How many of the Beethoven symphonies do you actually LIKE?

[Tevot]

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.

Hello there,

Now this is interesting. Surely a lot of whether or not a work ( in this case Beethoven's) is perceived to be great or successful boils down to its advocacy and the strength / merits of its performance or interpretation? Do Forumites have a different view? Can a performance or reading save or transcend the material?

Why is it that the Ninth features regularly at the Proms? Is it because it is regarded as the apotheosis of Beethoven's symphonic art or are there other spurious or lazy reasons of tradition?

To those professionals far more musically literate and versed than I - I would love to hear your thoughts as to why the Ninth either "works" or fails to convince / measure up to his other symphonic compositions.

Best Wishes,

Tevot

[Serial_Apologist]

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.

Excepting Brahms, (and Bruckner, whom I haven't listened to to anything like the same degree), this is where I more-or-less am regarding Beethoven's orchestral music. As usual I'm listening to the symphonies again - with me a once-per-year activity - taking on board where I can the views of people here with whom I am generally in agreement on other musics.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Not really. It's only through its reception that any work becomes "important".

But that isn't what kea claimed: s/he stated unambiguously that "Beethoven's symphonies are more important because of their reception than their actual content" - "more important"; not even "as important" but "more important". As if a work's "content" could be detached from how it is received, and as if a reception of 200 years could be based on content that wasn't at least as 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).

But this is mythologising of its own kind - that somehow the 19th Century apotheosis of Beethoven was based more on the "Artist-as-hero" myth than on the content of his works. It isn't a matter of Beethoven being "above criticism", but that such criticisms have to demonstrate objective flaws in the composer's technique, not just a subjective "I don't like" this or that work, or aspect of his craft. If they do not do this, then such comments don't de-mythologise Beethoven's 19th Century reputation; by suggesting that they cannot do it, they give it greater credence.

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.

Yes - and the "like" of Conchis' Thread title is why I didn't reply to the Thread before yesterday. If someone likes or dislikes a work/composer, there's nothing much one can respond with except "I agree/disagree" - which is fine for "chatter", but not very much else. If you had suggested that Beethoven wasn't good at or interested in the instrumentation of his orchestral works, I would have objected as vociferously as I did to S_A when he stated this.

Your tastes and reactions are an essential part of your creative thinking, and insofar as they help you create more of your own work, that's a matter for rejoicing as far as I'm concerned. But I sincerely wish you a successful outcome in your "personal matter that I'm trying to get to the bottom of" - there's so much that keeps on giving in every aspect of these works.

[Serial_Apologist]

Hello there,

Now this is interesting. Surely a lot of whether or not a work ( in this case Beethoven's) is perceived to be great or successful boils down to its advocacy and the strength / merits of its performance or interpretation? Do Forumites have a different view? Can a performance or reading save or transcend the material?

Why is it that the Ninth features regularly at the Proms? Is it because it is regarded as the apotheosis of Beethoven's symphonic art or are there other spurious or lazy reasons of tradition?

To those professionals far more musically literate and versed than I - I would love to hear your thoughts as to why the Ninth either "works" or fails to convince / measure up to his other symphonic compositions.

Best Wishes,

Tevot

With the finale of the Ninth I think it's a matter of the composer effortfully trying to break with symphonic "norms" of that era, and into something new. One can respect and admire the ambition involved, but without here taking it to pieces conclude the effort not to have been successfully realised. Had Beethoven been Mahler, and been in full possession of his health and hearing, I think he might adviseably have made extensive revisions on that last movement. And shortened the first and second movements too, by cutting out a lot of the repeats. But was Beethoven the sort of man to admit to overstating his case? I think he became that man in the late piano sonatas, Diabelli and string quartets.

[Conchis]

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.

I've only heard the 9th live once - a 1999 Proms performance by Colin Davis and the LSO, considered by some on this forum to have been below par.

