NationStates Jolt Archive

Which piano song is greater: Beethoven's Für Elise, or Mozart's Piano Sonata no. 16 in C major?

Turkish March.

2nd movement of the Mozart wins. Though it's hard to beat Grieg's Piano Concerto. =)

Bach > all classical composers.

I have to admit Moonlight Sonata is awesome, though.

African saying:
When elephants fight, the grass suffers.

Other African saying:
When classical musicians compete, audiences lapse into persistent states of the vegetative coma.

That's not even apples to oranges, that's apples to avocados.

Folks, I hate to be a broken record, but music can't be quantified like that. Mozart composed under a whole different set of circumstances -- musically, personally, politically, and so forth -- than Beethoven did. Mozart was the perfector and master mannerist of the Classical era, while Beethoven almost singlehandedly brought concert music into the Romantic era.

It's disingenuous to compare a mannerist/perfector with an innovator -- they are completely different. It's like comparing Hendrix to, say, Robert Johnson or Les Paul. They're of different eras when different circumstances required different sounds.

I don't want to come off as dousing enthusiasm for ANY concert music -- comparisons are fine, but superlatives are far too subjective to be realistic and completely unnecessary.

Personally, I blame Billboard magazine and the rest of the rank-the-hits crowd for fostering the notion that compositions can be ordinally sorted by merit or any other quality. At the most, I'd offer tiers of pieces as being more or less emblematic of a certain style or aesthetic, but even that is subjective. One person's Donizetti is another person's Verdi.

My CDN$.02 (worth more than the $.02 in my pocket).

Mozart was quicker, but Beethoven was stronger with better reach. I think Beethoven would score a late round knockout.

Mozart was quicker, but Beethoven was stronger with better reach. I think Beethoven would score a late round knockout.

Exactly!

That reminds me of the Python skit with Sir Kenneth Clarke fighting a boxer:

SUPERIMPOSED CAPTION: 'BOXING TONIGHT'

VOICE OVER: 'Boxing Tonight' comes from the Empire Pool, Wembley and features the main heavyweight bout between Jack Bodell, British and Empire Heavyweight Champion...

cheers; shot of Bodell in his corner with two seconds

VOICE OVER: And Sir Kenneth Clark.

shot of Clark's corner; he is in a dressing-gown with 'Sir Kenneth Clark' on the back; both take off their dressing-gowns as referee calls them together; Sir Kenneth is wearing a tweed suit underneath.

VOICE OVER: It's the first time these two have met so there should be some real action tonight...

The bell goes. Crowd noise. Sir Kenneth wanders around as in 'Civilization'.

SIR KENNETH: This then is the height of the English Renaissance, the triumph of Classical over Gothic...the...*uph*

Bodell swing a left and knocks Sir Kenneth down.

VOICE OVER: He's down! Sir Kenneth Clark is down in eight seconds. But he's up again. He's up at six...
SIR KENNETH: The almost ordered facades of Palladio's villas reflects the...

Bodell knocks him down again.

VOICE OVER: And he's down again, and I don't think he's going to get up this time.

referee counts Sir Kenneth Clark out and holds up Bodel's hand

VOICE OVER: No, so Jack Bodell has defeated Sir Kenneth Clark in the very first round here tonight and so this big Lincolnshire heavyweight becomes the new Oxford Professor of Fine Art.

I'm almost willing to create puppets to vote Beethoven again and again to underline my preference. My friend calls this the Canonical Sacrificial Lamb, when you study something long enough there eventually emerges someone in high regard in the canon that you just don't like, for him it's Dickens, for me it's Mozart. This differentiates from 'haters and over-raters' because you acknowledge the persons position in the canon, you just don't like them and it's a position formed on aesthetics, not 'being over-rated.'

For me, it's Mozart. I don't like him because he's a genius. Unqualified, he was a complete master of the Classical (big C, the Classical Era) form. His music is a treatise on Classical theory, completely perfect form. That's boring. It's no mistake that the first composer emulated by a computer was Mozart (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb5037/is_199708/ai_n18287640) (note the article questions whether the computer can actually capture Mozart's genius). His compositions are mathematical and not passionate. The greatest example lies in his own compositions, his Requiem is haunting. When he writes something he cares about, suddenly it's music and not a treatise on music theory. Beethoven broke conventions, Mozart put them in mortar.

