Beethoven and Mozart

Two very different people.

Personal thought: Some composers are better engineers. Some are better exhibitors. The best come out of both ends. Hence Beethoven and Mozart.

If you were to choose though, who would fit into each category? Is Beethoven more of the exhibitor or the engineer? Is Mozart more of the exhibitor or the engineer? Or is there more to it? Are they more alike than most people think?

People have had some crazy arguments on this before in a topic of mine. In my opinion, it's a pretty mixed up thing to argue about actually. There is so much defining to do. And if not, there's a lot of inflexibilty in people that usually doesn't go a long way.

I just ask that you take in the information from above and spare the questions until further discussion. Give your opinion no matter if it clashes a bit with the question directly asked. Try to explore. Look at things in a different way.

My typical opinion on this is that Beethoven is more of the engineer. He wasn't as influenced as Mozart was by others' music I believe, though this gave him more room to invent his own musical inspiration. I think most people will agree with me on this (I don't know though). Both were geniuses. Mozart exhibited his work to the people getting back inspiration in the form of praise. Beethoven engineered essentially one long creative process, building up his own inspiration much more slowly, tactfully, and emotionally.

For all I know I could be wrong. :(

I find that many of the terms you use, here and in other threads to be a bit confusing, at least to me. "engineer" and "exhibitor"... Weird terms, both, for a composer.

I will agree, that Mozart did not do so much new stuff as Beethoven did.

I hope that this is what you mean, but that's all from me, for now.

Mozart was every bit as much (arguably) the engineer, but you can't see his workings - in Beethoven the strain and power of the construction are more crudely presented.

If the finale to the Jupiter symphony is not engineering (by your term), then I don't know what is, yet it doesn't sound contrived or mathematical, or obviously "built".

Just one example.

I disagree that Mozart was influenced by others' music.

I think it depends at which works you examine.

There is some Beethoven that is terribly derivitive, and yes, some Mozart as well, but both had their moments of clarity and absolute uniqueness.

The adagio of Mozart' Piano concerto no.23 is a good 50 years ahead of its time, in my opinion. As is Beethoven's 9th.

I don't find these discussions interesting, for the simple fact that I am not a musicologist. I appreciate the construction of the works I examine, and enjoy the inspiration that went into them when listening. As a composer, I dont really think this sort of discussion leads anywhere.

It reminds of the debates on how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

And let's be honest, I also don't think many people on this forum are equipped to do more than give personal opinions on taste as far as the matter is concerned. How many of us ARE musicologists? Only a handful have finished their musical studies and are working in the field, another handful are actively pursuing studies in music, and the rest are not at that point in their development yet.

Besides....writing about music is like dancing about architecture :laugh: (or so some would say :musicwhistle:).

I think Mozart is Mozart and Beethoven is Beethoven.

I think Mozart is Mozart and Beethoven is Beethoven.

+1

You can't say it better than that.

It would help if you define what you mean by "exhibitor" and "engineer".

It would help if you define what you mean by "exhibitor" and "engineer".

That'd make him less mysterious.

Right. I forgot.

The only thing that's preventing one from understanding 'exhibitor' and 'engineer' is that we don't normally describe composers like that... get your head around the meanings and you're alright. (kinda obvious)

Exhibitors compose their music for art and expression, whereas

Engineers are specialists in a combination of maths and physics, so the music is very defined, accurate and precise.

This is either all obvious, or else I'm going even stranger...

Tell me one really successful composer who isn't a nice balance of both, and I'll give you candy (by mail). A good composer uses his or her technical knowledge and craftsmanship to convey the more abstract emotions/expressions/whatever. Someone who lacks one or the other is bound to be forgotten (unlike both Mozart and Beethoven). I guess one could be a little bit more of one than the other, but any name bound to come up here was probably enough in the middle for it to be uncalled for to label them as one or the other.

