Beethoven vs Mozart: Who Truly Reigns Supreme in Classical Music?

[jhooper3581]

Hmm... Who wins?

 

[cronxeh]

Beethoven. Most works of Mozart I find boring, boroquey, and classical. Beethoven on the other hand, is like Happy Hardcore vs Techno. It has a kick, a pizzazz, a vroom-vroom to your zoom-zoom

 

[jhooper3581]

Beethoven. Most works of Mozart I find boring, boroquey, and classical. Beethoven on the other hand, is like Happy Hardcore vs Techno. It has a kick, a pizzazz, a vroom-vroom to your zoom-zoom

LOL thanks for the reply!

IMHO, I think Mozart is more musically brilliant, but I like Beethoven better.

 

[Lacy33]

Not crazy about the way this poll was worded because Mozart is probably more "brilliant."

But Beethoven is more brutal and the passion changes people. Beethoven is a Bashing genius. A bombastic mess of raw delight. Laid out flat with exhaustion. Heart stopping changes and explosions in direction.
But Mozart is more brilliant. He's cute. Sweet. Fun.
Beethoven is NOT for children under 52.

 

[cronxeh]

Beethoven is NOT for children under 52.

Oh good, I'm 25, that qualifies me by symmetry.

 

[Stratosphere]

Why must people continue to compare them? They were both great, it's just a matter of personal taste.

Not crazy about the way this poll was worded because Mozart is probably more "brilliant."

How was he more "Brilliant"? I'd like to know.

 

[Pythagorean]

Mozart, but to be fair, Mozart's father was a musician (genetic influence) and a music teacher (learned influence). Despite that, Mozart was said to go above and beyond his father's teachings, even as a child.

 

[lisab]

Mozart, but to be fair, Mozart's father was a musician (genetic influence) and a music teacher (learned influence). Despite that, Mozart was said to go above and beyond his father's teachings, even as a child.

Beethoven's grandfather was a musical director, and his father was a choir singer and music teacher.

 

[Lacy33]

Why must people continue to compare them? They were both great, it's just a matter of personal taste.



How was he more "Brilliant"? I'd like to know.

You know Strats, I just wrote out this long explanation for you and realized, this forum is not full of dummies.
Mozart was probably more brilliant. That is not to say talented. Beethoven had to work harder. And it showed. Some of us like it better! :!)

 

[Pythagorean]

Beethoven's grandfather was a musical director, and his father was a choir singer and music teacher.

Yeah, I suppose in reality that's how a lot of society was in the day, you worked where your parents did.

 

[Dembadon]

I've no idea who was more "brilliant." I enjoy Mozart's compositions more.

One of my favorites:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/7lC1lRz5Z_s&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/7lC1lRz5Z_s&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

Edit:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Zi8vJ_lMxQI&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Zi8vJ_lMxQI&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

 

[Char. Limit]

Johann Sebastian Bach was better than both of them, I'm afraid.

The Toccata and Fugue in D Minor is one of the best pieces that have been ever made in my quite prideful opinion.

 

[Dembadon]

Johann Sebastian Bach was better than both of them, I'm afraid.

The Toccata and Fugue in D Minor is one of the best pieces that have been ever made in my quite prideful opinion.

I love Bach, but he is not in the poll. *shakes finger*

 

[zoobyshoe]

Mozart was certainly more brilliant; quite the prodigy, but I had to vote for Beethoven because I like his music better.

 

[zoobyshoe]

The Toccata and Fugue in D Minor is one of the best pieces that have been ever made in my quite prideful opinion.

A couple of the musical composition majors, and a few other musicians I went to Oberlin with claimed this was not a particularly good fugue, that Bach wrote many very much better ones. I'm not in a position to judge, but it always struck me as weird that anyone would prefer a piece that was intellectually more interesting over one that sounded better.