Obviously this goes to taste and acknowledges that regardless of my criticism he is a genius, I just differ on the quality of that genius when it applies to music that actually grabs you instead of simply impresses you.

Exactly!

That reminds me of the Python skit with Sir Kenneth Clarke fighting a boxer:

Or Monty Python's settling the dispute between Classic Greek philosophy and German philosophy (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ur5fGSBsfq8).

Beethoven is definitely better than Mozart.
However, there's a tarentella by Pieczonka that pwns anything else I've ever played. My music is at home or I'd provide the opus and number.

Chopin pwns them both.

Hey, someone had to say it. :D

I voted Beethoven because, well, I really enjoy Beethoven. I don't know the technicalities of classical, but I know what I enjoy. Mozart is kind of dull, I think. And whoever brought up Bach....ugh....I hate Bach, absolutely hate him.

Sidenote: this (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=LQTTFUtMSvQ) is what happens when you search for classical music on youtube. Not for the video, but for this gem - is this really him?Ugh....

That's not even apples to oranges, that's apples to avocados.

Folks, I hate to be a broken record, but music can't be quantified like that. Mozart composed under a whole different set of circumstances -- musically, personally, politically, and so forth -- than Beethoven did. Mozart was the perfector and master mannerist of the Classical era, while Beethoven almost singlehandedly brought concert music into the Romantic era.

It's disingenuous to compare a mannerist/perfector with an innovator -- they are completely different. It's like comparing Hendrix to, say, Robert Johnson or Les Paul. They're of different eras when different circumstances required different sounds.

I don't want to come off as dousing enthusiasm for ANY concert music -- comparisons are fine, but superlatives are far too subjective to be realistic and completely unnecessary.

Personally, I blame Billboard magazine and the rest of the rank-the-hits crowd for fostering the notion that compositions can be ordinally sorted by merit or any other quality. At the most, I'd offer tiers of pieces as being more or less emblematic of a certain style or aesthetic, but even that is subjective. One person's Donizetti is another person's Verdi.

My CDN$.02 (worth more than the $.02 in my pocket).

Fact.

I prefer Beethoven to Mozart. Just my taste but Ludwig's music rouses more emotion to me. And that is the point is it not? :)

After all Schroeder can't be wrong.

Billy Joel.

I prefer Beethoven. There's just something magical about a musical genious who is also deaf. It's like if Da Vinci painted the Mona Lisa blindfolded. It takes a certain amount of skill to play music you can't hear and have it not suck.

This thread needs more Copland Piano Variations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copland_Piano_Variations).

I prefer Beethoven. There's just something magical about a musical genious who is also deaf. It's like if Da Vinci painted the Mona Lisa blindfolded. It takes a certain amount of skill to play music you can't hear and have it not suck.

Just fyi, Beethoven wrote Für Elise around 1802 ish, when he was just starting to go deaf (plagued by persistent ringing in the ears) but could still hear fairly well. He didn't go completely deaf until the later 1810s IIRC, and while the music he wrote at that time was still of superlative quality, there are many features that he might have changed had he been able to hear them (some individual harmonies, orchestra parts in the Ninth Symphony and Missa solemnis, etc.), just because they sound a little bit awkward or out of place to listeners today.

Also, Beethoven is not famous because he was deaf, but because he wrote better music than anyone else. Smetana also went deaf, for example, and was also a very good composer, but we only ever hear one or two of his works in concerts.

tl;dr: I agree with you, but was nitpicking for no good reason.

As much as I revere Beethoven - I like Mozart's Piano Sonata No. 16 just this little bit better than Beethoven's Bagatelle in A minor.

http://members.shaw.ca/wenpigsfly/smileys/piano.gif

Other than that, I prefer Beethoven most of the time - although I like to enjoy the best of both composers.

Just fyi, Beethoven wrote Für Elise around 1802 ish, when he was just starting to go deaf (plagued by persistent ringing in the ears) but could still hear fairly well. He didn't go completely deaf until the later 1810s IIRC, and while the music he wrote at that time was still of superlative quality, there are many features that he might have changed had he been able to hear them (some individual harmonies, orchestra parts in the Ninth Symphony and Missa solemnis, etc.), just because they sound a little bit awkward or out of place to listeners today.

Also, Beethoven is not famous because he was deaf, but because he wrote better music than anyone else. Smetana also went deaf, for example, and was also a very good composer, but we only ever hear one or two of his works in concerts.

tl;dr: I agree with you, but was nitpicking for no good reason.
That awkwardness in the Ninth Symphony is what makes it great.

I don't think Beethoven is the be all and end all of classical music, but I really don't like Mozart. His orchestrations were terribly complex, but the actual musical lines within the orchestrations were repetitive as hell.

That awkwardness in the Ninth Symphony is what makes it great.

I don't think Beethoven is the be all and end all of classical music, but I really don't like Mozart. His orchestrations were terribly complex, but the actual musical lines within the orchestrations were repetitive as hell.

Mozart goes through in and out phases with me (right now I'm more into 20th century stuff, but I have a good deal of his music in my iTunes library), but I still don't like a lot of his piano music. It's tough to tell one Mozart sonata from the next, sometimes; and most of them are in the same keys, too (C, F, B flat, D, B flat, F, F, C, ...). On that front I definitely prefer Beethoven; he is probably the benchmark for piano music; but I'm just not all too fond of Für Elise.

Beethoven. Pre-Romanticism FTW.

Beethoven. Pre-Romanticism FTW.

Gonna have to nitpick a little (just a little, this is up for dispute) and say early Romanticism FTW. It can be argued that Beethoven pulled music from the Classical era into the Romantic era by serving as the pivotal bridge composer.

That's not even apples to oranges, that's apples to avocados.

Folks, I hate to be a broken record, but music can't be quantified like that. Mozart composed under a whole different set of circumstances -- musically, personally, politically, and so forth -- than Beethoven did. Mozart was the perfector and master mannerist of the Classical era, while Beethoven almost singlehandedly brought concert music into the Romantic era.

It's disingenuous to compare a mannerist/perfector with an innovator -- they are completely different. It's like comparing Hendrix to, say, Robert Johnson or Les Paul. They're of different eras when different circumstances required different sounds.

I don't want to come off as dousing enthusiasm for ANY concert music -- comparisons are fine, but superlatives are far too subjective to be realistic and completely unnecessary.

Personally, I blame Billboard magazine and the rest of the rank-the-hits crowd for fostering the notion that compositions can be ordinally sorted by merit or any other quality. At the most, I'd offer tiers of pieces as being more or less emblematic of a certain style or aesthetic, but even that is subjective. One person's Donizetti is another person's Verdi.

My CDN$.02 (worth more than the $.02 in my pocket).

This is pretty much the extended version of what I was going to post (i.e. "Both!")

Which piano song is greater: Beethoven's Für Elise, or Mozart's Piano Sonata no. 16 in C major?

I say Liszt's Hungarian Rhapsody no. 2.

It can be argued that Beethoven pulled music from the Classical era into the Romantic era by serving as the pivotal bridge composer.Bingo. Romanticism in music exists because Beethoven was a very frustrated man at the core of his being. In a sense, the frustration that constantly is simmering beneath the surface of his music makes it seem a little one dimensional, but its also the force that drives it to genius!

Also

Comparing Beethoven and Mozart (as far as asking who is "better") is comparing apples and oranges.

This thread needs more Copland Piano Variations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copland_Piano_Variations).

Hells yeah Copland.

That's not even apples to oranges, that's apples to avocados.

Folks, I hate to be a broken record, but music can't be quantified like that. Mozart composed under a whole different set of circumstances -- musically, personally, politically, and so forth -- than Beethoven did. Mozart was the perfector and master mannerist of the Classical era, while Beethoven almost singlehandedly brought concert music into the Romantic era.

It's disingenuous to compare a mannerist/perfector with an innovator -- they are completely different. It's like comparing Hendrix to, say, Robert Johnson or Les Paul. They're of different eras when different circumstances required different sounds.

...

Personally, I blame Billboard magazine and the rest of the rank-the-hits crowd for fostering the notion that compositions can be ordinally sorted by merit or any other quality. At the most, I'd offer tiers of pieces as being more or less emblematic of a certain style or aesthetic, but even that is subjective. One person's Donizetti is another person's Verdi.

Before you blame the industry, Billboard isn't making commentary on the quality of music. It's ranking the sales. Which, if we know anything about the Recording Industry, is the measure of success.

And of the three (Hendrix, Johnson, and Paul), Les Paul was the only innovator... but not musically. His innovations were more technology (not to say he didn't contribute musically, but it wasn't anything new). Johnson didn't really have a big hand in creating blues, but he is the voice of the blues that influenced a ton of amazing and innovative artists. (Rolling Stones, anyone? And my personal deity Eric Clapton- well, he doesn't innovate a ton, either...) Well, maybe Hendrix was an innovator. I've heard people say his rendition of "The Star Spangled Banner" was "just noise", but I honestly think he had an amazing ear for dissonance (that just isn't used in rock) and it's amazing. It's very much like psychedelia was thrown in a blender with 20th Century works.

Though I do agree with your central argument- Mozart and Beethoven just can't be qualified like that. They're too different. Classical and Romantic musics really are apples and oranges- they are stemming from different central tenets that can really conflict. Try to play Mozart with the performances "rules" of a Beethoven piece and it just won't be right.

(That said, I did earn my music scholarship with Mozart's clarinet concerto. Haven't touched it since- and I'm not too sad about that.)

Mozart kicks ass. Beethoven does too, but Mozart's ass kicking was more concentrated, and therefore superior.

Hm. I was about to type out a quick paragraph on my preference for Beethoven, but I had to stop after "As much as I like Mozart..." :p It was just too much.

However, while I do prefer Beethoven overall, I agree with the others who've noted that the comparison can be difficult and probably isn't too important.

I say Liszt's Hungarian Rhapsody no. 2.
That's nice. I'd use it in a Liszt X Chopin thread.


But being it as it is, I say Beethoven. Mozart pieces are great, but Beethoven's are the ones that stay in my mind the most. Even though I like more Turkish March than Für Elise, most of Beethoven's work is amongst my favorite in classics. His piano works vary from the epic to the subtle and all are fantastic. Besides the Moonlight Sonata, I also like the Pathetique Sonata and the Piano Concert no.5 the most.

I honestly do not have either the skill or the training to be able to tell which piece of music is 'better' than the other one and, as has been noted already, such a distinction may not even be possible.

I will tell you, however, that I prefer to listen to Für Elise in particular and Beethoven in general. Of the famous composers, however, J.S. Bach is my personal favorite. Again, I make no comment on who was 'better', nor to I pretend to have more than a skin-deep understanding of music in general; this is simply a case of 'I like what I like.'

I came across this little site here when looking for some examples of said musical pieces.

Maybe you can find something of interest for you? I know I have. ;)

http://www.musopen.com/

Enjoy!

Both! What? I can't choose both? Crap... I guess I have to say Mozart on this one.

That's not even apples to oranges, that's apples to avocados. Snip of excellent post

This.

I'm almost willing to create puppets to vote Beethoven again and again to underline my preference. Snip of interesting post

I'd agree some of Mozart's output is rather pedestrian, but the same could be said of any 'great' composer. Some days they were a bit off and just went through the motions of writing, without much passion for it. In some ways, I like Mozart for its simplicity, in the same way that I sometimes listen to Coldplay. Would you level the same criticism at Handel for churning out operas and instrumental music? Or Bach with cantatas? I feel that to criticise solely Mozart in this way is a tad unfair.

Generally, my preference for music varies widely by mood and circumstance. A current phase is Renaissance polyphony and 20th century orchestral and choral music.

Chopin pwns them both.

Hey, someone had to say it. :D

Polonaise in A flat major is an excellent piece. Other than that, I must disagree with your statement.

I'm almost willing to create puppets to vote Beethoven again and again to underline my preference. My friend calls this the Canonical Sacrificial Lamb, when you study something long enough there eventually emerges someone in high regard in the canon that you just don't like, for him it's Dickens, for me it's Mozart. This differentiates from 'haters and over-raters' because you acknowledge the persons position in the canon, you just don't like them and it's a position formed on aesthetics, not 'being over-rated.'

