How many of the Beethoven symphonies do you actually LIKE?

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Well if they're HIP they'll technically be performed in A major (relative to A=440 temperament), and thus be acceptable to him

I wondered when someone would come up with that one.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

To say that the glorious 2nd symphony 'has nothing to recommend it' and the 8th as 'a crude and shallow piece of work' is not what I would have expected to read on a forum such as this and seems to me to be more in the nature of a deliberate wind up job.

I suspected a wind-up, too.

I suppose it is a back-handed compliment to how Beethoven's innovations in timbre and combinations have become so mainstream that someone as perceptive as S_A can say that Beethoven wasn't "particularly concerned" with these parameters. For Beethoven's contemporaries, of course, it was a different matter, and there are several comments from the time complaining about his unorthodox and disturbing use of orchestral and instrumental sonorities, starting with the mocking nickname of "Harmonie Symphonie" ("Symphony of Wind Instruments" if you like) for the First. I only know about two-thirds of Haydn's Symphonies, so I have yet to discover those in which the Piccolo, trombones, contrabassoon are revealed as "stock methods", nor where the earlier master set the pattern for setting two solo 'celli muted apart from the remainder of the strings that Beethoven copied throughout the second movement of his Pastoral, or the use of octave timps in the Eighth and Ninth Symphonies, (or for that matter, giving melodic/thematic material to the Timps. or where Haydn combined pizzicato strings with sustained woodwind chords, as at the start of Beethoven's First Symphony, or the lightning-speed cuts between orchestral timbre, register (and dynamics) in the scherzo of the Second.

As long as comments like S_A's "bloated" are made, I cannot and shall not cease to bang on and on and on about how Beethoven's orchestration is as astonishing and cause for celebration as his treatment of form, tonality, rhythm, thematicism, and texture.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

I suppose it is a back-handed compliment to how Beethoven's innovations in timbre and combinations have become so mainstream that someone as perceptive as S_A can say that Beethoven wasn't "particularly concerned" with these parameters. For Beethoven's contemporaries, of course, it was a different matter, and there are several comments from the time complaining about his unorthodox and disturbing use of orchestral and instrumental sonorities, starting with the mocking nickname of "Harmonie Symphonie" ("Symphony of Wind Instruments" if you like) for the First. I only know about two-thirds of Haydn's Symphonies, so I have yet to discover those in which the Piccolo, trombones, contrabassoon are revealed as "stock methods", nor where the earlier master set the pattern for setting two solo 'celli muted apart from the remainder of the strings that Beethoven copied throughout the second movement of his Pastoral, or the use of octave timps in the Eighth and Ninth Symphonies, (or for that matter, giving melodic/thematic material to the Timps. or where Haydn combined pizzicato strings with sustained woodwind chords, as at the start of Beethoven's First Symphony, or the lightning-speed cuts between orchestral timbre, register (and dynamics) in the scherzo of the Second.

[Barbirollians]

I think all nine are wonderful and I love all of them . JLW above is spot on .

As for the Second Symphony - probably one of the most joyful pieces of all time having nothing to recommend it - words fail me .

[Bergonzi]

I suspected a wind-up, too.

I suppose it is a back-handed compliment to how Beethoven's innovations in timbre and combinations have become so mainstream that someone as perceptive as S_A can say that Beethoven wasn't "particularly concerned" with these parameters. For Beethoven's contemporaries, of course, it was a different matter, and there are several comments from the time complaining about his unorthodox and disturbing use of orchestral and instrumental sonorities, starting with the mocking nickname of "Harmonie Symphonie" ("Symphony of Wind Instruments" if you like) for the First. I only know about two-thirds of Haydn's Symphonies, so I have yet to discover those in which the Piccolo, trombones, contrabassoon are revealed as "stock methods", nor where the earlier master set the pattern for setting two solo 'celli muted apart from the remainder of the strings that Beethoven copied throughout the second movement of his Pastoral, or the use of octave timps in the Eighth and Ninth Symphonies, (or for that matter, giving melodic/thematic material to the Timps. or where Haydn combined pizzicato strings with sustained woodwind chords, as at the start of Beethoven's First Symphony, or the lightning-speed cuts between orchestral timbre, register (and dynamics) in the scherzo of the Second.

As long as comments like S_A's "bloated" are made, I cannot and shall not cease to bang on and on and on about how Beethoven's orchestration is as astonishing and cause for celebration as his treatment of form, tonality, rhythm, thematicism, and texture.

I have to say that I do agree 100% with the above statement. But then I've only played all of the symphonies. I do have a box set and others on CD, and used to have on LP's. The string quartets are still the pinnacle of all music in my opinion.

[cloughie]

Sibleius is a lesser composer than Beethoven but I can listen to his 1-7 without interruption. I'm not able to do the same for the Beethoven symphonies, even though they are, genearlly speaking, 'greater' and 'more important' works.

With Sibelius I would interrupt the symphonies by adding in chronologically the Leminkainenen Suite and Pohjola's Daughter starting with En Saga and eding with Tapiola. I'll happily play through all the Beethoven Symphonies but press the stop button at the end of the third movement of the ninth!