 

[Andre]

Hmm, from pure unrational enjoyment of the music, it seems that the dynamics of Mozart hardly span 6-9dB and has a tight rhythm causing some boredom to me after maybe 10-15 minutes despite the genial harmonic melody, while, Beethoven especially in his later works- creates genial suspense to me with the variation in the full dynamic range from a single instrument in pianissimo to the full orchestra in fortissimo and variation in rhythm which never stops intrueging.

Example: The Violin concerto



(note that you can hear the volume being turned down at minute 1:27 to reduce the dynamics within range of the audiosystem; you won't suffer from that when you're there in person)

But I'm sure somebody will explain that it's actually the oppossite

 

[Chi Meson]

Johann Sebastian Bach was better than both of them, I'm afraid.

The Toccata and Fugue in D Minor is one of the best pieces that have been ever made in my quite prideful opinion.

I was just going to reply "Bach." But in spirit of the poll I will instead say:

"yes"

 

[leroyjenkens]

I like Tchaikovsky.

Mozart's father was a musician (genetic influence)

He had a music gene?

 

[Jonathan Scott]

Hmm, from pure unrational enjoyment of the music, it seems that the dynamics of Mozart hardly span 6-9dB and has a tight rhythm causing some boredom to me after maybe 10-15 minutes despite the genial harmonic melody, while, Beethoven especially in his later works- creates genial suspense to me with the variation in the full dynamic range from a single instrument in pianissimo to the full orchestra in fortissimo and variation in rhythm which never stops intrueging.

For dynamics Beethoven had the advantage of technological advances, in that keyboard and string instruments became significantly more powerful and robust during his working lifetime, making the dimension of dynamics much more interesting, and I agree he exploited it well. Of course, he was also deaf, so appreciated the very loud bits!

Personally I think the best of Beethoven is better than anything of Mozart, but a lot of his work is below the fluency of Mozart. He seems to exhibit the beginning of a trend towards trying to be original by deliberately being unexpected, especially in his later output. That only works up to a certain point before being unexpected too often gets predictable and irritating. Being unexpected works better in smaller doses, as in Haydn's "Surprise" symphony.

 

[GeorginaS]

Mozart was certainly more brilliant; quite the prodigy, but I had to vote for Beethoven because I like his music better.

What zooby said.

 

[elect_eng]

Trying to compare two geniuses is as futile as comparing two beautiful women. Still, I have a preference for Beethoven.

Beethoven is the "Einstein" of music.

Mozart, is the "Euler" of music.

Bach is the "Newton" of music.

 

[Dembadon]

... But in spirit of the poll I will instead say:

"yes"

You, sir, are the winner.

I like Tchaikovsky. ...

He is not one of the choices. *grumble*

 

[Jonathan Scott]

I like Tchaikovsky.

He is not one of the choices. *grumble*

Although I like a lot of Tchaikovsky (especially 5th and 6th Symphonies), I think a lot of his stuff comes over as "mass-produced", in a similar way to a lot of modern film music (although nothing like as badly). For example, he often makes over-heavy use of trivial patterns, such as repeating a similar passage at higher and higher pitch to build up tension (then if that doesn't last long enough, dropping back and doing it again).

 

[zoobyshoe]

Beethoven is the "Einstein" of music.

No. Einstein was the Stravinsky of physics.

 

[waht]

I vote for Beethoven for reasons as mentioned by Bernstein, who was one of the best conductors.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U14iJzdPtWI

 

[elect_eng]

No. Einstein was the Stravinsky of physics.

Hey, we can start a new poll !

 

[MotoH]

Beethoven was a little girl. He played piano like a deaf man.


Mozart on the other hand was the most BA piano player this side of the milky way.

 

[fourier jr]

9nBSGi86r-c[/youtube] [MEDIA=you...utube]6vtfaaDHXoA[/MEDIA] nuff said :wink:

 

[Lacy33]

Wow! von Karajan on dial-up. I love it. Thanks.

 

[MotoH]

nuff said

I have heard better music from a dead raccoon.

 

[elect_eng]

I have heard better music from a dead raccoon.

Your comments say quite a bit about you and nothing meaningful about what you are talking about.