For me, it's Mozart. I don't like him because he's a genius. Unqualified, he was a complete master of the Classical (big C, the Classical Era) form. His music is a treatise on Classical theory, completely perfect form. That's boring. It's no mistake that the first composer emulated by a computer was Mozart (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb5037/is_199708/ai_n18287640) (note the article questions whether the computer can actually capture Mozart's genius). His compositions are mathematical and not passionate. The greatest example lies in his own compositions, his Requiem is haunting. When he writes something he cares about, suddenly it's music and not a treatise on music theory. Beethoven broke conventions, Mozart put them in mortar.

Obviously this goes to taste and acknowledges that regardless of my criticism he is a genius, I just differ on the quality of that genius when it applies to music that actually grabs you instead of simply impresses you.

Excellently put! You get not just a cookie, but the whole damned batch. *fires up his Kitchen Aid stand mixer* What? Yeah, I have one. It's Green Apple colored, too. Stop lookin' at me like that!

I prefer Beethoven. There's just something magical about a musical genious who is also deaf. It's like if Da Vinci painted the Mona Lisa blindfolded. It takes a certain amount of skill to play music you can't hear and have it not suck.

Anyone as well-versed in composition before deafness as Beethoven was would have no trouble whatsoever hearing his orchestrations with his "inner" ear. I know people who compose without the benefit of any external instrument (piano, e.g.), because they read well enough to hear it all in their heads. Those fuckers [/envy].

So while composing while going deaf appears to be a triumph over tragedy, it is a very mild one when considering how much musical knowledge and sound memory was inside his head.

Mozart goes through in and out phases with me (right now I'm more into 20th century stuff, but I have a good deal of his music in my iTunes library), but I still don't like a lot of his piano music. It's tough to tell one Mozart sonata from the next, sometimes; and most of them are in the same keys, too (C, F, B flat, D, B flat, F, F, C, ...). On that front I definitely prefer Beethoven; he is probably the benchmark for piano music; but I'm just not all too fond of Für Elise.

Well, it's difficult to be fond of a piece that gets hacked on every time some kid with half a year's piano lessons under their belt sees an open keyboard. When I taught high school, every practice piano had a sign on it that read "if I hear 'Heart and Soul', you owe the Music Department Travel Fund $1.00." Over three years, "Heart and Soul" paid for 1/4 of a bus trip to a music festival ($50).

Before you blame the industry, Billboard isn't making commentary on the quality of music. It's ranking the sales. Which, if we know anything about the Recording Industry, is the measure of success.

And of the three (Hendrix, Johnson, and Paul), Les Paul was the only innovator... but not musically. His innovations were more technology (not to say he didn't contribute musically, but it wasn't anything new). Johnson didn't really have a big hand in creating blues, but he is the voice of the blues that influenced a ton of amazing and innovative artists. (Rolling Stones, anyone? And my personal deity Eric Clapton- well, he doesn't innovate a ton, either...) Well, maybe Hendrix was an innovator. I've heard people say his rendition of "The Star Spangled Banner" was "just noise", but I honestly think he had an amazing ear for dissonance (that just isn't used in rock) and it's amazing. It's very much like psychedelia was thrown in a blender with 20th Century works.

*snip the rest of an very good post*

Yes, Billboard is talking sales, but you must admit that, with regard to the mainstream, sales drive airplay, which gets songs heard, which enters them, however briefly, into the pop music canon. Worth is eventually assigned to them when rankings are submitted that are independent of sales. If that were not the case, songs not deemed "singles" from great albums would rank higher on favorites lists than they do.

Your second paragraph serves to emphasize my point -- you can't compare Hendrix, Paul and Johnson in a superlative fashion because they were all products of their respective times and environments. I mean, Hendrix basically strung up and wired his cock for sound, and played it. The sheer, undeniable force of his sound is affecting, no matter what effect it generates. Hendrix was both innovator and perfector. Paul was a technical innovator and Johnson was a perfector. Charlie Christian, Wes Montgomery, Django Reinhardt, Stevie Ray Vaughan, John Pizzarelli, Eddie Van Halen, Walter Becker, Raul Midon, Stanley Jordan and many more are all great guitarists, but a "best" is impossible to determine objectively, and it's pointless to try.

Beethoven over and over again. To listen to the sonata "Appasionatta" is to know heaven and hell, and all that's in between (be it love, passion, hate, extasis, lust, sadness, contentment). I absolutely love Beethoven.

Generally, my preference for music varies widely by mood and circumstance. A current phase is Renaissance polyphony and 20th century orchestral and choral music.

Given that these are pretty much my specialties, you get the Poliwanacraca Seal of Approval. :D

Given that these are pretty much my specialties, you get the Poliwanacraca Seal of Approval. :D

Ever hear the best of Olivier Messiaen's three choral works, O Sacrum Convivium! ? It is subtly magnificent, I highly recommend it.

Yes, Billboard is talking sales, but you must admit that, with regard to the mainstream, sales drive airplay, which gets songs heard, which enters them, however briefly, into the pop music canon. Worth is eventually assigned to them when rankings are submitted that are independent of sales. If that were not the case, songs not deemed "singles" from great albums would rank higher on favorites lists than they do.

Actually, sales don't drive airplay. Officially, payola has ended, but in practice it's still going on and is actually starting to hurt the record companies a lot. You really can buy your radio play, which will force it in to the consumer's head, and push your sales. And songs are only given "worth" for as long as they sell. I think you're trying to call Billboard the enemy when really it's the structure of an entire flawed industry that you dislike.

Back in the day, we had people involved with music running the industry. Now it's all accountants. The end is very fucking nigh for the current state of the industry according to just about anyone you ask, so just wait a few years. We may get back to merit-based music, and not being able to just sell an image in a poor attempt to pass it off as talent. Then... I think sales may be more of an indicator of quality. (Because it's easy to sell auto-tuned pop poop to teenagers when you can convince them all it's the cool thing to do. When you can't buy every piece of media and feed them the idea that whatever artist is the best thing since sliced bread, they'll actually have to have something that appeals to the masses.)

Yeah, don't get me started talking about music and the industry. :/ The official title to my major is Recording Industry Management, Music Production & Technology, and a chunk of our studies are on business structure and the history of the American (USian?) recording industry.

Generally, my preference for music varies widely by mood and circumstance. A current phase is Renaissance polyphony and 20th century orchestral and choral music.

Babbitt's Philomel ftw! And Schoenberg's Pierrot Lunaire. And Ives' General William Booth Enters Into Heaven. Man, there was a lot of atonal music I didn't like, but some of the operas and choral works were awesome.

Given that these are pretty much my specialties, you get the Poliwanacraca Seal of Approval. :D

:) *Sings joyfully unto Poliwanacraca in beautiful Byrdsong*

Ever hear the best of Olivier Messiaen's three choral works, O Sacrum Convivium! ? It is subtly magnificent, I highly recommend it.

I don't know it, but my uni chorus is doing it in March so may go see it.

I actually had my setting of the Preces & Responses performed this week at evensong, really good to hear it done and we're going to do it again soon hopefully :)

I've always preferred absolute music -- without texts, chorus, singers, or even "plot" -- for some reason; never was all that fond of operas, songs, oratorios, tone poems, and all that other stuff. When you add on my dislike of most nineteenth-century music, and a lot of electronic music; and my general taste for music that is more esoteric or "artsy", that tends to seriously limit what I listen to on a regular basis.

I guess someday I'll get over it, and start writing lyrics for the post-everything band I might possibly found, but just referring to my -own- music library here.

absolute music
Off topic, I really hate this term. I mean, I understand the convenience in being able to differentiate between musical norms that arose during certain periods, but IMO absolute music vs program music is a completely false dichotomy that expresses ignorance of what music actually is.

Off topic, I really hate this term. I mean, I understand the convenience in being able to differentiate between musical norms that arose during certain periods, but IMO absolute music vs program music is a completely false dichotomy that expresses ignorance of what music actually is.

Agreed, however 'absolute' and abstract a piece of music may be, someone will experience something of a 'story' or 'meaning' in it when they listen, and I suspect the composer will have some idea of it as well. Otherwise, would it really be music? ;)

Mozart's music tends to irritate me.