Tell me one really successful composer who isn't a nice balance of both, and I'll give you candy (by mail). A good composer uses his or her technical knowledge and craftsmanship to convey the more abstract emotions/expressions/whatever. Someone who lacks one or the other is bound to be forgotten (unlike both Mozart and Beethoven). I guess one could be a little bit more of one than the other, but any name bound to come up here was probably enough in the middle for it to be uncalled for to label them as one or the other.

Stravinsky. I like Butterfingers.

Stravinsky.

what exactly are you saying about Strawinski?

just tossing a name out like that means nothing unless you explain it.

Well I guess I'm an idiot then. Excuse me for asking questions.

Hrmm. Well, let's see... as primarily a clarinetist I find that the difference between Mozart and Beethoven is that Mozart is tiresome and Beethoven is tiring.

As a certified musicologist, with a PhD in The Clarinet writing of Mozart from 1780 onwards I feel I should tell you that Mozart's clarinet writing rocks.1

1 The Clarinet writing of Mozart from 1780 onwards, Daniel Barkley, p. 186

what exactly are you saying about Strawinski?

just tossing a name out like that means nothing unless you explain it.

I doubt he'd call himself the most emotional composer.

I doubt he'd call himself the most emotional composer.

and you would be wrong.

Strawinski, like most other composers, saw his works as vehicles for the expression of emotions and ideas.

I also doubt any composer would call HIMSELF "the most emotional composer".

And I think you lack understanding of Strawinski and his music if you believe that he saw himself as an entirely intellectual composer.

Le Sacre du Printemps is a visceral emotional work. Symphony of Psalms is bursting with religous fervor. L'Oiseau de Feu is rife with changes of emotional expression, from fear to wonderment. Chant du Rossignol is full of beautifully expressive music.

I think you are making a statement that is simply not supported by reality, nor knowledge of the repertoire.

Wow QCC, go easy on the guy. He was just making a statement.

I remember reading an Igor biography and there were a couple statements that the guy made along those lines. I think he argued that music itself was not emotional, that it was all in our heads. I can't remember the specifics.

I am bracing myself for impact.

and you would be wrong.

Strawinski, like most other composers, saw his works as vehicles for the expression of emotions and ideas.

I also doubt any composer would call HIMSELF "the most emotional composer".

And I think you lack understanding of Strawinski and his music if you believe that he saw himself as an entirely intellectual composer.

Le Sacre du Printemps is a visceral emotional work. Symphony of Psalms is bursting with religous fervor. L'Oiseau de Feu is rife with changes of emotional expression, from fear to wonderment. Chant du Rossignol is full of beautifully expressive music.

I think you are making a statement that is simply not supported by reality, nor knowledge of the repertoire.

Feisty.

no, not feisty, I'm sorry you read my post with that tone, but it wasn't there,

I was trying to clear up the misconception you appear to have about the oeuvre of Strawinski.

What's with the insistence on spelling his name "Strawinsky"? I've never seen it spelled that way.

Anyway, from what I've read, the guy made a pretty big deal about how his music was made of notes, not emotions.

Wow QCC, go easy on the guy. He was just making a statement.

I remember reading an Igor biography and there were a couple statements that the guy made along those lines. I think he argued that music itself was not emotional, that it was all in our heads. I can't remember the specifics.

I am bracing myself for impact.

I distinctly recall that too. I read somewhere that in his biography, he said something like "Music is incapable of expressing anything...but itself."

People with this idea probably believe the emotion or whatever else was put into the making of the piece, is just attached to it by people who choose to interpret it, the harmony existing separate of anything.

I think it has to do with a big mixup with french spellings of russian names. Stravinsky is supposed to be Strawinsky. There are others... I believe Tchaikovsky is actually supposed to be spelled with a CH at the beginning instead of a Tch.

Hrmm. Well, let's see... as primarily a clarinetist I find that the difference between Mozart and Beethoven is that Mozart is tiresome and Beethoven is tiring.

I am not a clarinetist, yet I couldn't agree with you more. :toothygrin: