A composer's "sound"

[Michael]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ~Leslie:<BR>[B]Micheal, Did he really say that?? I am flabberghasted!! Does this imply what I think it does?? String popping, intonation, tonal quality, steel vs wood construction, <BR>you know the drill.............<P>]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>He said it alright, Leslie, but I can't remember where I came across it. It's one of those quotes that stayed in my mind. And he did give up writing for the piano towards the very end.<BR>I'm half-afraid to mention this, but would he have said the same about the modern piano?<BR>As you know, there is an endless debate going on about that elsewhere.<P>M.<P>

[Peter]

Beethoven said of the piano: "It is a most unsatisfactory instrument, & it will always be." I think he was referring to the lack of possible "bend" in the notes, unlike with, say, a violin. I`m sure Rod would be quick to point out the second part of the quotation!<P>Re: perfect pitch. I think we`re on different wavelengths here. It is not necessary for a composer to have pp (just as it`s not necessary for him to have hearing!!). Composers are certainly more aware of the accuracy of tuning or harmonics - it goes with the territory, but it is not a crucial attribute. Hence, as you say Michael, when piano joins orchestra or a chamber combination, wonderful music-making still occurs - even though, if you take a string quartet for example, the strings are nearly always out with one another towards the end of a movement; We know this because inbetween movements, the musicians re-tune (edited on recordings). As I understand it, it was Mozart among the great composers who had the most accurate ear - he could differentiate between fractions of a semitone. But he did not have PERFECT pitch.<P>Rather than instrumentalists, it is singers who need superior detection, because where a pianist only has to play a note for that note to sound, a singer must FIND the note from within. Confidence is a factor in this, too. <P>

[~Leslie]

Yes, perfect pitch is a nuisance, so I'm told. Relative is fine, thank you.<P>No bending notes?? AH HA!!!!Then I take it he WOULD have enjoyed the various instruments of today, not necessarily JUST a Steinway. ~

[Peter]

Leslie, you`re as tenacious as a dog with a bone on this subject! If the BIG question is, "What would Beethoven (c. 1800) think of modern musical technology?", then I think he would be intrigued by it, but I don`t think he`d be drawn to it as a vehicle for composition - his music is too pure & uncluttered, & too based on his solid classical training. I can hear you tutting but, to me, a Beethoven Synthesizer Symphony is something I feel relieved at never having to hear. Conversely, I believe he would have loved modern developments to the piano, especially in the power department. I also believe (please don`t stone me) that he would have been tolerant of pop music. He was all for young people enjoying themselves, & since he would never have considered pop as proper music anyway, he could not have made a connection between it & classical ("real") music. I do think, though, that he`d detest the current overrall state of the world; but then so would anyone suddenly being catapulted 200 years into the future. <P>

[~Leslie]

Honestly, I can't help myself here, I apologize profusely, but this is an important avenue for me. Dismiss it if you will,say the words "Beethoven unplugged" if you will, but he was one of the first virtuous composers that liked to get a little "chaotic" at times. Seems to me Kubrick's Clockwork had a synth rendition of the ninth, but hey, alot of time and technology has past , and much has been improved since then. ~

[Peter]

Just to add that I also think that Beethoven would have been tickled pink to hear modern interpretations of his music on whatever instruments, eg. that quirky disco fodder, A Fifth of Beethoven (The Walter Murphy Band), a US no.1 hit in 1976.

[Michael]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Peter:<BR><B>Just to add that I also think that Beethoven would have been tickled pink to hear modern interpretations of his music on whatever instruments, eg. that quirky disco fodder, A Fifth of Beethoven (The Walter Murphy Band), a US no.1 hit in 1976.</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I've just been given a loan of the "Saturday Night Fever" soundtrack and have quite enjoyed the Walter Murphy track. I would be obliged if you would keep this a secret or my reputation might suffer.<P>Michael<P>

[Peter]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael:<BR><B> I've just been given a loan of the "Saturday Night Fever" soundtrack and have quite enjoyed the Walter Murphy track. I would be obliged if you would keep this a secret or my reputation might suffer.<BR>Michael<BR></B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>What reputation`s that then, Michael? <P>Seriously, though, now that you`ve discovered 70`s disco, who knows what you`ll think when you come across the hula hoop & mini-skirt (groovy, fab, gear)!

[~Leslie]

Groovy fab gear must mean drum loops & sequencers (Insert emoticon for rolley eyeballs here)<P>~<P>

[Peter]

Not quite, Les. In this case, "gear" refers to the quaint 60's Liverpudlian expression meaning "great". Can you dig it, Baby? <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ~Leslie:<BR><B>Groovy fab gear must mean drum loops & sequencers (Insert emoticon for rolley eyeballs here)<P>~<P></B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[denison rosario]

the form of tying note for note, the chosen emblems and the modulations in certain moments and not in other, besides the form that is works the variations on a certain theme, the instruments used in the orchestration and as they are used; these elements are very private and each composer has its form of creating in these parameters

[Luegwig]

What Beethoven said about the piano is interesting, especially considering that he was a piano virtuoso. His piano music is my favorite genre, if you can call it that. I remember complaining that the 9th was perfect except that it didn't have a piano, and then I found his Choral Fantasy in C minor which starts with the piano, then incorporates and orchestra and finally a choir. It became a quick favorite. Wonderful stuff. I have a sudden urge to put it on! <P>As to the original subject, it's obvious to me that each composer is distinctive. I can pick out Vivaldi absolutely 100% of the time. Beethoven 99%, Mozart and Haydn the same. I can tell Haydn and Mozart apart if I'm confused by how mediocre it sounds. If it's unmoving, it's Haydn. If I like it, it's Mozart. <BR>