I enjoyed it but the work will never be a favourite of mine, even though I think the Adagio is possilby the finest music Beethoven ever wrote. I first encounterd it in the slow-to-sclerotic performanc by the LSO under Karl Bohm, so it was a case of first impressions being effectively overcome.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Surely a lot of whether or not a work ( in this case Beethoven's) is perceived to be great or successful boils down to its advocacy and the strength / merits of its performance or interpretation? Do Forumites have a different view? Can a performance or reading save or transcend the material?

Good point. Certainly people who cannot read Music, or who cannot match the technical requirements to be able to play it, an intermediary performer is essential to their receiving a work at all, and if that intermediary isn't equal to the task then the listener can blame the composer. But that in itself only goes so far - just a glimpse over the Forum at the Posts which argue (sometimes at boiling point) over the de/merits of recorded or broadcast performances; what for one listener takes them into a deeper appreciation and involvement in a work is precisely the performance that another listener finds a grotesque travesty of the work. Go figure! It's what matters to us individually that ... well, matters to us individually! And that's why we need several performances of works in order to do the work justice. (I dedicate this post to the memory of Jiri Belohlavek, in gratitude for searing Martinu's Symphonies into my imagination and affections after over thirty years' trying with other performers.)

And, yes, a performance of a work can be better than a composer imagined it - but only if the composer's own imagination wasn't of the first rank. (Which is not the case with regard to Beethoven's Symphonies.)

Why is it that the Ninth features regularly at the Proms? Is it because it is regarded as the apotheosis of Beethoven's symphonic art or are there other spurious or lazy reasons of tradition?

I think that - well, at least in part - this is an offshoot of the 19th Century mythologising of the composer that Richard mentioned; the idea that with each work, Beethoven's genius got "better". There's no real reasonable reason these days for the Ninth to be included in every season any more than the Third, or Fifth, or Seventh, or ... But the Ninth was traditionally placed on the penultimate night of a season, as a sort-of seriously joyful culmination before the jollies of the last night. The text is appropriate, and the piece involves a choir belting it out at the top of their lungs.

As far as Proms traditions are concerned, there are others (well, another) that I'd gladly get rid of before the annual performance of the Ninth.

[silvestrione]

But that isn't what kea claimed: s/he stated unambiguously that "Beethoven's symphonies are more important because of their reception than their actual content" - "more important"; not even "as important" but "more important". As if a work's "content" could be detached from how it is received, and as if a reception of 200 years could be based on content that wasn't at least as important.


But this is mythologising of its own kind - that somehow the 19th Century apotheosis of Beethoven was based more on the "Artist-as-hero" myth than on the content of his works. It isn't a matter of Beethoven being "above criticism", but that such criticisms have to demonstrate objective flaws in the composer's technique, not just a subjective "I don't like" this or that work, or aspect of his craft. If they do not do this, then such comments don't de-mythologise Beethoven's 19th Century reputation; by suggesting that they cannot do it, they give it greater credence.


Yes - and the "like" of Conchis' Thread title is why I didn't reply to the Thread before yesterday. If someone likes or dislikes a work/composer, there's nothing much one can respond with except "I agree/disagree" - which is fine for "chatter", but not very much else. If you had suggested that Beethoven wasn't good at or interested in the instrumentation of his orchestral works, I would have objected as vociferously as I did to S_A when he stated this.

Your tastes and reactions are an essential part of your creative thinking, and insofar as they help you create more of your own work, that's a matter for rejoicing as far as I'm concerned. But I sincerely wish you a successful outcome in your "personal matter that I'm trying to get to the bottom of" - there's so much that keeps on giving in every aspect of these works.

Thanks so much for this post: I very much wanted to say something like it, but could not quite articulate my thoughts...

[Richard Barrett]

It isn't a matter of Beethoven being "above criticism", but that such criticisms have to demonstrate objective flaws in the composer's technique, not just a subjective "I don't like" this or that work, or aspect of his craft. If they do not do this, then such comments don't de-mythologise Beethoven's 19th Century reputation; by suggesting that they cannot do it, they give it greater credence.

I'm not sure where that gets us though. What's the actual difference between "objective flaws" and "not liking" something? One person's flaw is another's stroke of genius, as is proved on this forum on an almost daily basis!

there's so much that keeps on giving in every aspect of these works.

