Classical Music Forum banner

Beethoven, or Mozart?

  • Beethoven

    Votes: 87 66.9%
  • Mozart

    Votes: 43 33.1%

Mozart versus Beethoven

22K views 303 replies 61 participants last post by  georgedelorean 
#1 ·
The Bonn Bruiser versus Kid Wolfie. One has the scars of many battles, the other has the finesse and the quick moves. Who wins? You call it, round by round if you can.
 
#142 ·
Wow, what a debate. I'll say this. I am anxiously awaiting the arrival of the new complete set of Mozart's music: Mozart 225. I adore Mozart. How can any music lover not adore Mozart? His gifts were supernatural.

But, I voted for Beethoven. I don't think that I can express this adequately. A composer brings his talent to the table, but he also brings himself. His temperament, his struggles, his grief, his humanity. His soul? I don't know. But I do know that, for me, Beethoven's greatest music transcends everything that I have ever heard. A friend of mine once said that Mozart wrote the greatest music, but Beethoven's greatest music transcends music.

I am thankful for both, but Beethoven has helped me through many difficult years of my life. So I voted for Ludwig. But I can't wait to get my new Mozart collection! And, ironically, a complete Beethoven collection wouldn't be as enticing to me.

The real question should be, where do Mozart or Beethoven stand in relation to Bach.
 
#143 ·
Wow, what a debate. I'll say this. I am anxiously awaiting the arrival of the new complete set of Mozart's music: Mozart 225. I adore Mozart. How can any music lover not adore Mozart? His gifts were supernatural.

But, I voted for Beethoven. I don't think that I can express this adequately. A composer brings his talent to the table, but he also brings himself. His temperament, his struggles, his grief, his humanity. His soul? I don't know. But I do know that, for me, Beethoven's greatest music transcends everything that I have ever heard. A friend of mine once said that Mozart wrote the greatest music, but Beethoven's greatest music transcends music.

I am thankful for both, but Beethoven has helped me through many difficult years of my life. So I voted for Ludwig. But I can't wait to get my new Mozart collection! And, ironically, a complete Beethoven collection wouldn't be as enticing to me.

The real question should be, where do Mozart or Beethoven stand in relation to Bach.
That view is not uncommon - many who place Beethoven greater than Mozart prefer to listen to Mozart.
 
#150 ·
Being more inclined to the romantic, i have to go with beethoven. Mozarts music is a product sheer talent(not suggesting beethoven isnt talented, merely the seeming driving force of their works) and immaculate inspiration, honey poured on grace and elegance.

Ludwig's is born trough strugle, determination and a personality equal to the forces of nature. A wonderful mind, whos need for expression and sharing his thoughts was more met trough music, than trough socializing, the poor lonely man. He gave rise to the personal nature of music, which has become my comfort, trough countless ups and downs. Hes been my shadow and inspiration trough so long, as even long before i surrendered to classical, he was a stable.

Now, a mozart born a few decades later and allowed to grow old, a mozart who could have taken his time, a mozart who hadnt needed to placate the aristocracy doing the expected, and create symphonies in days. A freed man... to that Mozart i would have built a shrine of worship.
 
#151 ·
Being more inclined to the romantic, i have to go with beethoven. Mozarts music is a product sheer talent(not suggesting beethoven isnt talented, merely the seeming driving force of their works) and immaculate inspiration, honey poured on grace and elegance.

Ludwig's is born trough strugle, determination and a personality equal to the forces of nature. A wonderful mind, whos need for expression and sharing his thoughts was more met trough music, than trough socializing, the poor lonely man. He gave rise to the personal nature of music, which has become my comfort, trough countless ups and downs. Hes been my shadow and inspiration trough so long, as even long before i surrendered to classical, he was a stable.

Now, a mozart born a few decades later and allowed to grow old, a mozart who could have taken his time, a mozart who hadnt needed to placate the aristocracy doing the expected, and create symphonies in days. A freed man... to that Mozart i would have built a shrine of worship.
This just shows how little you know Mozart's music. There were times when he had to keep his music within the framework of what was acceptable - but there are many works the Viennese could not accept because they were too new, challenging, intense - the opening of the dissonance quartet is just one example but there are many more. He was way ahead of his times and it was not until Beethoven's 3rd symphony that we find anything so progressive.
 
#153 ·
However i would still have prefered a mozart a few decades later, who could have taken more time(I mean, over 40 symphonies is insane, magnificent as they are), in an age where forms had been more freed of shackles.
Forms were in a state of evolution in Mozart's age, as they were in the Romantic era. I don't think there was really more or less freedom in this area in either era, there was a constant state of development right through both eras. Beethoven showed new and exciting things one could do with form, and by the 20th century other new things were being done and many of the best composers of the time were working with older (pre-Beethoven) forms again.

If you prefer the forms Beethoven was using that is fine, but this 'freed of shackles' talk I think is nonsense. Arguably Beethoven's only real strong point in composition was form, and he was doing new things with it, just as other composers that were innovative with form have done since the beginning of music (like them his methods were different in some ways, yet he was still building on the past).