[kea]

I have no idea why Beethoven's siymphonies are of historical importance and I've never viewed them that way

Beethoven's symphonies are more important because of their reception than their actual content: they raised the symphony to a level of prestige that eclipsed all other genres of classical music for some time (even the opera was seen as tawdry faux-important entertainment for a while until being restored to its preeminent position of prestige later in the 19th century). No other composer's fame rested to such an extent on the symphony: Haydn composed dozens of which only a few were famous, and was more renowned for his oratorios; Mozart was known for his operas and his piano concertos (and his piano performance in general, as an itinerant virtuoso), whereas his symphonies were mostly composed for special occasions. Beethoven only wrote one opera and no oratorios of note, and his performance career ended prematurely; he had to write an opera to prove he was a serious composer, but the symphony was his vehicle to fame. After Beethoven, every composer had to either write a symphony to prove they were a serious composer, or consciously eschew the symphony in order to make a statement about the preeminence of some other genre. See Schubert, Schumann, Berlioz, Mendelssohn, and Brahms on the one hand, and Chopin, Liszt, Bellini, Wagner, and Musorgsky on the other.

Beethoven himself was probably conscious of this, or became more conscious of it over time, and I would argue it is why the first three movements of the 9th are unsuccessful.

[Richard Barrett]

Very well put, kea.

[BBMmk2]

I would differ there JK. I would say the first three movements are successful, it's the fourth that's not. They flow very nicely into one another. The fourth should have been a stand alone work.

[Bryn]

I would differ there JK. I would say the first three movements are successful, it's the fourth that's not. They flow very nicely into one another. The fourth should have been a stand alone work.

But the final movement builds on and then supersedes the thematic material of the first three. I reckon the composer knew his craft pretty well.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Very well put, kea.

Well, except that for the fact that Haydn was internationally known and frequently performed throughout Europe as a Symphonist when Beethoven was still being abused by his drunken father (and before he [Haydn] even started to write oratorios for which he became "more renowned").

And exactly how could one composer "raise the prestige that eclipsed all other genres", to the extent that "every composer" after him would "have to either write a Symphony to prove they were a serious composer, or consciously eschew the symphony in order to make a statement about the preeminence of some other genre"? The only way this could have happened was if "the actual content" was sufficiently powerful and astonishing enough to ensure their significant "reception" not merely by the concert-going audience, but by other performers and composers. (The first eighteen bars of the First Symphony are sufficient example of this on their very own.) The phrase "Beethoven's symphonies are more important because of their reception than their actual content" is logically stunted and demonstrably risible.

[BBMmk2]

But the final movement builds on and then supersedes the thematic material of the first three. I reckon the composer knew his craft pretty well.

Oh right! Yes LvB most certainly did know his craft well. To my ears, the fourth seem unconnected. I had the work on recently. I will have another listen.

[Beef Oven!]

Beethoven's symphonies are more important because of their reception than their actual content: they raised the symphony to a level of prestige that eclipsed all other genres of classical music for some time (even the opera was seen as tawdry faux-important entertainment for a while until being restored to its preeminent position of prestige later in the 19th century). No other composer's fame rested to such an extent on the symphony: Haydn composed dozens of which only a few were famous, and was more renowned for his oratorios; Mozart was known for his operas and his piano concertos (and his piano performance in general, as an itinerant virtuoso), whereas his symphonies were mostly composed for special occasions. Beethoven only wrote one opera and no oratorios of note, and his performance career ended prematurely; he had to write an opera to prove he was a serious composer, but the symphony was his vehicle to fame. After Beethoven, every composer had to either write a symphony to prove they were a serious composer, or consciously eschew the symphony in order to make a statement about the preeminence of some other genre. See Schubert, Schumann, Berlioz, Mendelssohn, and Brahms on the one hand, and Chopin, Liszt, Bellini, Wagner, and Musorgsky on the other.

Beethoven himself was probably conscious of this, or became more conscious of it over time, and I would argue it is why the first three movements of the 9th are unsuccessful.

Thanks for this kea, but I should have been clearer. I know they are historically important, but I don't know why and have never felt the need to find out. I just like listening to them very much, especially in concert. And in my opinion, the right thing to do is listen to the ones you like and not feel the need to like them all.

Moving on, your comment on the 9th caught my attention. It never occurred to me that there is anything ''unsuccessful'' or even 'successful' about the 9th, a symphony I like very much indeed.

[Ferretfancy]

As far as the ninth is concerned I would say that it is one of those works which has a much greater impact when heard live. Recordings rarely do it justice. That said, I usually avoid it at the Proms simply because it's there every year.
Later this month I'll be at the RFH to hear Gil Sham play the Violin concerto, now there's a great work that can often seem to go on and on in the wrong hands, but maybe it's just me.

[Richard Barrett]

The phrase "Beethoven's symphonies are more important because of their reception than their actual content" is logically stunted and demonstrably risible.

Not really. It's only through its reception that any work becomes "important". Apart from that, Beethoven and his music were the subject of something close to an apotheosis under the Romantic tendency towards mythmaking and hero-worship, and I think we still hear an echo of that now in the way his name is spoken in such tones as to imply that any criticism is just not on (Pet's "I'm sorry, but the Beethoven symphonies are the absolute pinnacle of symphonic art" and the like).

This discussion reminds me of some thoughts I was having the other day about orchestration, and, more precisely, the characteristic "sound" that composers give to their orchestras, and that (limiting the view to 19th century composers) there are some whose "sound" I find attractive - Berlioz, Bruckner, Wagner, Rimsky maybe - and others whose "sound" is an obstacle to appreciating the other aspects of the music - Brahms, Tchaikovsky and indeed Beethoven a lot of the time. I'm not claiming that he wasn't "good at" or "interested in" the instrumentation of his orchestral music, just that there's something about the results (and not all the time) which I often find "difficult", even when given the best possible chance by historically informed performance. This is one reason why the Beethoven that I feel closest to is concentrated in his string quartets and piano music, even though in general I'm more interested in orchestral music than chamber music from that period. It's a personal matter that I'm trying to get to the bottom of.