And to be sure I've had a lot of it over the years - there are not many corners of 3, 5, 6 or 7 that I'm not closely acquainted with, and I do still listen to them while finding their sound somewhat ungrateful sometimes.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

I'm not sure where that gets us though. What's the actual difference between "objective flaws" and "not liking" something? One person's flaw is another's stroke of genius, as is proved on this forum on an almost daily basis!

God bless us, every one!

But I think that there is (at least in certain circumstances) an actual difference - for instance, that there is sufficient evidence (a lot more than I offered in #47) to show that S_A's comment that I don't think he was particularly concerned with timbre and combination, continuing Haydn's stock methods and inflating them as time went on isn't supported by the orchestral works themselves. The "particular concern" is clearly discernible, even if the resulting sonorities don't appeal. I think that when comments which question a composer's competence, then that questioning needs re/adressing - at the very least, that gets us rethinking the Music itself, listening with someone else's perspective in mind: something that I don't find possible in response to simple "like/dislike" comments.

[Ferretfancy]

Good point. Certainly people who cannot read Music, or who cannot match the technical requirements to be able to play it, an intermediary performer is essential to their receiving a work at all, and if that intermediary isn't equal to the task then the listener can blame the composer. But that in itself only goes so far - just a glimpse over the Forum at the Posts which argue (sometimes at boiling point) over the de/merits of recorded or broadcast performances; what for one listener takes them into a deeper appreciation and involvement in a work is precisely the performance that another listener finds a grotesque travesty of the work. Go figure! It's what matters to us individually that ... well, matters to us individually! And that's why we need several performances of works in order to do the work justice. (I dedicate this post to the memory of Jiri Belohlavek, in gratitude for searing Martinu's Symphonies into my imagination and affections after over thirty years' trying with other performers.)

And, yes, a performance of a work can be better than a composer imagined it - but only if the composer's own imagination wasn't of the first rank. (Which is not the case with regard to Beethoven's Symphonies.)


I think that - well, at least in part - this is an offshoot of the 19th Century mythologising of the composer that Richard mentioned; the idea that with each work, Beethoven's genius got "better". There's no real reasonable reason these days for the Ninth to be included in every season any more than the Third, or Fifth, or Seventh, or ... But the Ninth was traditionally placed on the penultimate night of a season, as a sort-of seriously joyful culmination before the jollies of the last night. The text is appropriate, and the piece involves a choir belting it out at the top of their lungs.

As far as Proms traditions are concerned, there are others (well, another) that I'd gladly get rid of before the annual performance of the Ninth.

Historically at the Proms, Friday Night was always Beethoven Night, and of course this meant that the ninth was always the penultimate Prom of the season.

Incidentally,until the urge came over the BBC to televise the Last Night, the jollys you mention were confined to the second half, and I can remember back in the 1940s when the celebration was brief and quite polite by today's standards

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Historically at the Proms, Friday Night was always Beethoven Night, and of course this meant that the ninth was always the penultimate Prom of the season.

Incidentally,until the urge came over the BBC to televise the Last Night, the jollys you mention were confined to the second half, and I can remember back in the 1940s when the celebration was brief and quite polite by today's standards

again. (My own awareness of the LNotP only goes back to the '70s.)

[jayne lee wilson]

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.

Haydn’s Paris and London Symphonies were indeed famous in his lifetime, performed to great acclaim in the composer’s presence. They were undoubtedly (even if indirectly) an inspiration for Beethoven.
Why should such great artists as Mendelssohn, Schumann, Bruckner, and Brahms feel they had to dutifully compose a symphony to be taken seriously? More likely they were inspired to by Beethoven’s achievement; they could never have achieved their sounds and forms without the Beethoven before them, for imitation (in its broadest sense - love, learn, remake, remodel) and inspiration; and how very distinctively wonderful they all are.

If you call the 9th’s first three movements “unsuccessful” you really have to say something about why (especially in the light of the work’s huge and continuing popularity - its great and continuing success. Not just the finale’s popularity - How often do you see it actually programmed on its own? But this finale, or at least its big tune, is of course very popular in the wider culture, which is fascinating in itself; how do those who dislike it, or feel critical of it, feel about that?).

