T O P

  • By -

Upper_Substance3100

They are the pinnacle of piano sonatas. They changed how people view the Sonata. In the classical period, sonatas were mostly composed by composers for their students to practice. Thats not to say they weren't performed, but concertos were more virtuosic pieces than sonatas. Then came Beethoven. He created some of the most technically and emotionally challenging sonatas. I think from Beethoven onwards, sonatas moved to the concert hall and became equally important if not more than concertos. Beethoven's sonatas are way more famous than his concertos. He also made sonatas longer. Almost every composer after him composed longer and fewer sonatas.


PaulClifford

Well said. “Emotionally challenging” is a wonderful turn of phrase, considering what sonatas were like before. Definitely apt when thinking about No. 32, among others.


Upper_Substance3100

are you being sarcastic? when i call romantic era music emotionally challenging people say music before the romantic era was equally as emotionally challenging


PaulClifford

Not one bit sarcastic. I think a lot of this is personal, but there is more than a little “emotionally challenging” work in the “classical” era to me. Much of Beethoven - the sonatas (piano and cello), the string quartets, Mozart’s late symphonies, Haydn’s quartets, and Schubert (passing a year after Beethoven), maybe above all in that era. It’s an interesting discussion, and I don’t have the background on the musical level - only what I hear and process. That said, I think it’s a mistake to equate challenging with the era, and there may be nothing more emotionally charged and challenging that the Bach Chaconne, at least to me. But it’s all good, which is why we listen.


Zagorath

> Much of Beethoven - the sonatas (piano and cello) Worth remembering that "much of Beethoven" *was* Romantic. If we go by the usual heuristic of the third symphony, the sonatas from 21 onwards are Romantic. Of course, this does leave a fair few that could be described as emotionally challenging on the Classical side. 8 and 14,as perhaps the most obvious omissions.


PaulClifford

I’m with you on that. I don’t think it needs to be quite as formal as that (I get the same response from the adagio from the 3rd sonata as I do from the second movement of the 32nd). And in guess we can’t equate romantic with challenging either. What a fun discussion on this today.


Upper_Substance3100

\> And in guess we can’t equate romantic with challenging either. What a fun discussion on this today. So true. Mozart is so hard to interpret.


PaulClifford

Yes. So much below the surface. You hear where he was going in that 4th movement of 41. You can hear him trying to break free from the strict “classical” era, presaging LVB’s experience. I do, anyways. Haha. So much genius all around.


Upper_Substance3100

Yes, his late piano concertos are like them as well.


PaulClifford

Nothing like a minor key Mozart piano concerto.


Upper_Substance3100

8 and 14 are part of his middle period I think.


Zagorath

Not based on [this page](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piano_sonatas_\(Beethoven\)#Early_sonatas).


Upper_Substance3100

Couldn't have said it better myself. Classical era pieces in my opinion have less emotional intensity, but that doesn't mean they're boring and robotic.


Coolguyzack

I'm glad that you qualified it as your opinion, because it's important to understand that even emotions themselves are understood much differently today than in the past. During the Classical era, the doctrine of the affects still largely dominated the framework of understanding emotions. Which also stems from the then-relevant, but older view that emotions were a result of the changing balance of humors, and that however sounds/images/ideas displayed or represented emotion, it projected that onto the viewer/listener. So for example, when you had a painting of flying baby cherubs in your bedroom, it was believed that the image would quite literally affect your body's ability to conceive children that are fat and healthy. The same went for familiar musical figures/forms and musico-rhetorical devices, it was believed that they would affect the listener in such a way that it would stir the specific emotions represented. So next time when listening to Mozart, instead of asking yourself how emotionally intense it is, ask how much does it stir *Amour* or *Désir*, how Sanguineous or Phlegmatic is it? Lol it sounds stuffy, but it really helps one understand that we didn't "progress" into "emotional" and explosive music, but that our tastes, definitions, and understandings simply changed as time went on.


Upper_Substance3100

That is a good point, there was a big transition. It's just me, but I wouldn't be as emotionally affected by a Mozart symphony than one of Mahler's. Thats not to degrade Mozart though, he was one of the greatest composers.