I think looking at how many great artists have been ahead of their time, (or under appreciated in their time) the fact that 'music was elevated to a higher place among the arts' around the time of Beethoven really just shows that the public was catching up. I do not believe it shows that there was not significant artistic depth in music before Beethoven, or that he was somehow more significant. The fact that Bach and Mozart were not more widely recognized as the geniuses they are now seen to be in their time was obviously no fault of their own, and none of this can be shown to point to any short comings in their music.

Further the course music has gone since Beethoven (with in large part a return to older forms and/or more concise forms being used more consistently in current music than Beethoven's Sonata form) shows that Beethoven was a product of his time and that his innovations did not represent some 'true path' that all music followed after him.
 
#155 ·
Arguably Beethoven's only real strong point in composition was form, and he was doing new things with it, just as other composers that were innovative with form have done since the beginning of music (like them his methods were different in some ways, yet he was still building on the past).
Anything is arguable, including that which is false. You're missing at least two things here. 1.) "Form" in music means all of its internal relationships, small and large. That is not something properly designated by the phrase "the only thing." It is in truth a great many things, and it is certainly a great many things in Beethoven, things no one had ever imagined doing. 2.) Beethoven's contribution is not "only" a matter of form, but of the breadth and weight of his expressive ambitions. In the symphony alone the variety and intensity of his vision far outstrips anything done before. From his earliest work to his last, he is not only seeking but finding new things to say and new ways to say them.

Really, is any of this news? I'm surprised to see yet again the statement that Beethoven's only significant achievement is "form," with the term used in a way that seems unaware of its ramifications. In a real sense, art is nothing but form - "significant form," in the words of Clive Bell - and Beethoven was a master of everything that implies. It is what, above all else, defines a great artist.
 
#158 ·
Although I do love much of Mozart's work; the answer is Beethoven without any question. Beethoven is flawless; every composition of his is absolutely incredible. His greatest works (in my personal opinion- Symphonies 9 and 3, Piano Concertos 3, 4, and 5, Piano Sonatas 21, 23, 29 and 32, Missa Solemnis, and the Op. 133 fugue); every one of those pieces of music is an unbelievable achievement beyond what English is capable of describing... The fact that he composed them ALL in addition to countless other outstanding works of music is beyond astonishing.
 
#161 ·
Although I do love much of Mozart's work; the answer is Beethoven without any question. Beethoven is flawless; every composition of his is absolutely incredible. His greatest works (in my personal opinion- Symphonies 9 and 3, Piano Concertos 3, 4, and 5, Piano Sonatas 21, 23, 29 and 32, Missa Solemnis, and the Op. 133 fugue); every one of those pieces of music is an unbelievable achievement beyond what English is capable of describing... The fact that he composed them ALL in addition to countless other outstanding works of music is beyond astonishing.
That is not true - prior to his grounbreaking eroica symphony most of his works are less than great and some are ordinary. Even after his eroica not all of his compositions match his highest level. Mozart was also patchy at times.
 
#166 ·
Form in music is the relationship of sounds in time. That includes all sounds contained in the work. I'm only concerned that the physical aspect of form not be divorced from its expressive value, and particularly with respect to Beethoven. It's possible to write music according to conventional formal principles or templates. 18th-century music is full of works like that, works which content themselves with introducing minor variations into established models. It is not to diminish the originality or inspiration of Beethoven's predecessors to recognize the revolutionary nature of his thought. Even a cursory traversal of his piano sonatas reveals a bewildering variety of ideas, a need constantly to find new ways of expressing new things. It is indeed innovation in "forms" that we see, but the underlying innovation is in the conception of musical expression - personal, specific and untrammeled - which requires such forms.

That's about as plain as I can make it.
 
#171 ·
It's amusing to take note of which arguments seem to bubble up frequently on these forums. Not commenting on this particular debate, which actually seems to straddle 2 common debates, just noting it. Some arguments I could have guessed would incite debate, others somewhat surprise me.

For instance, the Wagner as okay but kind of mean guy vs. Wagner as helldemon incarnate was predictable. The first thing I remember knowing about Wagner was that the Nazis liked him and I would imagine that's common among Westerners.

The "Beethoven-as-poseur" is one I wouldn't have predicted. Nor is the "Mozart: top 2 or top 1?" debate. But I guess being on the top of the heap is just begging for rocks to be hurled at you. I only wonder why Bach isn't on the receiving end of as many rocks here as elsewhere I browse. Throw some rocks at the fat guy, you know it's more fun!
 
#174 ·
It's amusing to take note of which arguments seem to bubble up frequently on these forums. Not commenting on this particular debate, which actually seems to straddle 2 common debates, just noting it. Some arguments I could have guessed would incite debate, others somewhat surprise me.

For instance, the Wagner as okay but kind of mean guy vs. Wagner as helldemon incarnate was predictable. The first thing I remember knowing about Wagner was that the Nazis liked him and I would imagine that's common among Westerners.

The "Beethoven-as-poseur" is one I wouldn't have predicted. Nor is the "Mozart: top 2 or top 1?" debate. But I guess being on the top of the heap is just begging for rocks to be hurled at you. I only wonder why Bach isn't on the receiving end of as many rocks here as elsewhere I browse. Throw some rocks at the fat guy, you know it's more fun!
Probably because he is undisputed king of the baroque era. As for mozart and Beet - close to each other in many ways and it was assumed until the last 50 years or so that Beet has not been surpassed - and the only other composer apart from bach who realistically equals or surpasses him is mozart.
 
#188 ·
Mozart.

To paraphrase Einstein, there is an unmatched purity and beauty to Mozart's music. I also generally prefer Mozart's "sound": In particular, I far prefer Mozart's late symphonies to any of Beethoven's (though when it comes to Violin Concerto, Beethoven gets the nod), but I would also add this: Without Mozart, there would have been no Beethoven. Without Beethoven, there would still have been Mozart.

I still admire Beethoven (who doesn't...?), but Mozart must get the vote.
 
#196 ·
That's only natural: Mozart had the good grace not to hang around as a continual challenge and moving target the way Haydn did. Much easier to love the safely dead. Beethoven felt obliged to vie with both … until his work matured.
 
#208 ·
I find Mozart's music over all more expressive than Haydn's. Not to diminish Haydn's extraordinary achievements but I feel Mozart was just more adept at expressing the range of emotions, from darkness to joy.

The fact he was less directly influential on Beethoven to me does not diminish his achievements one iota.

Beethoven while certainly not being completely a populist composer, was closer to one than Mozart and I think Beethoven identified more with populist composers like Handel and Haydn.
 
#209 ·
I think sometimes certain composers (ie. J.S. Bach and Mozart) essentially perfect a style therefore are not directly influential to composers in their era very much simply because no one can come close to duplicating what they did. Therefore the only choice the next generation of composers have is to go in a different direction and build on something they can work with.
 
#215 ·
The way I used the term meant a composer who is in touch with the tastes of the common person and goes in that general direction with their music. I acknowledge that virtually all composers want some amount of popularity or recognition for their work, but I think that some composers more than others just have a natural form of expression and the music is what it is.

This being said I want to point out that I prefer Mozart so I admit my comments are sometimes biased in that way (just as yours can be biased towards Beethoven). I don't think my views here are necessarily objective truths. I think there is a grain of truth in what I'm saying but it is more representative of some of my recent thoughts that I put forward for discussion.
 
#216 · (Edited)
Interesting discussion about Mozart and Beethoven as “populists.” Both were, in large degree, freelancers, which meant that they had to sell music to the public to live.

Mozart, by his own evidence, tried to write music that would please the unwashed masses and connoisseurs as well. Kind of like the auto shop that specializes in domestic and imported cars! I’m not sure how you get much more “populist” than that.

Beethoven lived largely by sheet music sales, especially after his performing career ended. He wrote, like Mozart, for both segments of the public, though sometimes more for one than the other. In addition, he developed a market of “new music specialists” who happily paid for his scores for study purposes. He even commercialized this with sales of what he called “subscriptions,” which generated much of the income from his later works.

Both composers were populists in my view, though of different and refined types. But neither ever wrote down to the audience. Well, hardly ever!
 
#221 ·
Interesting discussion about Mozart and Beethoven as "populists." Both were, in large degree, freelancers, which meant that they had to sell music to the public to live.

Mozart, by his own evidence, tried to write music that would please the unwashed masses and connoisseurs as well. Kind of like the auto shop that specializes in domestic and imported cars! I'm not sure how you get much more "populist" than that.

Beethoven lived largely by sheet music sales, especially after his performing career ended. He wrote, like Mozart, for both segments of the public, though sometimes more for one than the other. In addition, he developed a market of "new music specialists" who happily paid for his scores for study purposes. He even commercialized this with sales of what he called "subscriptions," which generated much of the income from his later works.

Both composers were populists in my view, though of different and refined types. But neither ever wrote down to the audience. Well, hardly ever!
Of course both Mozart and Beethven wrote 'populist' music. They had to eat! I think LvB's greatest money spinner was Wellington's Victory. And of course Mzart wrote his endless serenades and divertimentoes - not staggering works of genius but worth listening to as written by a genius. This idea of an artist working for nothing but artistic merit is actually a bit of a romantic gloss on their lives. They were flesh and blood.
 
#217 ·
Mozart, as I recall, did describe his work (proudly) as having qualities that people of varying levels of musical sophistication could appreciate. I don't remember Beethoven saying anything like that, although he may have. It seems obvious to me that in his late work, at least, he wasn't much concerned with who his music might appeal to.

The word "populist" curdles in my brain. It has at least overtones of classism: snobbery - or, on the other hand, reverse snobbery. It comes from politics (doesn't it?), where what it's currently used to represent should curdle in anyone's brain.
 
#224 ·
I didn't realize TC was such a mainstream, follow the leader, conservative place, given the current breakdown.

I simply assumed classical music lovers who are passionate about their music wouldn't automatically rubber stamp "Beethoven" for everything.

Disappointed there isn't more thinking outside the Bachs.
 
#237 ·
There is no doubt that if Mozart continued into the 19th century, the history of the symphony and Beethoven's would have changed. This is how great composers shape history.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top