it or make revisions, which he most certainly would have done had he not been satisfied.

Yes, I should have broadened the scope for critisism of this movement. However, both Mahler and Wagner, and other well known names like Weingartner suggested it was in need of modification (and indeed made modifications) as far as I can remember. Brahms would certainly have preferred an instrumental finale. Tchaikovsky said of the late quartets "glimmers...the rest is chaos", I wonder what he made of the 9th. The arrogance of many composers of this era was surely matched only by their ignorance! Also I'm sure Stravinsky said something uncomplimentary about it.

As you say, the fact that B made no effort or plans to actually produce a replacement finale surely gives us his own final opinion on the matter. Actions speak louder than words!

Rod

Leonard
09-08-2000, 12:19 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Suzie:
In fact I read complaints of many of B's pieces only because they were ahead of their time and not understood. Maybe someday, way off in the future, when I'm 90, I will 'understand' rap?

I doubt that, but it is possible that, on the next life, you and other people will understand the contemporary composers of our days. The destiny of the composers seems to be in fact that to be understood 100 years (or more) in delay, when the people have finally become familiar with the "new" language. The rap is another thing, because it is the expression of many young people of our time, and not something "out" of our time. Leonard

Chris
09-08-2000, 05:00 AM
Or could it be that rap is just bad? http://www.gyrix.com/~cgraye/ubb/smile.gif

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

Peter
09-08-2000, 11:06 AM
Originally posted by Leonard:

I doubt that, but it is possible that, on the next life, you and other people will understand the contemporary composers of our days. The destiny of the composers seems to be in fact that to be understood 100 years (or more) in delay, when the people have finally become familiar with the "new" language. The rap is another thing, because it is the expression of many young people of our time, and not something "out" of our time. Leonard[/B]

That's a good way of putting it Leonard - rap is of our day (unfortunately) and is symptomatic of a drug crazed culture - it really is anti-music. Re. Contemporary composers, I don't think they fair much better ! - Many people did not understand Beethoven's music (particularly his late works) but he was universally admired, world famous, and regarded as an exceptional human being in his own day. 20,000-30,000 people turned out for his funeral. I doubt that the likes of Harrison Birtwhistle will ever achieve that in 1000 years let alone whilst still living ! There have been some great 20th century names - Stravinsky, Bartok, Shostakovich - but they are not up there with Beethoven. For me, Beethoven is THE supreme artist and as such, is unsurpassable - the Romantics knew this, which is why they got themselves into such a mess - psychologically. musically, and emotionally.I love many of the 19th century composers - Brahms and Schumann particularly, but they did not attain the heights reached by Beethoven.


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

Leonard
09-08-2000, 08:01 PM
Originally posted by Peter:
Re. Contemporary composers, I don't think they fair much better ! - Many people did not understand Beethoven's music (particularly his late works) but he was universally admired, world famous, and regarded as an exceptional human being in his own day.
20,000-30,000 people turned out for his funeral. I doubt that the likes of Harrison Birtwhistle will ever achieve that in 1000 years let alone whilst still living ! There have been some great 20th century names - Stravinsky, Bartok, Shostakovich - but they are not up there with Beethoven. Peter

Only because people don't understand their language. One can prefer Beethoven, but there are many works by Bartok and Stravinsky that are true masterpieces. I tell you more: there is a lot of contemporary music that is much better, on my opinion, than a lot of classical music. I prefer for example Corigliano's 1st symphony and piano concerto much more than a lot of classical and romantic symphonies and concertos. That was only an example. The problem is: How much can the people understand, if they have in their ears 24 hours per day only pop, rap, techno or classical music only until Wagner? The emotions you feel are also a matter of education and habit. Leonard

For me, Beethoven is THE supreme artist and as such, is unsurpassable - the Romantics knew this, which is why they got themselves into such a mess - psychologically. Peter

I appreciate your enthusiasm. I love Beethoven too, but there are other great composers, whose works are wonderful. It is really a matter of taste. I know many people who find the Missa Solemnis a detestable work, whereas for me it is the best Missa of the music history. Leonard

I love many of the 19th century composers - Brahms and Schumann particularly, but they did not attain the heights reached by Beethoven. Peter

I agree. Leonard

Luis
09-09-2000, 10:52 AM
1)(To Rod)
Rod wrote "Where does the fault lie? With the famous composers of course". And about Tchaikovsky "I wonder what he made of the 9th". Hey! Do you like ANYTHIG apart from Beethoven played on period instruments!!! http://www.gyrix.com/~cgraye/ubb/smile.gif

I was really surprised about both, Wagner and Mahler, not being fully satisfied with the finale. Hmm...

2) (not "against" Leonard)
Leonard wrote:
"The problem is: How much can the people understand, if they have in their ears 24 hours per day only pop, rap, techno or classical music only until Wagner? The emotions you feel are also a matter of education and habit."

Oh, yes, the emotions you feel are indeed a matter of education and habit but I don't think of myself being more educated, more learned or being a better person for listening classical music. I cannot even say that my musical taste is "better" or more "refined" than the one of a person that listens rap or any other music that I can't stand. There is not nothing else that the personal and intimate emotion experienced when listening certain music that bases the musical pleasure and taste, and this emotion cannot be questioned in hierarchical terms.

Greetings, Luis.

Here's a nice quote (The translation might be rubbish, sorry...)
"Certainly, no man has seen a certain truth and there will never be somebody that knows about the gods and the nature of things, (...) because still if he succeeds in saying what is totally accurate, he won't know that he is being accurate about it; the appearance is fixed by the destination on all the things."
Jenofanes (VI BC)

PS:
1) About Czerny I found out that he first performed Bīs Cello sonata Op. 102 No. 1
Here are some info about him: http://www.karadar.it/Dictionary/czerny.html
2) And here is the site I mentioned about Beethoven: http://www.geocities.com/Vienna/Strasse/3732/index.html

Leonard
09-09-2000, 01:05 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Luis:
[B]2) (not "against" Leonard)

Oh, yes, the emotions you feel are indeed a matter of education and habit but I don't think of myself being more educated, more learned or being a better person for listening classical music. I cannot even say that my musical taste is "better" or more "refined" than the one of a person that listens rap or any other music that I can't stand. There is not nothing else that the personal and intimate emotion experienced when listening certain music that bases the musical pleasure and taste, and this emotion cannot be questioned in hierarchical terms. Luis

On my opinion there is music that is more complicated and refined than other. You can think I am a Nazis, but 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. But people’s education and habit are anyway the main factor in understanding the classical music, and not (only) their intelligence and taste. So I don’t want to discuss about the emotions in terms of hierarchy, but in terms of culture, education and habit, BUT –and I repeat BUT- with my inmost conviction that the classical music (even contemporary) is more developed, intelligent and deeper than pop, rap, techno, etc. Leonard

Rod
09-09-2000, 02:49 PM
Originally posted by Luis:
1)(To Rod)
Rod wrote "Where does the fault lie? With the famous composers of course". And about Tchaikovsky "I wonder what he made of the 9th". Hey! Do you like ANYTHIG apart from Beethoven played on period instruments!!! http://www.gyrix.com/~cgraye/ubb/smile.gif

I was really surprised about both, Wagner and Mahler, not being fully satisfied with the finale. Hmm...



For me, only Handel is fit to sit by Beethoven on the Olympian heights!

There is no doubt about what I said regarding Wagner et al. During the Romantic era especially, it was not unusual for composers to add their own 'improvements' to well known pieces, regardless of what they said of such pieces in public. As I have said before, actions speak louder than words!

Rod

Joyce
09-11-2000, 10:50 AM
Originally posted by Peter:

That beethoven had difficulty with vocal composition is evident by the fact that he himself continued lessons with Salieri, possibly as late as 1809 - when he was nearly 40 years of age and with Fidelio,all the concertos and the first 6 symphonies to his credit ! - Beethoven tended to set texts not for their literary value, but rather for the ideals they contained , hence many of his favourite poets - (with the exception of Goethe) - Shakespeare,Homer,Ossian,Schiller and Klopstock he rarely set to music. Prominent amongst his vocal settings are words such as God,Stars,Hope,Sun,longing - themes that were important to him.
With regard to the 9th Symphony, the choral finale has always attracted the most criticism, the other 3 movements being regarded as perfection,super-human and beyond criticism.Apparently Beethoven had at one time intended an instrumental finale using the theme from the A minor Quartet Op.132. It was Leopold Sonnleithner writing as late as 1864 who quoted the remark made by Czerny.The fact that hardly anyone has heard of Leopold Sonnleithner,yet the finale of the 9th is probably one of the best loved and known Beethoven works answers the question !

No, it's not true that Beethoven had lessons from Salieri as late as 1809. He visited the man in that year, but that's all. Most probably he had those lessons only in the first decade of his stay in Vienna. Salieri was not home in 1809 and Beethoven left a note on the man's desk with the text "Beethoven was here."

Joyce

Peter
09-11-2000, 11:21 AM
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
09-11-2000, 11:26 AM
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
09-11-2000, 08:57 PM
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
09-17-2000, 07:37 AM
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
09-17-2000, 10:07 AM
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
09-18-2000, 12:23 AM
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
10-31-2000, 08:55 PM
<<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
11-02-2000, 08:17 AM
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: Mahlerīs symphonys are more complicated than Beethovenīs but I prefer Bīs. 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.(whatīs intelligence in music!?).
The musical taste is certainly related to education, habit, culture as well as itīs 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
11-02-2000, 12:40 PM
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: Mahlerīs symphonys are more complicated than Beethovenīs but I prefer Bīs. 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
11-03-2000, 08:13 AM
[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
11-03-2000, 01:07 PM
Originally posted by 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.

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
11-03-2000, 02:17 PM
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
11-03-2000, 02:57 PM
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
11-05-2000, 10:24 AM
[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 http://www.gyrix.com/~cgraye/ubb/smile.gif.

(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
11-09-2000, 07:51 PM
Originally posted by 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 http://www.gyrix.com/~cgraye/ubb/smile.gif.



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

Peter
11-09-2000, 11:18 PM
Took me a while to work out who T was !
Well having solved that one, I think in fairness to Tchaikovsky he did say he admired and had respect for Beethoven, though he did not love him - as I said previously Mozart was his idol and I don't think T can be too heavily censured for that - he also said something that I'm sure you would appreciate Rod 'It angers me how that bore Brahms is regarded as a great composer' !

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

Michael
11-10-2000, 03:15 AM
I think Tchaikovsky was very influenced by his patroness, Nadejda von Meck, and I think she egged him on in his dislike of Brahms. There seems to be a lot of Brahms-bashing lately and his stock seems to be very low - or am I imagining it? Forty or fifty years ago he was up there with B, or very nearly.
Personally, I think his four symphonies, along with two or three by Mozart and a half-a-dozen by Haydn are the only ones fit to be mentioned in the same breath as Beethoven's.

Michael

Peter
11-10-2000, 11:13 AM
Michael - please don't take my quote about Brahms as being my view ! I agree with you, though I'm not sure that the blame for T's antipathy can be layed at Von Meck's door, after all Tchaikovsky was a highly cultivated man, quite capable of forming his own opinions.
I'm interested in your choice of Symphonies to be mentioned in the same breath as B's - I would have chosen exactly the same works you mention - though possibly I would have added one or two by Schubert.

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

Rod
11-10-2000, 01:34 PM
Originally posted by Peter:

Took me a while to work out who T was !
Well having solved that one, I think in fairness to Tchaikovsky he did say he admired and had respect for Beethoven, though he did not love him - as I said previously Mozart was his idol and I don't think T can be too heavily censured for that - he also said something that I'm sure you would appreciate Rod 'It angers me how that bore Brahms is regarded as a great composer' !


Haven't got much time so I abbreviate at every opportunity! I don't know whether Brahms was a bore or not, nor do I particularly care about T's opinions regarding Brahms or anyone else. I don't take T or his music seriously, sorry, but I'm into Premier League composers!

Rod

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

Rod
11-10-2000, 01:45 PM
Originally posted by Peter:
Michael - please don't take my quote about Brahms as being my view ! I agree with you, though I'm not sure that the blame for T's antipathy can be layed at Von Meck's door, after all Tchaikovsky was a highly cultivated man, quite capable of forming his own opinions.
I'm interested in your choice of Symphonies to be mentioned in the same breath as B's - I would have chosen exactly the same works you mention - though possibly I would have added one or two by Schubert.


These men? In the same breath as Beethoven!!?? If you say so boys! Pity Handel didn't compose such works!!

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

Peter
11-10-2000, 02:41 PM
I knew that would stir things up a bit !
Yes I would mention those composers in the same breath, and Bach and Handel as well !
We've been over this one countless times, but from my point of view it is not a competition as to who is the best - Beethoven in my estimation is the greatest composer - the one I love most, which is why I'm here, but that does not take away the greatness of others .

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

Rod
11-10-2000, 06:17 PM
Originally posted by Peter:
I knew that would stir things up a bit !
Yes I would mention those composers in the same breath, and Bach and Handel as well !
We've been over this one countless times, but from my point of view it is not a competition as to who is the best - Beethoven in my estimation is the greatest composer - the one I love most, which is why I'm here, but that does not take away the greatness of others .


Don't worry, I only pretend to be 'stirred'! My face doesn't go red when I slag off T or Rachmanillow or any of the others! I confess when I check out a cd store I sometimes shake my head a little and sigh when I see some poor souls browsing in the Mahler section (to name but one!). Bach's ok, though I prefer Handel's forward momentum and drama, contrasted with a strong Italianate melodic line, as opposed the Bach's brand of counterpoint, well, that's the way this humble uneducated servant sees it.

Rod

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

Michael
11-10-2000, 10:09 PM
Originally posted by Peter:
Michael - .
I'm interested in your choice of Symphonies to be mentioned in the same breath as B's - I would have chosen exactly the same works you mention - though possibly I would have added one or two by Schubert.



I have a blind (deaf?) spot about Schubert and I can't explain or justify it. I don't like the Unfinished very much, the Ninth is of "hellish" length and I can't even take to the string quartets and I am a string quartet freak. It's not for want of listening. The one exception is the 5th symphony which I adore.
The Mozart symphonies I referred to are the last three or four and the Haydn's would be those of the last twelve that I've heard - especially the London Symphony itself, Opus 104, also 45 and 48. I have only heard a tiny fraction of his symphonic output and I haven't come across a dud yet.
In fact, I prefer Haydn to Mozart and I think he was unfortunate to be overshadowed by those two giants. Haydn arguably wrote more symphonic and string quartet masterpieces than the other two. Note I said "more masterpieces" not "greater".

Michael

Peter
11-11-2000, 07:25 PM
Michael, I wonder what you think of Schubert's last 3 sonatas (especially the Bb which I adore) or the Impromptus and songs - I think Schubert did have a problem dealing with larger forms, although I still regard the last 2 Symphonies as truly remarkable, especially for a man in his 20's.
In comparing Mozart and Haydn it is interesting that you cite the Symphonies and Quartets , but what about the Piano concertos and Operas ? - I think Haydn falls down there a bit. Having said that, much of Haydn has been neglected, as you say, many of the earlier symphonies, particularly from the Sturm und drang period are very fine.

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

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

Michael
11-11-2000, 08:14 PM
I suppose a person's choice of musical forms dictates who their favourite composers will be (a generalisation). I have always preferred symphonic music to any other - and so, for me, opera comes way down the list. I agree that Haydn has been surpassed in the operatic category by Mozart. I like one or two of M's piano concertos but I don't know anything about Haydn's? Did he write many?
Also, I am totally ignorant of Schubert's piano sonatas (gasp, shock, horror!) I should broaden my musical interests, but I keep listening to bloody Beethoven!

Michael

Serge
11-11-2000, 08:53 PM
But why is everyone forgetting Schumann?!? Yes, he wasn't much of an orchestral composer, but for some reason I am enthralled by his attempts at it (the Overture, Scherzo, and Finale; the Piano Concerto; the symphonies, the klavierstucke...) I am willing to place at least certain movements of his symphonies among B.'s (although they are mere accompaniment to Beethoven, not competition) and I think his piano concerto (which was originally just another klavierstucke) is a very noble contributor to the genre. I would in remiss not to mention Schumann when everyone else is bringing out their second-favorite composers into the fray. And to think that schumann started composing his symphonies out of the joy of being newly married (or engaged?) to Clara! How sweet! How..."Romantic"...

Peter
11-11-2000, 11:34 PM
Originally posted by Michael:
I agree that Haydn has been surpassed in the operatic category by Mozart. I like one or two of M's piano concertos but I don't know anything about Haydn's? Did he write many?
Also, I am totally ignorant of Schubert's piano sonatas (gasp, shock, horror!) I should broaden my musical interests, but I keep listening to bloody Beethoven!

Michael

Haydn wrote few Piano Concertos, only one (in D major) that I am aware of receives the occasional airing, and it is a rather charming work. I'm sorry that out of Mozart's 27 Piano Concertos, only 1 or 2 are popular with you. There are at least 12 that are masterpieces. That you are not that familiar with Schubert's piano music is a loss you simply must rectify !! - If I had to choose my desert Island disks, the last Bb sonata (D.960) of Schubert would be one of them - you simply must get it ! - that work alone justifies Schubert as one of the greats. The Impromtus also are absolutely glorious.

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

Stephen F Vasta
11-12-2000, 06:04 AM
<<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). >>

I certainly don't think as negatively about Mahler as Rod apparently does. (In fact, my other "regular" online music information comes from the Mahler-List!) But his symphonies behave very differently from Beethoven's, both expressively and structurally; so if one takes Beethoven as the paradigm for what a symphony should be, Mahler will inevitably seem self-indulgent - as he also will in careless performances!

Tchaikovsky can suffer much the same problem. The Sixth Symphony is a great work, when it is played for itself rather than used as a vehicle for the conductor's own neuroses. (And who, I hear you ask, plays the piece for itself? Eugene Ormandy, for starters.)

Steve

Peter
11-12-2000, 10:37 AM
Stephen I agree with you about Tchaikovsky and Mahler - I could add other names such as Schumann, Sibelius, Vaughan-Williams and Elgar as well - I don't see why having a tremendous admiration for Beethoven means dismissing most other composers for some people (mentioning no names !) - you get this with certain composers - a loyal core of devotees who can see nothing in any other composer !
Overall, Beethoven means the most to me as he is the most consistantly great in every genre.

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

[This message has been edited by Peter (edited 11-12-2000).]

Michael
11-12-2000, 09:36 PM
I am very fond of Tchaikovsky (his music, I hasten to add, bearing in mind some of the recent messages!) The first symphonies I ever listened to were his 5th and 6th (conducted by Ormandy, coincidentally) and I would not be without them.
Serge mentions Schumann and I am a great admirer of his symphonies, particularly the first and the fourth. I think the criticisms of his thick orchestral writing have been exaggerated as recent recordings with period instruments have shown.
Though I admit to an overpowering obsession with Beethoven, I have recordings of many works by nearly all major composers. The trouble is that almost any Beethoven work can be listened to again and again and it always yields something new. And life is so short ............

Michael