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

[Kajahtava]

Hmm, strangely, my speakers always start buzzing about 5 seconds before my cell phone even starts ringing in the converse...

This should imply that the thing gets some signal, or communicates with a pole 5 whole seconds before it rings...

Edit:

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 genius's in history even 250 years after his death.

That still doesn't imply that he was any more creative, brilliant or 'more ahead of his time' then other people from the era.

A lot of his work is certainly more ambitious than most of his contemporaries, but those are the pieces that are not remembered. But creative they aren't, it's like a proof by exhaustion, it's just trying and trying until it fits.

Bach's fugues are clearly built layer-by-layer, just forcing another on top of it until it fits, this is how most people build fugues, and it can go on forever and ever, each voice being a little bit harder than the last to add to it and make it fit though. A different approach is to compose it as one piece, which gives a more coherent touch to it, but also puts more strain to keep it a fugue..

A thing about most common practise music is that if you remove layers, what remains still sounds 'good', it sounds a little less complete or full, but still 'good', a lot of contemporary pieces have the property that removing some layers or instruments from the composition make the rest sound 'bad', out of balance, there should be another thing on top of it to cancel some things out and to add some structure to what otherwise seems chaotic. Showing that most common practice pieces were made layer-by-layer, while a lot of more contemporary pieces were in fact written as a whole.

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.

I dare to say that being trite and not innovate is a praerequisite to being remembered, people don't easily remember tunes that doesn't suit their hearing. People remember hooks more easily, a thing quite known in the music industry, it is essential to keep re-using and re-suing what has already been discovered because people's ears have gotten used to it and thus they will remember those tunes more easily. Innovative numbers seldom stick, the 'classics' are all extremely trite and straightforward.

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.

I know even more that say that classical music is 'boring'. The majority of scientist would also call Einstein the most brilliant, the majority of physicists would call Newton the most brilliant, the majority of analysist would perhaps go for Cauchy, maybe some specialisation would end with Gödel or Von Neumann?

I'm sure the majority of musicians think that, but specialists on classical music often agree that Bach, and certainly Mozart and to a lesser extend Beethoven are overrated.

Unlike in science, consensus does carry some weight in art.

Why?

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.

Your argument assumes that the majority of people remember music for its brilliance rather than its accessibility, and your argument also implies that Air is more brilliant than Mathäus Passion, I take it you do not find the former to be more intricate than the latter?

Note that I've at this point still not mentioned whether or not I liked Bach or Mozart or Beethoven, I'm just saying that its level of intricacy and originality is certainly overrated.

 

[Jonathan Scott]

J S Bach was far ahead of his contemporaries in many ways, especially in his rich use of chromatic harmony, exploiting the recent discovery of "circular temperaments" which allowed keyboard instruments to sound reasonably well in tune when played in any major or minor key.

Given the limitations of the technology in his time, his achievements were amazing. For example, practical pianos only became available very late in his life, so keyboard instruments had very limited dynamic capabilities, yet many of his keyboard works exploit counterpoint between multiple voices in a way that seems totally natural on the piano.

 

[Kajahtava]

J S Bach was far ahead of his contemporaries in many ways, especially in his rich use of chromatic harmony, exploiting the recent discovery of "circular temperaments" which allowed keyboard instruments to sound reasonably well in tune when played in any major or minor key.

What?

Bach, Chromatic? Bach was heptatonic, also, all instruments today are in aequal temperaments, therefore, they would sound bad today if they were truly written for circular temperament.

In reality, music is hardly written for a particular temperament, different temperaments bring out different accents, circular temperament by the way is especially suited for common practice with only consonants and impure consonants used. Hence it was popular in the common practise era and faded away afterwards because did start to use diatonics and more liberty which starts to sound out of coherence on circular temperament. But circular temperament makes what are nowadays called 'impure consonants' sound completely pure, and therefore easier on the ear.

Given the limitations of the technology in his time, his achievements were amazing. For example, practical pianos only became available very late in his life, so keyboard instruments had very limited dynamic capabilities, yet many of his keyboard works exploit counterpoint between multiple voices in a way that seems totally natural on the piano.