***

I would absolutely describe the 9 Symphonies as a pinnacle of musical and symphonic art: historically, for those who know their Haydn and their Mozart, they have a frequent extremity about them, an expressive and emotional range and intensity from deepest tragedy to euphoric joy, a sheerly physical power, energy and dynamism (and often a scale) that is very new and very original; perhaps suggested in the later more expansive works of his predecessors (who were following their own distinctly classical paths in any case and are not to be seen as mere precedents - and such expressive instances as the thematic breakdown in the middle of Mozart's 40th's finale are very exceptional); but as fhg exemplified about the introduction to No.1 (despite a possible precedent in the adagio of Haydn's Symphony No.57), Beethoven heads off in his own startling direction from the outset.
All 9 symphonies are very distinct and especially from the Eroica on, all create their own unique musical and vividly imaginative world (often as if each one is a response to, even a critique of, the one before). Of course music couldn’t be the same again, and it’s surely not only symphonic composers who felt, and were inspired by, their influence.

I truly believe that they have the status and fame and position in past and present musical history precisely because of their “actual content” - their artistic quality: their inspiration, intensity, haunting memorability, physical power and excitement; their creation of emotional worlds and imaginative visions, of musical mythologies whether of Pastoral or Fate or The Apotheosis of The Dance - in short their power to move, as apparent in a listening room, or from a table radio, or in a car, as in a concert hall.

[Bergonzi]

Haydn’s Paris and London Symphonies were indeed famous in his lifetime, performed to great acclaim in the composer’s presence. They were undoubtedly (even if indirectly) an inspiration for Beethoven.
Why should such great artists as Mendelssohn, Schumann, Bruckner, and Brahms feel they had to dutifully compose a symphony to be taken seriously? More likely they were inspired to by Beethoven’s achievement; they could never have achieved their sounds and forms without the Beethoven before them, for imitation (in its broadest sense - love, learn, remake, remodel) and inspiration; and how very distinctively wonderful they all are.

If you call the 9th’s first three movements “unsuccessful” you really have to say something about why (especially in the light of the work’s huge and continuing popularity - its great and continuing success. Not just the finale’s popularity - How often do you see it actually programmed on its own? But this finale, or at least its big tune, is of course very popular in the wider culture, which is fascinating in itself; how do those who dislike it, or feel critical of it, feel about that?).

***

I would absolutely describe the 9 Symphonies as a pinnacle of musical and symphonic art: historically, for those who know their Haydn and their Mozart, they have a frequent extremity about them, an expressive and emotional range and intensity from deepest tragedy to euphoric joy, a sheerly physical power, energy and dynamism (and often a scale) that is very new and very original; perhaps suggested in the later more expansive works of his predecessors (who were following their own distinctly classical paths in any case and are not to be seen as mere precedents - and such expressive instances as the thematic breakdown in the middle of Mozart's 40th's finale are very exceptional); but as fhg exemplified about the introduction to No.1 (despite a possible precedent in the adagio of Haydn's Symphony No.57), Beethoven heads off in his own startling direction from the outset.
All 9 symphonies are very distinct and especially from the Eroica on, all create their own unique musical and vividly imaginative world (often as if each one is a response to, even a critique of, the one before). Of course music couldn’t be the same again, and it’s surely not only symphonic composers who felt, and were inspired by, their influence.

I truly believe that they have the status and fame and position in past and present musical history precisely because of their “actual content” - their artistic quality: their inspiration, intensity, haunting memorability, physical power and excitement; their creation of emotional worlds and imaginative visions, of musical mythologies whether of Pastoral or Fate or The Apotheosis of The Dance - in short their power to move, as apparent in a listening room, or from a table radio, or in a car, as in a concert hall.

A very good analysis which I find quite convincing, and agree with totally.

[Richard Barrett]

The artist-hero of the century before last refuses to die!

[doversoul1]

The artist-hero of the century before last refuses to die!

...and we have a proof of your point about the reception.