 

[MotoH]

Your comments say quite a bit about you and nothing meaningful about what you are talking about.

What, that Beethoven couldn't write music if his life depended on it, and Mozart was an absolute genius?

 

[zoobyshoe]

Beethoven was a little girl. He played piano like a deaf man.


Mozart on the other hand was the most BA piano player this side of the milky way.

Troll. Confess! You're really a metal head and have no idea what anyone in this thread is talking about!

 

[Kenneth Mann]

If you're interested, here is reference to a movie made about Beethoven. As usual, the factuality of movies must be taken with a grain of salt. It received mixed reviews. I never saw it but would like to.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/WS9MTQqVUFY&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_detailpage&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/WS9MTQqVUFY&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_detailpage&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

Of course, "Amadeus" was a movie made similarly about Mozart.

KM

 

[MotoH]

Troll. Confess! You're really a metal head and have no idea what anyone in this thread is talking about!

Wagner is the only classical I listen to. I just came in here to fish for some easy ones.

 

[cronxeh]

Wagner is the only classical I listen to. I just came in here to fish for some easy ones.

Technically it is not classical music. Richard Wagner was born when Classical period pretty much ended, and most of his music is definitely not classical. It is Romantic music. Beethoven was pretty much the transitional man between Classical and Romantic period.

In any event, I think this discussion is about the personal preference not who was better at what and who had a bigger ego. Mozart may have been a very skilled harpsichord player but he was no piano player. Beethoven was one of the first to get a 5 octave range piano and later a 6 octave range, as well as Haydn, long after Mozart has died.

So to sum up, I think music is subjective, and claiming that one was proficient than the other is false. I don't see Mozart's music as superior to Beethoven, simply because it does not evoke an emotional response from me. Mozart threw together notes that sort-of harmonized, but really, he was no mathematician to really come up with the perfect sound or perfect anything for that matter. Put it simply, Mozart is dead, long live Beethoven and the Romantic era!

 

[zoobyshoe]

Mozart may have been a very skilled harpsichord player but he was no piano player. Beethoven was one of the first to get a 5 octave range piano and later a 6 octave range, as well as Haydn, long after Mozart has died.

I used to have a 45 of Fur Elise played on Beethoven's very own piano (at least, it was one he once owned). This was a recording they used to sell at the Beethovenhaus in Bonn. Anyway, it sounded horrible by today's standards: tinny, like the worst, cheap, mass produced upright you can imagine. You have to wonder how he could have been inspired by this thing to write 30 sonatas and 5 awesome concertos. I can't imagine how bad Mozart's pianos must have been.

 

[fourier jr]

to be fair to Mozart though, I guess there's

 

[Dembadon]

Although I like a lot of Tchaikovsky (especially 5th and 6th Symphonies), I think a lot of his stuff comes over as "mass-produced", in a similar way to a lot of modern film music (although nothing like as badly). For example, he often makes over-heavy use of trivial patterns, such as repeating a similar passage at higher and higher pitch to build up tension (then if that doesn't last long enough, dropping back and doing it again).

It seems like Vivaldi does that as well. I have little knowledge of classical music, though, so please tell me if I'm incorrect. It wouldn't take much for this thread to get above my head.

However, I really like Vivaldi's Winter Season.

This is one I've bookmarked:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/nGdFHJXciAQ&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/nGdFHJXciAQ&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

 

[Kajahtava]

They both only had one piece that demonstrates any remote ability. Requiem in D and the Grand Fugue, other than that their music was unremarkable, lacking in depth, conformist, uninteresting, uncreative and simply not that hard to make. There's a reason when you start playing the 88 you first learn Mozart and Beethoven, because it's simple music.

Of course, both were under severe pull to conform because it was their job, I think Mozart once said that he didn't even like his own music, they were both quite bittered people who were forced to make mostly happy music. Music in those days was worse than pop music is today, it was completely on-demand music, there was no artistic freedom. Which was pretty much throughout the entire period of 'common practice', before the renaissance and in the contemporary era, composers had more liberty.