Well for one If this is true, then he obviously just had dumb luck because he couldn't have known they were going to be invented.

For two, this isn't true at all, it's micro-composition, it's the skill of the pianist that makes the intonation sound good or not, not the piece itself. Bach can be played well, and Bach can be played badly.

Besides, do you have any citation for me on a piece that does not sound natural on the piano?

 

[elect_eng]

That still doesn't imply that he was any more creative, brilliant or 'more ahead of his time' then other people from the era.

I don't like to have conversations with people that try to put words in my mouth. Somehow you have taken my statements that Bach was creative, a genius and an innovator and that he is remembered for these reasons, and contorted them to the statement that he was more creative, brilliant and ahead of his time than others from his era.

My comments were made to rebuff the statement "Bach was ... extremely conformist and uncreative". I disagree with that, and that is the extent of my interest in commenting. I don't have time to argue against sprouting Hydra heads.

 

[zoobyshoe]

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.

You are, rather uncreatively, parroting tired, elitist, artistic saws from the 20th century, all of which boil down to the snobbish: "If it's accessible to most, it's bad." Apparently you've been reading criticism from an unfortunate low point in Western Art and sponged it up, mistaking it for good taste. Classics bashing arises from the same elitist mentality that fuels high school cliques. It's predictable, and represents a lack of innovation.

Good Art is not elitist. It penetrates all strata of society from the groundlings to the nobility.

 

[Kajahtava]

I don't like to have conversations with people that try to put words in my mouth. Somehow you have taken my statements that Bach was creative, a genius and an innovator and that he is remembered for these reasons, and contorted them to the statement that he was more creative, brilliant and ahead of his time than others from his era.

I concede, I did translate the meaning to that. Because if 'being creative' does not mean 'being more creative than the median', what value does it have then?

My comments were made to rebuff the statement "Bach was ... extremely conformist and uncreative". I disagree with that, and that is the extent of my interest in commenting. I don't have time to argue against sprouting Hydra heads.

Well, fair enough if that's your vision on it, I can't say your arguments to that held ground though, it was mostly an argumentum ad populum, and one that also implied that his simplest works were the most creative.

Togata & Fuga is his most remembered piece, yet it is so simple and uncreative that a lot of Bach experts say it's perhaps not by him but written by a student.

You are, rather uncreatively, parroting tired, elitist, artistic saws from the 20th century, all of which boil down to the snobbish: "If it's accessible to most, it's bad."

Nooo, you reverse te arrow of implication, it's more:

It's extremely complicated and briliant -> not accessible to most people.

Thereby, if it is accessible to most people, it cannot be extremely complicated and brilliant. Note that I never said 'bad', I'm just contesting that Mozart or Beethoven showed much brilliance.

Besides, come on, more people'd make the reverse fallacy of 'It's accessible to most, thus it is good.' or even more autarchian 'I like it, thus it is good.'

I've still not seen an argument here to why Mozart or Beethoven were supposedly brilliant, only some arguments of Bach which were either strange (circular temperament) or simply incorrect (chromatic scale)

Apparently you've been reading criticism from an unfortunate low point in Western Art and sponged it up, mistaking it for good taste. Classics bashing arises from the same elitist mentality that fuels high school cliques. It's predictable, and represents a lack of innovation.

No, I just don't like Bach except Mathäus passion and I have ears leading me to find the twentieth century a lot more complex and certainly more innovative.

Also, borderline ad hominems about some-one using things as a fact you had no way to check and were of course wrong for what ever reason but probably simply because that some-one criticized a composer you liked is kind of bad style for debate you know.

Good Art is not elitist. It penetrates all strata of society from the groundlings to the nobility.

Oh, the last two sentences of your post are about the topic instead of a personal attack on me eh? This is a dogma, you can say that good art aequates popular appeal, I never spoke about 'good' or 'bad', I find such subjective terms childish, instead I praefer to speak in more tangible terms like 'complicated' or 'innovative', whether that is good or bad is your own interpretation; the most complex sound form is still white noise of course.

Regardless, I've still not seen any argument to the supposed intricacy, complexity or brilliance of Beethoven or Mozart, and very strange arguments about that of Bach.