[treebeau]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Luegwig:<BR><B><BR>As to the original subject, it's obvious to me that each composer is distinctive. I can pick out Vivaldi absolutely 100% of the time. Beethoven 99%, Mozart and Haydn the same. I can tell Haydn and Mozart apart if I'm confused by how mediocre it sounds. If it's unmoving, it's Haydn. If I like it, it's Mozart. </B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Thanks for resurrecting this post. Very interesting.<P>I used to have a friend with whom I would listen to CM on the radio at lunchtime. If the radio were turned on in the middle of a piece we would guess the composer. Between us I would say we were correct 99% of the time. I could guess many of the most well known composers and he could guess those and several that are not as well known.<P>If one listens to enough CM the ability to do this increases.<P>My point ? None.<P>But...can anyone recognize Hindemith (ugh !) In my house one would hear a bit of Hindemith immediately followed by the click of the radio being turned off.<P>Regards,<BR>Tim B.<BR>

[Luegwig]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><BR>But...can anyone recognize Hindemith (ugh !) In my house one would hear a bit of Hindemith immediately followed by the click of the radio being turned off.<BR><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>LOL <P>Same here. I tried to get all the way through something of his for either Music Appreciation or Music History in college and just figured the points on the test wasn't worth it. I think I managed to pick him out through process of elimination. <P>Not that there's anything wrong with that!<P>-Bill

[Peter]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Luegwig:<BR><B>What Beethoven said about the piano is interesting, especially considering that he was a piano virtuoso. His piano music is my favorite genre, if you can call it that. I remember complaining that the 9th was perfect except that it didn't have a piano, and then I found his Choral Fantasy in C minor which starts with the piano, then incorporates and orchestra and finally a choir. It became a quick favorite. Wonderful stuff. I have a sudden urge to put it on! <BR>As to the original subject, it's obvious to me that each composer is distinctive. I can pick out Vivaldi absolutely 100% of the time. Beethoven 99%, Mozart and Haydn the same. I can tell Haydn and Mozart apart if I'm confused by how mediocre it sounds. If it's unmoving, it's Haydn. If I like it, it's Mozart. </B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I take it, Luegwig, that you hear the obvious similarities between the 9th Symphony & the underrated Choral Fantasia? I think you are being slightly unfair towards Haydn. And Mozart!

[EJA_2]

It is a family pasttime to listen to CM and try to guess the composer.<P>In support of the Texan -- and I know it's a terrible thing to admit -- I announced to my family around Christmas last year that I didn't like Mozart all that much. In response, my mother gave me two disks of Mozart for Christmas. She <I>is</I> a card! The one Mozart piece I do really like is his 40th symphony. A couple weeks ago I was listening to it in my new (to me) pickup. I stopped behind some other cars waiting for pedestrians in a crosswalk. My reverie was interrupted by the tremendous impact of an un-insured motorist rear-ending me. No one was hurt, and my insurance covers un-insured motorists, so I am only out the deductible, but Mozart's 40th sure does strike me differently now! Oh yes, the Queen of the Night Aria is right up there on my list of favorites too, but most other Mozart doesn't really do much for me. <P>Now Hadyn's music strikes me as industrial Classical music. It's very functional, but very mechanical, and not hugely inspired. Great background music, but it doesn't elicit much emotion in me. <P>As a disclaimer, these are just my opinions and tastes, and I have no intention of insulting anyone. <P> -- EJA

[Luegwig]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><BR>I take it, Luegwig, that you hear the obvious similarities between the 9th Symphony & the underrated Choral Fantasia? I think you are being slightly unfair towards Haydn. And Mozart!<BR><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Peter,<P>I like the 9th and the Choral Fantasy for their own individual qualities. I recognize the soul of Beethoven in both.<P>As to being unfair to Haydn and Mozart, I was merely making a point as to who I thought was better than the other. I can like one better than the other. Who said the world was fair? <P>If your point is that they are distinct and I wasn't paying homage to this, then you misunderstood or I wasn't clear. Take your pick. <P>Regards,<BR>Bill

[Luegwig]

EJA,<P>You are right on--pretty much. I think I like Mozart better than you do. I don't care for too many of his symphonies. Try out Symphony No. 22. It's the one at the beginning of Amadeus. And of course, 40 is wonderful.<P>I found a CD called Mozart for the Millenium that I have been listening to over and over. It's mainly soprano arias from his vocal works, including masses. Hmm. Queen of the Night isn't on there.<P>I love his opera than any other composer's. <P>But I feel exactly the way you do about Haydn. He was the servant of a king. It was just his job to compose it would seem. So was Mozart and many others, but their hearts seemed to be in it more.<p>[This message has been edited by Luegwig (edited 03-28-2001).]

[serge urtizberea]

There is certainly a distinct feel that Mozart is a, forgive me, 'lesser' composer than Beethoven. That epiphany struck me as soon as I discovered B. many years ago. I cannot defend Mozart when I'm awestruck by Ludwig. Oh dear, I'm in for it now!

[BenG]

I don't think the word 'lesser' would ever be a word I would assign to Mozart, but I understand what you mean. Obviously they were both the brightest of geniuses, but I would also have to give a slight edge to Ludwig. His work is more uniformly great.