Now, Bach's music showed some more complexity but still was extremely conformist and uncreative.

 

[elect_eng]

Now, Bach's music showed some more complexity but still was extremely conformist and uncreative.

This is a misleading statement.

First, the musical output from the man was so vast that the term "uncreative" becomes completely ludicrous.

Also, there is no doubt he was under great pressure to conform, from the Catholic Church. He produced a product for this customer, so to speak. But if you look at his work you will see he did not conform completely, at least if you judge him by the standards of the time. He was an innovator. You can even find every jazz chord used today, disguised and hidden in his works. He explored and was genius enough to free himself from the conformists. That's why we still listen to him. That's why we are still in awe of him.

 

[Dropout]

None. Bach is the best.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZ9qWpa2rIg&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EC1E4_imS0A&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDrLX7FXba4&feature=related

 

[Dropout]

This is a misleading statement.

First, the musical output from the man was so vast that the term "uncreative" becomes completely ludicrous.

Also, there is no doubt he was under great pressure to conform, from to the Catholic Church. He produced a product for a customer, so to speak. But if you look at his work you will see he did not conform completely, at least if you judge him by the standards of the time. He was an innovator. You can even find every jazz chord used today, disguised and hidden in his works. He explored and was genius enough to free himself from the conformists. That's why we still listen to him. That's why we are still in awe of him.

Yeah that "Christian music" sucks so much:



How uninspiring.

 

[Jonathan Scott]

Bach was so far ahead of his time that I still find it almost unbelievable.

 

[Dropout]

Bach was so far ahead of his time that I still find it almost unbelievable.

I'm not big on classical music, too blue blood for me, but when I ran across Bach's Brandenburg Concerto's 2,3,4 (not 1 and 5, don't like those), I liked it.

 

[Kajahtava]

This is a misleading statement.

First, the musical output from the man was so vast that the term "uncreative" becomes completely ludicrous.

So you can't be uncreative a lot of times? You know its easier to output a lot if you keep using the same idea all over again right?

He explored and was genius enough to free himself from the conformists. That's why we still listen to him. That's why we are still in awe of him.

Do you have some argument to why it's so that we still listen to him because of that?

As far as I know, the most known pieces of Bach (and any composer) are still the pieces that are the most confirming to the standard of their age and today. We all instantly recognise Air, Für Elise, Togatta & Fuge, don't we? However Mathäus Passion, and the Grand Fugue are certainly not recognised by many people.

In fact, I find it a lot more likely that the reason we still listen to Bach is because it sounds 'recognisable', it sticks in your head, it's easy in the ear, it has a hook. Für Elise, Mondscheinsonata, Canon in D Major, all those pieces that all people still remember and listen to have a clearly recognisable theme in it. However the more daunting and above all innovative pieces of Beethoven are harder to memorize and thus are more obscure.

Contemporary serious music only began to surface after the invention of the phonograph, is this a coincidence or not? That true liberty and experimentation in music only began once people had an affordable means to re-listen to a piece and thus get used to its sound? They say that serialism or the second school of Vienna is an 'acquired taste', one has to get used to it and only then can one see the pattern behind what was at first chaos, it's like learning a language, first there's chaos of sound, only after prolonged exposure does a pattern surface.

Common practise serious music is obvious and obvious in every aspect, it thrives on not being original and using the sounds that have been used a thousand times before because in those days, there was no way to record music, people that went to a concert had to appreciate it immediately, it had to stay inside the already established formalisms and could only move away from them very slowly.

Bach was so far ahead of his time that I still find it almost unbelievable.

Find me one form or innovation that Bach can be credited for, also, I raise the stakes, tell me, what other composers do you know form his time?

Bach was extremely conformist and didn't innovate, all his work was in already established forms. (In fact, using forms alone can be called lacking in innovation), I'd be so bold to claim that the only reason Bach is known is because of his less sophisticated work, all people only listen to Air and Togatta, but once you have a name people will say what they have to say, claiming that Beethoven and Mozart were the most brilliant because you're expected to say so, many of whom that claim so have otherwise listened to little more to Vivaldi, Pachebel, Bach and Chaikovsky.

The Grand Fugue is the only piece that Beethoven ever made that has any intellectual depth and the Requiem in D is only piece Mozart ever made that has any sincerity of emotions. He was after all a very sombre man that was forced to make very happy music.

 

[lisab]

I like both Beethoven and Mozart, but I voted for Beethoven because his music seems to cover a greater range of styles/emotions, to my uneducated ears.

Reading posts here from people who know a bit about music, I see the phrase "ahead of his time." That makes me wonder, what's happening in this style of music today? Is it a dead genre - is it all, 'been there, done that'?

Years ago I went to a concert that featured one piece by a modern composer. About 1/3 of the piece was in the style of "cacophony". I wanted to permanently plug my ears .

 

[Kajahtava]

I like both Beethoven and Mozart, but I voted for Beethoven because his music seems to cover a greater range of styles/emotions, to my uneducated ears.

My 'educated ears' tell me you are quite correct. Beethoven was a mostly romantic compose also of course. Mozart's work is quite plastic in its emotions, partly because of the classical era, and partly because he simply did not like his own music apparently.

Reading posts here from people who know a bit about music, I see the phrase "ahead of his time." That makes me wonder, what's happening in this style of music today? Is it a dead genre - is it all, 'been there, done that'?

It's basically a buzzword that means little. If I made oldschool punk in the 1915, would it be amateuristic blow to cover up the fact that I can't sing? Or would I be half a century ahead of my time?

People can't look into the future, it mostly means your sound is popular, and other people copy you afterwards. Only the Grand Fugue can in some way be said to be 'ahead of time' because it wasn't popular back then, never truly became popular to the vulgate, but it was in some way partially re-invented and after that re-discovered later on.

Years ago I went to a concert that featured one piece by a modern composer. About 1/3 of the piece was in the style of "cacophony". I wanted to permanently plug my ears .

Ahead of its time, isn't it?

You'd be surprised that it's actually listened to for hedonistic reasons, because people enjoy it.



A contemporary project that combines early twentieth century dissonance, soundtrack music, and dark ambient with a hint of common practice, I wouldn't have bought it if I didn't enjoy it of course.

It also breaks from the 'performing tradition' of serious music and unites it with the performing tradition of pop music in that there is only one recording. It's not a piece that's first written, and then intended to be recorded by multiple people. It's in fact more 'architecture' in how it's put together, less dependent on the technical skill of whomever performs it and also making use of various things that cannot be reproduced in a live environment.

 

[lisab]

Hmm...well I didn't much like that piece, but thanks for posting it, Kajahtava. It definitely sets a mood.

My cell phone started ringing as I listened to it, and for several seconds I thought the ring tone was just part of the music haha .

 

[elect_eng]

So you can't be uncreative a lot of times? You know its easier to output a lot if you keep using the same idea all over again right?

In principle you could do that, but in practice it doesn't make sense. Is it reasonable to say that there is no creativity in Bach's work when he composed continuously over his entire life? Did he reuse much of his work? Yes, that is well known. Every artist builds upon and reuses past work to some extent. But there is always an element of inspiration and creativity in any new work. He made a very good living doing this and is worshiped as one of the greatest musical geniuses in history even 250 years after his death. This doesn't happen to uncreative people who just rehash the same stuff over and over again. Yeah, they might make a living (as seems common today), but it doesn't last long. Those people fade from memory.

Do you have some argument to why it's so that we still listen to him because of that?

Why should I bother to waste my time arguing about that? Matters of opinion can't be proved. Suffice it to say that that is why I listen to him, study him and play his music myself. I could care less what you or anybody else listens to, and why they do it. However, I know many musicians who agree with me. Unlike in science, consensus does carry some weight in art. In another 250 years Bach will still be remembered and appreciated by musicians who can recognize genius, while you and I will be long forgotten. You can explain this in your own way. I explain it as a result of a musical genius producing a huge body of creative and beautiful works.