But yeah, you seem to become annoyed to a certain deal when some one just waltzes in and starts to criticize Bach don't you?

 

[elect_eng]

... and one that also implied that his simplest works were the most creative.

The Hydra sprouts yet another head. I never implied any such thing.

 

[Kajahtava]

The Hydra sprouts yet another head. I never implied any such thing.

I never said you implied it, I said your logic implied it, you said this:

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.

Now, the most remembered pieces of Bach are his most simplistic pieces, you say here that creativity and genius implies being remembered, but how can you then explain that even within the same composer, his simpler and more conforming and less ambitious pieces were the most remembered?

His more complex pieces aren't, and if the same piece was written by another composer and not by a 'name' like Bach, but simply a guy that always wrote pieces like Mathäus Passion, I doubt Mathäus Passion would be as much known as it is today.

Brilliance doesn't imply a piece being remembered, that it sticks in your head and is accessible does, these two may or may not go hand in hand.

 

[Jonathan Scott]

What?

Bach, Chromatic? Bach was heptatonic, also, all instruments today are in aequal temperaments, therefore, they would sound bad today if they were truly written for circular temperament.

As I understood it, I thought that "circular temperaments" was a generic term for temperaments which are designed to work all the way round the circle of fifths, so that there are no "wolf" intervals. This was also referred to as "well tempered", although the exact scheme that was in use in Bach's case is not entirely clear. Equal temperament is a special case of a circular temperament. However, it's possible that this terminology may not be standard.

As for chromatic, I don't know any other composer's work from that time which even begins to compare for example with Bach's Chromatic Fantasy and Fugue BWV 903.

Personally, I particularly like his unaccompanied violin works (including for example the famous Chaconne) and cello works (which my wife plays on the cello but I play on the viola). Again, I don't know anything else like them.

 

[elect_eng]

I never said you implied it, I said your logic implied it, you said this:

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.

Now, the most remembered pieces of Bach are his most simplistic pieces, you say here that creativity and genius implies being remembered, but how can you then explain that even within the same composer, his simpler and more conforming and less ambitious pieces were the most remembered?

His more complex pieces aren't, and if the same piece was written by another composer and not by a 'name' like Bach, but simply a guy that always wrote pieces like Mathäus Passion, I doubt Mathäus Passion would be as much known as it is today.

Brilliance doesn't imply a piece being remembered, that it sticks in your head and is accessible does, these two may or may not go hand in hand.

Basically, you only see what you want to see, and hence draw the wrong implications from my statements. I said that "In another 250 years Bach will still be remembered and appreciated by musicians who can recognize genius". Note that I said "musicians" and not "people". This does not imply simple pieces. It implies serious study by serious people on all aspects of Bach's work. I have no idea if the masses will still appreciate him in the future, but I KNOW musicians will study him, just as physicists still study Newton's and Maxwells's work now and will do so in the future. Some things are timeless and Bach's work is among them.

 

[Jonathan Scott]

Regardless, I've still not seen any argument to the supposed intricacy, complexity or brilliance of Beethoven or Mozart, and very strange arguments about that of Bach.

You can't judge composers out of their own context. In the same way as for other innovators, everything has to build on what came before. Einstein went far beyond Newton, but that does not necessarily mean he was greater.

My everyday preferences tend to be more recent, for example Rachmaninov's Paganini Rhapsody or even the Harry Potter film music by John Williams. However, I think J S Bach's contribution to music was quite exceptional.

 

[Kajahtava]

As I understood it, I thought that "circular temperaments" was a generic term for temperaments which are designed to work all the way round the circle of fifths, so that there are no "wolf" intervals. This was also referred to as "well tempered", although the exact scheme that was in use in Bach's case is not entirely clear. Equal temperament is a special case of a circular temperament. However, it's possible that this terminology may not be standard.

Hmm, circular temperament is a way to tune that makes the thirds, and fifths all line up in 1+1/3 and 1+2/3.

In aequal temperament this is: 2^(4/12) and 2^(7/12), so just not perfect, sightly off.