Fur Elise wins, but Mozart is better over all. Don Giovani, Requiem and Symbphony #40 are all superior.

Actually, sales don't drive airplay. Officially, payola has ended, but in practice it's still going on and is actually starting to hurt the record companies a lot. You really can buy your radio play, which will force it in to the consumer's head, and push your sales. And songs are only given "worth" for as long as they sell. I think you're trying to call Billboard the enemy when really it's the structure of an entire flawed industry that you dislike.

Back in the day, we had people involved with music running the industry. Now it's all accountants. The end is very fucking nigh for the current state of the industry according to just about anyone you ask, so just wait a few years. We may get back to merit-based music, and not being able to just sell an image in a poor attempt to pass it off as talent. Then... I think sales may be more of an indicator of quality. (Because it's easy to sell auto-tuned pop poop to teenagers when you can convince them all it's the cool thing to do. When you can't buy every piece of media and feed them the idea that whatever artist is the best thing since sliced bread, they'll actually have to have something that appeals to the masses.)

Yeah, don't get me started talking about music and the industry. :/ The official title to my major is Recording Industry Management, Music Production & Technology, and a chunk of our studies are on business structure and the history of the American (USian?) recording industry.

Well said, and you should know! Thanks for the explanation.

:) *Sings joyfully unto Poliwanacraca in beautiful byrdsong*

William Byrd? A Renaissance fan.

I don't know it, but my uni chorus is doing it in March so may go see it.

I actually had my setting of the Preces & Responses performed this week at evensong, really good to hear it done and we're going to do it again soon hopefully :)

You should definitely go see it. You'll be pleasantly moved by it's simplicity, given the composer.

Isn't having your own works performed just about the greatest feeling? It really is better than most orgasms (most, he said). Congratulations.

Chopin. Chopin all the way. Makes Mozart and Beethoven look like novices.

Beethoven is easier to play so I have to choose him.

Chopin. Chopin all the way. Makes Mozart and Beethoven look like novices.

Really? So, by that logic, Van Cliburn makes Liszt look like a novice.

Look, you can love Chopin all you want -- I think he's far too syrupy -- but that's just it. All composers are largely products of their contemporary aesthetic. They either cleave to it, borrow from the past, or innovate in some way. Regardless, none can be "better" than any other. The only way they MIGHT be able to be compared like that is if you somehow transported all three of them to one era, made them infants in that era and had them all grow up as similarly to how they did in their original eras, and see how they'd compare. Impossible and pointless.

Only arrogant misconception can make any composer of Mozart or Beethoven's stature look like novices.

Rachmaniov 2nd Piano Concerto is the best out of all classical music ever.

(Esp if you've watched Brief Encounter)

Rachmaniov 2nd Piano Concerto is the best out of all classical music ever.

(Esp if you've watched Brief Encounter)

It's nice, but rather overplayed and is often quite mediocre.

Off topic, I really hate this term. I mean, I understand the convenience in being able to differentiate between musical norms that arose during certain periods, but IMO absolute music vs program music is a completely false dichotomy that expresses ignorance of what music actually is.

I never really thought of it that way: I was merely using the term as a generic one for "music without explicit program". And I've not only almost never written anything intended to have a particular story or meaning, but I'd be rather offended if someone did assign meaning to it.


Isn't having your own works performed just about the greatest feeling?
Makes me feel rather uncomfortable, but I have a generally low opinion of myself.

Isn't having your own works performed just about the greatest feeling? It really is better than most orgasms (most, he said). Congratulations.

Thanks, definitely is good to hear things done, even if the group struggles to get it as you wanted it. It is the original aim of composition after all.

I rather prefer Tchaikovsky and Vivaldi when I listen to classical music. I listen more to folk music and bluegrass, though

Of the two choices? Probably Fur Elise. I think Mozart was slightly the better of the two composers, but we'll never know what Mozart would have done with a longer lifespan, or Beethoven with full hearing throughout his lifespan.

If there's one clear black mark against either, it's that Beethoven's vocal music wasn't in the least bit suited to, you know, being sung.

And I'll be able to comment properly on the experience of hearing my music performed after my university choir's concert in about three months (a short acapella SSAA piece, and I may be singing a self-penned duet with another member of the choir too). I am so excited.