The greatest person who ever lived

[Denny]

For those who doubt...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ueGuzmotwaI

Slan,
D.

That's my favorite Dylan tune. So, I suppose I'll have to agree with you

this is one of those circular logic things, innit?

[SteveShaw]

PS. Just to add to the heat, I think Bach beats Beethoven because I think Bach touched on more musical "realities" that were outside of his time period more than Beethoven. You will hear references to future Rococo and even early Romantic music in rhythm and harmony, respectively. I always think of the famous Chaconne as an early Romantic work. And his work with the tempered scale, etc etc did change things forever.

The thing is, we are more "like" Beethoven now, than Bach, in mentality because of the Romantic period and the non-patronized post-Revolution artist. So, in the way that we use the word "great", as synonymous with a kind of heroism, I think Beethoven fits that because maybe we understand him better.

Bach was the bizarre craftsman, who churned out stuff that was at such a high level of musical understanding that we consider it genius, yet, in some ways, he probably thought he was re-cycling and re-formulating so often, especially in the cantatas.


It's arguable but evident to me that Beethoven put more of the recognizable kinds of emotion and synthesis of his comtemporary cultural expression, and probably in a much more taxing way on his pyche. Bach not only churned out music, he churned out kids too, leaving many of us to believe that he had energy to spare! Whereas Beethoven gives us the impression of a more solitary, alienated and struggling figure, Bach seems to have found a way to create distance between himself and his work, though we find it mind-boggling at times.

I simply cannot fathom how Bach cranked out so much composition in his life. It's beyond my understanding. With Beethoven, I might not be able to imagine creating something so sublime, but his process and output seem more human, somehow more familiar.

Great post, old chap. Bach was indeed a visionary, though I doubt that he himself ever thought he was. The sheer invention and perfection, the "rightness" of his rhythm and his harmony (the latter, especially, to me, put so much distance between him and the other major Baroque composers) are what mark him out. There is no monochrome or sepia (heaven forfend) - there is colour in Bach and an abundance of it. With Beethoven, we often have to struggle with him. To me, many of his earlier and even mid-period works are searching but not finding. There is much misplaced wit and overblown gesture (the fifth symphony is full of almost vulgar bluster) and he had "the problem of the finale" which he failed to resolve more often than he succeeded. But the struggle is what Beethoven is all about. I don't think he could have achieved half as much as a composer had he been a happy, settled family chap. In his finest works from the middle and late periods there is triumph over adversity, there is very public utterance entirely without pomp and there is the deepest, most searching introspection - but in all of it he is reaching out, and this is the key to the man. What he unhappily never found in his own emotional life he is able to communicate to us so directly that a punch on the chin could sometimes be imagined as less immediate. He involves you entirely in the music to such a degree that ego-filled performances are abominations. You can get in the way of Beethoven more easily than with almost anyone else. The great thing is that there is absolutely nothing hard in Beethoven. The very first piece of classical music I ever listened to was the C sharp minor late quartet played on an ancient Supraphon record by the Smetana Quartet. Within days I was walking down the street whistling all the tunes from it. Still do. Yet, according to at least one source, it's the greatest composition in all of western music! A flawed and unpleasant character he may have been, but I find something terribly moving in the mental picture I have of this unhappy, isolated deaf man in his garret, delivering of himself some of the finest utterances of all humanity, striving above all else for communication. All the more human, as you say.

[izzarina]

For those who doubt...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ueGuzmotwaI

Slan,
D.

That's my favorite Dylan tune. So, I suppose I'll have to agree with you

this is one of those circular logic things, innit?

Something like that

[Casey Burns]

Mahatma Gandhi

[SteveShaw]

Mahatma Gandhi

Greater than Jesus?

[dwest]

Mahatma Gandhi

Greater than Jesus?

Gandhi wasn't as delusional.

[Dale]

Mahatma Gandhi

Greater than Jesus?

Gandhi wasn't as delusional.

Oh, now really.

[dwest]

Greater than Jesus?

Gandhi wasn't as delusional.

Oh, now really.

He was a bit of a Zealot.

[CHasR]

The great thing is that there is absolutely nothing hard in Beethoven. )

hard......do you mean "hard", as in challenging to execute, or "hard", as in texturally opaque?

[SteveShaw]

Gandhi wasn't as delusional.

Oh, now really.

He was a bit of a Zealot.

This is a perfectly ridiculous branch in this conversation. Neither man was delusional in the accepted sense of the word and both men were zealots. I rather like the fact that they were. We do need zealots as long as they're sensible, thinking zealots. I'm a harmonica zealot. I may not be a sensible, thinking harmonica zealot but I like to think the seeds are there. Now please try to pad out your witty little one-liners with just a little reasoning. You know, something we can sink our dentures into.

[SteveShaw]

The great thing is that there is absolutely nothing hard in Beethoven. )

hard......do you mean "hard", as in challenging to execute, or "hard", as in texturally opaque?

I thought you'd gone.