The advantage is that thirds and fifths appear as 'pure consonant' instead of mild dissonant (dissonance is purely and only a wave that has no period), the disadvantage is that going outside of common practice's reliance on fifths and thirds sounds wrong. Nowadays all instruments except some specialists are tuned in aequal temperament because it forces no style, it's just the ultimate compromise, all semitones are 2^(1/12) apart.

As for chromatic, I don't know any other composer's work from that time which even begins to compare for example with Bach's Chromatic Fantasy and Fugue BWV 903.

Hmm, I guess we're even, I misinterpreted this term to mean the chromatic, or more commonly called the diatonic scale, also called the 'twelve tone system'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromatic_fantasia

Seeing this it is simply D-minor.

A lot of contemporary composers don't pick seven notes from the 12 to form a church scale but use them all, it's an acquired taste but once one gets used to it it gives more liberty to produce interesting results.

Personally, I particularly like his unaccompanied violin works (including for example the famous Chaconne) and cello works (which my wife plays on the cello but I play on the viola). Again, I don't know anything else like them.

Hmm, let me ask you this though, do you know any work you like but consider badly made, or vice-versa, know any work you hate but consider brilliant?

I'm sure you understand where I'm going to here. I think only when one is able to see the difference one can have some faith in one's ability to judge the merits of an artistic work. That, or one is to claim that one has such high taste that only likes work if and only if it is brilliant, maybe such people exist, but I wouldn't count myself amongst them, Hence t.A.T.u. is on top of my last.fm list, because it's just very accessible and easy for me to use as background music or when I'm not in for ambitious stuff.

My everyday preferences tend to be more recent, for example Rachmaninov's Paganini Rhapsody or even the Harry Potter film music by John Williams. However, I think J S Bach's contribution to music was quite exceptional.

Why?

Do you honestly think that, or do you say it because you repeat what you've heard around you. Be honest with yourself, would you really think 'Wow, this is brilliant.' if you just heard Bach for the first time and he wasn't known at all?

Also, something different:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFt3OsTBDho

I have no idea who made this, it's the soundtrack of a racing game I used to play when I was younger. But listen closely to how it builds, the various sounds that work together, the little details, far from the electronic pop one hears in the charts, and not that danceable either, but a great track to race on, all those little subtle details, with no one melody ever taking a real 'lead', I find it interesting to listen to, how all the sounds fall into place, to try and follow the drum sounds which fill up the rest so perfectly.

Not to say that I like it as music, but it's interesting to listen to for some reason, all those sounds.

Basically, you only see what you want to see, and hence draw the wrong implications from my statements.

Maybe I do, maybe you do, one's quick to think that of one's opponent.

I said that "In another 250 years Bach will still be remembered and appreciated by musicians who can recognize genius".

That you seem to think that today Bach is appreciated by musicians who can recognise genius is enough for me to conclude that either our definitions or standards of genius differ. Your description is vague.

Also, it's begging the quaestion to say that people who recognise genius appreciate Bach.

Note that I said "musicians" and not "people". This does not imply simple pieces. It implies serious study by serious people on all aspects of Bach's work.

And those very same people who truly have studied Bach and all of his works tend to tone down their opinions over time about his mastery. A lot say that only Mathäus Passion is intricate.

Also, which people, or as they say on the xkcd fora: [citation needed]

I have no idea if the masses will still appreciate him in the future, but I KNOW musicians will study him, just as physicists still study Newton's and Maxwells's work now and will do so in the future. Some things are timeless and Bach's work is among them.

Bach was not appreciated in his days, neither was this guy, interestingly, this guy did innovate, but he lacked technical skill. Bach on the other hand had technical skill but delivered very standard work.

Bach mostly resurfaced later on, could it be that he will dive into obscurity again?

Also, Newton and to a lesser extend Maxwell are a prime example of the fallacy people make to aequate influence with greatness. I've seen an argument coming by here 'Is it truly that much a coincidence that Newton and Leibniz invented calculus at the same time? or was it simply the next logical step at that time?'