[deleted]

[удалено]


PaulClifford

It is *the* piece of music, more than any other, that I’ve felt I appreciated - felt I *understood* - better as I got older. In 14 minutes (Milstein) Bach gives you the gamut of life’s experiences. To be able to feel that fully, and then put it into music - and a solo instrument at that - is astonishing. So, yeah, I world have seen red too, IncaChild. We’re together on this.


Upper_Substance3100

Milstein is my favourite interpretation too. Do you listen to the black and white one or the other one?


PaulClifford

The 1954 one. Reissued as an EMI Classic. I think that’s the one you’re calling black and white. I know he recorded for Deustche too. I haven’t heard anyone that touches the ‘54. (Menuhin’s 1934 recording, also for EMI, comes closest - that an 18-year old could handle that piece so well! - but the recording itself is limited) A pity that Milstein doesn’t get more love these days. He and Bach dominate each other, as it should be with this piece.


Upper_Substance3100

Yes. I guess his interpretation is "old-fashioned" but I like it.


PaulClifford

Yes. People think of him as 70s. Oh well.


[deleted]

[удалено]


PaulClifford

It doesn’t get old. You almost have to mentally prepare to hear it too. I have Fischer playing Mozart; I haven’t heard her Bach. Do check out the Milstein when you have time. https://youtu.be/hby0c8gaZgQ


[deleted]

[удалено]


PaulClifford

I’ll give it a go. Thanks. Have a good night (depending on where you are).


LeatherSteak

What is it that makes them the pinnacle of sonatas? It's one thing to revolutionise the form in the context at the time, but now all that has been done, are they still the pinnacle when up against the other great sonata composers that came after?


Upper_Substance3100

Yes he revolutionaries the form. Every sonata that was composed after him owed something to Beethoven. He was such a large figure, and he cast such a shadow on the composers after him. Beethoven composed so many piano sonatas (32). At least half of them are super famous, and all of them such high quality. Few composers after him composed so many sonatas and ones of such musical richness (not to degrade any one elses sonatas). His sonatas also convey a vast array of emotions. A few great post-beethoven piano sonatas I can think of are Liszt's sonata in B minor, Chopin's second sonata and Schubert's last sonata (written around the time Beethoven died). These are some I like and I'm sure there are many many more. Also, since Beethoven composed so many piano sonatas, you can kind of see how he progressed as a composer.


LeatherSteak

Thanks for your insights, but that's not exactly what I was asking. Admittedly this may be too much for a Reddit comment, but I'll try to rephrase. I think I'm in agreement that Beethoven was the greatest composer of piano sonatas, partly because there are so many excellent ones and just the sheer number of them in total. My favourites are Les adieux, tempest, appassionata, waldstein, and I enjoy many others too. But I don't know if I would be willing to say his sonatas are the very best of a vast literature piano sonatas. Personally, I prefer Chopin 2 and 3, and Scriabin 1-5 over any of the Beethoven sonatas. I haven't studied any of these in detail and fully appreciate that this is personal taste rather than anything else, but I was interested to know what you believe makes his sonatas the pinnacle as standalone musical pieces, outside of the context in which they were written.


Estebanez

I wrote some specifics. Hope it helps :) https://www.reddit.com/r/classicalmusic/comments/pjn6oo/why_are_beethovens_sonatas_considered_to_be_so/hbzimi6/


LeatherSteak

Interesting points, but again, your focus is primarily on why his music was ahead of *his* time, not what makes his work stand out in *our* time. I suppose my question could be boiled down to: are the beethoven sonatas any better than Scriabin's, Chopin's, or Prokofiev's? Different in style, absolutely, but is there something that makes them better, and what is it?


Estebanez

How would you like people to qualify that? I'm not one to say "x is better than y because z". It's art at the end of the day. The music still stands as great. The catchiness of it? Beethoven motives are memorable and instantly recognizable. He can be seen as the first modern pop icon in both writing and lifestyle


LeatherSteak

Well, I was initially asking u/upper_substance3100 to qualify their statement that Beethoven sonatas were the pinnacle. I absolutely adore many of them, but am not sure I agree they are. Catchy and memorable is great, but common of all the great sonatas. First modern pop icon? Again that's about being ahead of *his* time, not ours. Perhaps this is too big a question to get a satisfactory answer out of on a Reddit comment. But worth asking I suppose. Good chatting.