There is nothing hard to listen to on at least some level. There is certainly nothing texturally opaque, and, even as a non-sight reader of music, I can (and do) look at the scores when I'm listening and add another layer or two to the interaction. There are many layers of course. But you don't need to be a professor of music to understand and love Beethoven's music. In fact, I think it's probably better if you're not one. I wonder whether that fellow whose deconstructions you quoted ever really enjoyed Beethoven's music, or whether the tree rendered him incapable of seeing the forest. The most impressive thing in all of Beethoven is his urgent desire to reach out and communicate through his music. You don't do that by throwing dense, impenetrable treatises at your audience. The analysts with their cloudy, stuffy, snobby prose do more to put people off classical music than anything. There's something in Beethoven and the other classical composers for the whole human race. If you want to work out why it isn't universally popular you have to look for factors outside the music itself.

[CHasR]

The great thing is that there is absolutely nothing hard in Beethoven. )

hard......do you mean "hard", as in challenging to execute, or "hard", as in texturally opaque?

I thought you'd gone.

There is nothing hard to listen to on at least some level. There is certainly nothing texturally opaque, and, even as a non-sight reader of music, I can (and do) look at the scores when I'm listening and add another layer or two to the interaction. There are many layers of course. But you don't need to be a professor of music to understand and love Beethoven's music. In fact, I think it's probably better if you're not one. I wonder whether that fellow whose deconstructions you quoted ever really enjoyed Beethoven's music, or whether the tree rendered him incapable of seeing the forest. The most impressive thing in all of Beethoven is his urgent desire to reach out and communicate through his music. You don't do that by throwing dense, impenetrable treatises at your audience. The analysts with their cloudy, stuffy, snobby prose do more to put people off classical music than anything. There's something in Beethoven and the other classical composers for the whole human race. If you want to work out why it isn't universally popular you have to look for factors outside the music itself.

Weeks dragged me back in.
Steve, this just sounds like music appreciation 101. I've been there already, in 7th grade. thanks.
If you want to put out ideas for a serious musicology-based analysis of WHY lvb was, in your opinion, 'the g.p.w.e.l'd.', don t let me stop you. Otherwise, its all re-digested-hero-worship for me. sorry.

beethovengasm over.
but

you ask 'why isnt this universally popular?' but it is. however, in the west, at this time, for whataver reason, it is associated with elitism. The activities of experinental postwar 'composers' did not help endear the art of composition to the general public, (which you've decired already as cheeseburger-loving masses), all this makes it SO much harder for composers-to-be, as if it isnt hard enough having to have new works judged by a panel of 'mature' composers fearful of their own reputation, and the works of giants of the past.

.

[dwest]

Oh, now really.

He was a bit of a Zealot.

This is a perfectly ridiculous branch in this conversation. Neither man was delusional in the accepted sense of the word and both men were zealots. I rather like the fact that they were. We do need zealots as long as they're sensible, thinking zealots. I'm a harmonica zealot. I may not be a sensible, thinking harmonica zealot but I like to think the seeds are there. Now please try to pad out your witty little one-liners with just a little reasoning. You know, something we can sink our dentures into.

i'm talking about Zealots not zealots, do you believe in the apocalyptic harmonica?

[SteveShaw]

If you want to put out ideas for a serious musicology-based analysis of WHY lvb was, in your opinion, 'the g.p.w.e.l'd.', don t let me stop you. Otherwise, its all re-digested-hero-worship for me. sorry.

Are you just trying to goad me into drawing out your peerless and scholarly wisdom? Do you like Beethoven or not? If so, which bits and to what depth? All you've done is cited (not quoted) one controversial Beethoven "scholar," and you insult us by doing it in some kind of clipped, pseudo-text language. You offend me by suggesting that my appreciation is pre-digested. I've come to this point after 35 years of study and appreciation. Have you, or are you just annoyed that you've come across someone who you see as threatening your depth of "knowledge?" Now I've been at pains to explain my feelings about Beethoven's music on this thread and I've gone into a fair amount of detail. You on the other hand have posted some rather haughty, cloudy crap in almost unreadable English, as if you're dashing it off with far more important things beckoning. I don't mind that one little bit but I'm not very partial to your sarcastic and misguided put-downs. I'm not at all sure that you have the faintest idea what you're talking about, to be honest. You seem to been churning stuff out that you've half-remembered from some book or other. Prove me wrong, not by cynical remarks but by constructive discussion. Or just shut up.

[SteveShaw]

you ask 'why isnt this universally popular?' but it is. however, in the west, at this time, for whataver reason, it is associated with elitism. The activities of experinental postwar 'composers' did not help endear the art of composition to the general public, (which you've decired already as cheeseburger-loving masses), all this makes it SO much harder for composers-to-be, as if it isnt hard enough having to have new works judged by a panel of 'mature' composers fearful of their own reputation, and the works of giants of the past.

.

And you added this whilst I was posting. It's even more bollocks than before, isn't it. Incomprehensible tosh. The misrepresentation of what I said is staggering, even for you. Eejit.