I mean, we all remember Turing, we all remember the Turing machine, but the lambda calculus was there before the Turing machine, and the lambda calculus is a lot more elegant with the Turing machine being very ad-hoc and less minimalistic, they can do the same, but the lambda calculus only has four reserved symbols, and in fact can do with three, it does not require a meta-language to function. So why do we all remember Turing? could it be because the Turing machine could be modified to be implemented as the Von Neumann machine and therefore had more influence? Why is it called the Turing award and not the Church award? Especially since Turing was a doctoral student of Church, and so were about 80% of all the influential people that started computer science? Clearly the man who started it was Church, or maybe even Hilbert? Hibert started formalism and begged the decidability problem?

I'm not going to decide on who is more 'brilliant', I'm just saying that it seems that people have a strong tendency to confuse 'brilliance' with 'popularity', I'm not being 'elitist', most people are doing the exact reverse, saying things are brilliant by grace of their popularity alone.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Nooo, you reverse te arrow of implication, it's more:

It's extremely complicated and briliant -> not accessible to most people.

Thereby, if it is accessible to most people, it cannot be extremely complicated and brilliant. Note that I never said 'bad', I'm just contesting that Mozart or Beethoven showed much brilliance.

Besides, come on, more people'd make the reverse fallacy of 'It's accessible to most, thus it is good.' or even more autarchian 'I like it, thus it is good.'

As long as you're admitting your logic is fallacious, I'm good.

I've still not seen an argument here to why Mozart or Beethoven were supposedly brilliant, only some arguments of Bach which were either strange (circular temperament) or simply incorrect (chromatic scale)

In my opinion Mozart was brilliant only in the sense he was a prodigy, having written such sophisticated compositions at such a young age. I'm not a big fan of his music. As I said, I voted for Beethoven simply because I like his music better. Polls in General Discussion are usually understood to be unrigorous, casual fun. No one usually gets bent out of shape if you translate "Who was the most brilliant..." or "Who was the greatest..." into "Who is your favorite ..." .

No, I just don't like Bach except Mathäus passion and I have ears leading me to find the twentieth century a lot more complex and certainly more innovative.

20th century music is a lot more complex and innovative. The vast bulk of it also sucks. It's torture to listen to. "The Emperor's New Music" as someone put it. Complexity and innovation are not necessarily virtues. When pursued for their own sake the results can get ugly.

Also, borderline ad hominems about some-one using things as a fact you had no way to check and were of course wrong for what ever reason but probably simply because that some-one criticized a composer you liked is kind of bad style for debate you know.

It is bad style for a debate, but I'm not debating here. I'm primarily presenting opinions.

Oh, the last two sentences of your post are about the topic instead of a personal attack on me eh? This is a dogma, you can say that good art aequates popular appeal, I never spoke about 'good' or 'bad', I find such subjective terms childish, instead I praefer to speak in more tangible terms like 'complicated' or 'innovative', whether that is good or bad is your own interpretation; the most complex sound form is still white noise of course.

After chiding me for a borderline ad hominem you turn around and imply I'm childish. Seems inconsistent.

I don't know if anyone has institutionalized that sentiment as a dogma. I offer it as the result of my own thinking on the matter. The more an artist can communicate down through many levels of society the more successful that artist is. What's the point of art if you're not speaking to an audience? There is an important element of vox populi, vox dei in art. Art helps shape the times, but it also expresses the times. If you're off in an attic composing 'complex and innovative' music that only 12 other people in the world might appreciate, what's the point? I know too many "undiscovered" artists convinced of their own brilliance who blame their obscurity on the trite taste and lack of sophistication of the masses when their real problem is they don't know how to make significant contact with people via their art on any level.

But yeah, you seem to become annoyed to a certain deal when some one just waltzes in and starts to criticize Bach don't you?

Actually my hackles were raised back when you asserted that Beethoven spent his life constrained to write happy music on demand, which was a remarkable load of baloney.

 

[Kajahtava]

As long as you're admitting your logic is fallacious, I'm good.

You give me too much credit here I think.

In my opinion Mozart was brilliant only in the sense he was a prodigy, having written such sophisticated compositions at such a young age.

Yeah but all those composers were child prodigies?

Also, they all came from wealthy families, in a time where social classes were a lot further apart. I think that any musically inclined person can be a 'child prodigy' as long as parents notice it early and school them early and have the money for that, above all.

I don't think one can learn to have 'musical skills' in that sense, but need to learn how to play instruments and write things down, if any musician gets a private tutor early, that person can become a 'child prodigy'.

I'm not a big fan of his music. As I said, I voted for Beethoven simply because I like his music better. Polls in General Discussion are usually understood to be unrigorous, casual fun. No one usually gets bent out of shape if you translate "Who was the most brilliant..." or "Who was the greatest..." into "Who is your favorite ..." .

Maybe, but still a lot of people started to defend their brilliance and also used terms like 'ahead of his time' instead of responding with 'Hey, we were just having fun'.

20th century music is a lot more complex and innovative. The vast bulk of it also sucks. It's torture to listen to.

It's an acquired taste I guess. I can't speak for others, but I listen to it purely for hedonistic reasons, I like how it sounds.

Though, I've been 'blessed' with a completely relative hearing, some people say absolute ear is strength, others say completely relative is. Though I can't even hear from a single note if it's A0 or C7, I have no difficulties to adjust to a new scale, or to 31-temperament or to music written for the continuum, which people with an absolute ear cannot begin to get adjusted to.

"The Emperor's New Music" as someone put it. Complexity and innovation are not necessarily virtues. When pursued for their own sake the results can get ugly.

They can just as much as that music which is written to be completely consonant and avoiding all dissonants just for avoiding them can sound extremely boring and bland. Both should be a means and not an end.

It is bad style for a debate, but I'm not debating here. I'm primarily presenting opinions.

Well, could be, but this is largely my own opinion.

After chiding me for a borderline ad hominem you turn around and imply I'm childish. Seems inconsistent.

Well, it was ad casum and not ad hominem. I didn't personally attack you here ad hoc, but the general usage of such terms by any.

I don't know if anyone has institutionalized that sentiment as a dogma. I offer it as the result of my own thinking on the matter. The more an artist can communicate down through many levels of society the more successful that artist is.

Quite so, or well, communication isn't even necessary, being known is enough, for good or for bad 'negative publicity is also publicity' they say.

What's the point of art if you're not speaking to an audience?

Should art have a 'message'?

I see music mostly as hedonistic as opposed to making me think. I make music for the simple reason to combat boredom.

There is an important element of vox populi, vox dei in art. Art helps shape the times, but it also expresses the times. If you're off in an attic composing 'complex and innovative' music that only 12 other people in the world might appreciate, what's the point?

Making music I don't like hardly drives the boredom away. Also, I also hardly make simple music that I would like. A really simple puzzle also doesn't drive boredom away now does it?

I know too many "undiscovered" artists convinced of their own brilliance who blame their obscurity on the trite taste and lack of sophistication of the masses when their real problem is they don't know how to make significant contact with people via their art on any level.

I know them too, and I tell them that if you make art for it to be appreciated brilliant art is the wrong place to be.

It's also a bit of a contradiction to at the same time wanting to make brilliant art and at the other end wanting to be appreciated for your art. I'm personally just composing to drive the boredom away, not as an end for it to be complex, but my compositions do tend to be 'ambitious' if that's a good term.

But I've never gotten why people want to be famous except for the financial benefits, seems annoying to me, especially when people start to go search and make public parts of your past that you aren't too proud of. I said some things in the past which are probably recorded that were just damned stupid and embarrassing.

Actually my hackles were raised back when you asserted that Beethoven spent his life constrained to write happy music on demand, which was a remarkable load of baloney.

I was more talking about Mozart there though.

 

[zoobyshoe]

OK, we can compress here. I certainly have no problem with you, or anyone, making art to keep boredom at bay. However most people who go into art have hopes of communicating something significant about their interior world to others. That 'communication' is much less in the form of a "message" than in the evocation of a 'sympathetic' experience, so to speak. Art, especially music, allows for a kind of mind-to-mind transference of experience that circumvents the usual obstacles to communication. (And, hedonistic pleasure is as valid an experience to 'communicate' as any.) An authentically successful artist, IMO, is one who manages to elicit that 'sympathetic' response from people in many layers of society, people of disparate backgrounds and education, by tapping into something really elemental about human experience.

 

[Kajahtava]

However most people who go into art have hopes of communicating something significant about their interior world to others. That 'communication' is much less in the form of a "message" than in the evocation of a 'sympathetic' experience, so to speak. Art, especially music, allows for a kind of mind-to-mind transference of experience that circumvents the usual obstacles to communication. (And, hedonistic pleasure is as valid an experience to 'communicate' as any.)

I really don't think that much of how my audience is going to react when I make music.

An authentically successful artist, IMO, is one who manages to elicit that 'sympathetic' response from people in many layers of society, people of disparate backgrounds and education, by tapping into something really elemental about human experience.

Avril Lavigne?

 

[Willowz]

Bach, Bach, and Bach.

There is a searching intellect in Bach's music. Not only for Truth* but for an intellectual pleasure that never grows old.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BK5E28jMqQQ
This one is pretty cool.

 

[Ken Natton]

I’m aware that this is actually an old thread on which someone has seen fit to ‘necropost’ as it seems to be called, and that there are those among what I might call the PF establishment who frown on the practice. I’m also in anticipation of the probability that there will likely be limited interest in my thoughts on this. But having now read through the thread, there are some things among what was said that I find it necessary to respond to.

So, let me start with Bach. Absolutely, everyone is entitled to their opinion, no-one is obliged to like the music of Bach. If it does nothing for you, then that’s the way it is. But rather than conclude that your dislike of his music signifies the limitations of his abilities, you might consider the possibility that it might be your limitation that is the problem. I’m not advocating blind acceptance of received opinion, but there is something of a clue in the near universal reverence for the music of Bach among the musical elite of almost any age. Mozart and Beethoven were certainly respecters of Bach, as for certain, was Brahms. It always astonishes me how many of the big names of early twentieth century music, not just composers, but virtuosi, instrumentalists of all kinds, musicologists, and others all beat down the door of one particular woman, Nadia Boulanger, to study music with her. And a central part of her methodology for all disciplines was to begin with the study of the 48 preludes and fugues. There is a reason why Bach is regarded as such a key figure whose music needs to be studied for anyone who wants to consider themselves a serious exponent of their field in serious music.

It came as a big surprise to me to learn that Mozart fell out of favour in the latter part of the nineteenth century. His music was widely regarded as formulaic and some dismissed his piano concertos as little more than a series of scales. It is also then a surprise to learn who is credited for starting the revival of interest in Mozart – Richard Strauss – perhaps not the most obvious person you might have thought of as an advocate of Mozart, but there it is. In any case, the extent of Mozart’s revival is such that his stature is now greater than perhaps it was even in his own lifetime, and beginning with a controversial essay written by Donald Francis Tovey in 1901, the view of his piano concertos has transformed to the point where they are generally accepted as the very pinnacle of the form – yes even greater than those by Beethoven.

I was once, briefly, in a relationship with a woman who was a violinist in one of Britain’s bigger provincial professional orchestras. She informed me that, among orchestral players, there is a broad opinion that Beethoven’s music is over-rated. Now of course, that might have something to do with the fact that it is still over programmed and it is perhaps not entirely surprising that orchestral players do get a little weary of playing it again and again. But it was still a surprise to me to learn that such was the case. Again the clues to the stature of Beethoven’s music lie in the massive influence he had over virtually the whole of nineteenth century western music. As one of the earlier posters on this thread did point out, part of that was just lucky timing for Beethoven. He happens to have straddled the shift from classical art forms to romantic art forms that were themselves driven by the turbulent politics of late eighteen century and early nineteenth century Europe. I remember reading somewhere that Beethoven is largely to blame for the fact that the writing of Symphonies fell out of fashion for a while in the mid nineteenth century, because all composers were only too well aware that if they saw fit to write a symphony, it would immediately be put up for comparison with Beethoven’s Ninth. One of the first to revive the practice was Brahms and he was less than entirely pleased when many wags gleefully referred to his first symphony as Beethoven’s Tenth.

As you might guess, I disdain to express a preference for Mozart or Beethoven. I have far too much respect for both of them.