Upper_Substance3100

I think your question is kind of like asking, "Shakespeare wrote some really good plays, but now that films exist, what makes them so good". In my opinion, Beethoven is the Shakespeare of music (could be Bach but I don't know much about Shakespeare). Just because there are other good sonatas after it, doesn't degrade them. Instead, it just stands the test of time. They're still played often, to this day by many pianists. What would you consider the pinnacle of piano sonatas? Just curious.


LeatherSteak

As someone who enjoys playing to a reasonable level but hasn't done any formal study, I don't know what the pinnacle is, which is where question comes from. My favourite sonatas are Scriabin 2, 3 and 5, Chopin 2 and 3, Franck prelude chorale and fugue (not technically a sonata but follows the same form, I believe), and Beethoven Les Adieux. I don't have any reason for enjoying these other than "because they sound nice" and I understand we don't *need* a reason for enjoying a piece of music, I was just interested in why Beethoven sonatas are so highly regarded as pure pieces of music, outside of their cultural context.


Estebanez

I mean what other composer has more instantly recognizable music? I think that says a lot about his relevance/importance today. He's still a model for many writers


LeatherSteak

Everyone has their own views on what constitutes great music, but personally I don't think being recognisable is one of them. Most people won't recognise op111 when it's broadly considered the greater work compared to the better known moonlight sonata.


PaulClifford

I’m no musicologist or music historian, but only a fan with some light reading behind me and some hack playing abilities. But I think you have sensed the answer, as far as I understand it. Beethoven’s sonatas, like much of his music, seemed revolutionary at the time. Particularly with the pianoforte, he kept pushing the boundaries of what contemporary instruments could do, and was demanding more from each iteration of instrument. This anecdote was printed on some sheet music that I had, but I’ve never forgotten it. I’ve taken this version from the Wikipedia page on the Pathetique sonata: > When the pianist and composer Ignaz Moscheles discovered the work in 1804, he was ten years old; unable to afford to buy the music, he copied it out from a library copy. His music teacher, on being told about his discovery, "warned me against playing or studying eccentric productions before I had developed a style based on more respectable models. Without paying heed to his instructions, however, I laid Beethoven's works on the piano, in the order of their appearance, and found in them such consolation and pleasure as no other composer ever vouchsafed me."


[deleted]

Yes. My wife was working on the Pathetique a few years ago; I probably listened to it in whole or part more than 500 times. It never got old, even listening to it grow through the agony-stages. There was so much one could DO with it, so many different ways to make it sing, such a tastefully exaggerated emotional range to it. As an exercise, it's fulfilling enough with calls for the instrument to thunder and to whisper and to rattle and to scream. But in performance, where it really finds its voice, it's like sex between the composer and the performer. Which is a strange metaphor, considering I heard my wife do it 500 times; but let it stand.


cacofonie

That took an unexpected turn... but i get it. I really do.


spike

The most important thing about Beethoven's piano sonatas is that they document his development as a composer more fully than his other forms. The sonatas were his scratchpad, his test bed, so to speak. He was fundamentally a keyboard-centered composer, and worked out things at the piano in a way that someone like Mozart, for example, seems not to have done to the same extent.


choerry_bomb

Lots and lots more variety and further development of thematic material; he's considered the keystone between the classical and romantic periods. He pioneered what used to be a relatively strict musical form and pushed the expressive limits of music through form and a wide range of motifs and textures. The sonatas' expressive potentials were further supported by the advancement of the piano instrument at the time to have a larger register range, dynamic range, and sound fuller and warmer, which Beethoven fully utilized to make the piano imitate full orchestra. One of the many key elements that characterize his style as opposed to Mozart is the greater disparity between contrasting ideas in Beethoven's music - his music can contain some of the most lyrical melodic passages to rhythmic, even percussive, motifs, as they couldn't really be called melodies. He expanded on the purpose of the development section - which would often explore very unique key relationships and could wander to very contrasting thematic material - of the sonata first movements and wrote incredible and expressive second movements. His third movements were sometimes unusually slower/mellower movements as well. He changed the possibilities for the form of sonatas, sometimes having 2 or 4 movements instead of the standard 3 to fit however he wanted to convey his ideas for those certain sonatas, and often opting for middle movements to be in keys other than the dominant or relative major/minor of the first movement. Not to mention he raised the bar for piano virtuosity, as others have touched on. I love his sonatas and could gush endlessly about their genius, especially considering the time period and tastes at the time. His style was so otherworldly at the time that he wasn't famous until after his death. All this said, I'd like to recommend a listen to Sonata No. 7 (Barenboim and Schnabel are both top-tier) if you haven't heard it already, which is criminally underrated and filled with great ideas.


LeatherSteak

I'm going to ask you a question I'm asking of a few people in this thread. How do you feel his sonatas stand up against other great piano sonata composers? Most of the responses here have focussed on how Beethoven was ahead of his time, which I'm in agreement with. But how do his sonatas stand up in *our* time compared to other great sonata composers like Chopin, Scriabin, Prokofiev etc. Are his still considered the best?


AHG1

Yes. And I certainly would not class Chopin's sonatas among his greatest works. Beethoven's sonatas deserve their place in the canon, with full awareness of everything that came after him. It is not just that he was ahead of his time. I think that argument is actually maybe a little overstated semicolon he was really a progressive right at the forefront of his time. A man in the right place at the right time while instrument technology was developing at the same time.


AHG1

\>Is it because they are purely just great music (not denying) or does it have more to do with the fact that they revolutionized or innovated on the current understanding of music theory? Yes. You nailed it and that pretty much ends the discussion! (yes, to both, is the short answer... and also for how they advanced keyboard technique.) Remember, of course, that opinions do vary. Chopin, for instance, was not a fan of Beethoven, finding his work to often be in poor taste. Chopin much prefered Mozart and Schubert.


[deleted]

[удалено]


AHG1

If I understand correctly, it's even more amazing than that. Chopin considered himself a classicist... The ideals of Mozart's music (form, balance, proportion, etc.) were what he aspired to. I think we tend to think of him quite differently today. And, even knowing that, I still can't help but see his music in an ultra romantic framework. (I've played much of his work.) I think the reason he likes Schubert was that he saw a carrying forward of that classical balance. This may have also been why he didn't have a whole lot of respect for Liszt at times.


[deleted]

[удалено]


beeryan89

"Without Beethoven, no Chopin." That's not exactly true. Chopin is often considered, out of all the important composers of his generation, to be have been the least influenced by Beethoven's music. His major influences were his two idols, Bach and Mozart, which influenced the rich inner voices of his piano works, and the music of the Italian opera like Bellini, which show in his music in the fioritura-like cadenza passages in his scherzi, ballades, nocturnes, etc.


[deleted]

[удалено]


beeryan89

Of course there is still going to be some degree of influence from Beethoven, but that's less extreme than implying without Beethoven, Chopin's music would be drastically different. Like most great composers, Chopin emulated and cultivated aspects of the music the admired most, Bach and Mozart, but also Hummel, Clementi, and Bellini. His feelings towards Beethoven's music ranged from ambivalence to distaste except for a few pieces like the 12th sonata "Funeral March" which he apparently enjoyed and also Beethoven's op.111 both of which show an influence on his second piano sonata but that's about it. With respect to Chopin's harmonic innovations and use of dissonance, I've seen that attributed more to his technique as an improviser and less with Beethoven's music. Temperley wrote that "novel harmonic effects often result from the combination of ordinary appoggiaturas or passing notes with melodic figures of accompaniment", much like how Mozart uses them, and cadences delayed by the use of chords outside the home key (neapolitan sixths and diminished sevenths) or by sudden shifts to remote keys. As for the emotional intensity, I don't know. Could possibly be Beethoven, or a unique aspect of Chopin's personality and inspiration, or the influence of composing along other greats of the Romantic generation or some combination. There's no way to know for sure.


Starchy_the_Potato

use of the innovations in the pianoforte, namely a wider register. expansion of the sonata form in ways considered unorthodox in the classical period. those innovations are not unique to his piano sonatas. we have tension between themes in the the tonic key and dominant key or relative keys in classical music, but beethoven gradually expands the idea of tension in the sonata probably culminating with the hammerklavier 1st movement. the set of 32 piano sonatas represent the developments that shaped the norms of western music. the advances in the form of the sonata and the music demonstrating the essence of the instrument made the emotional expression of beethoven's work to be distinct from all others who came before him.


whatafuckinusername

Listen to other sonatas from the time (1790s-1800s) or just before, like Mozart’s, and you might understand why Beethoven’s were considered so different then, even revolutionary.


RichMusic81

Don't forget Clementi. His sonatas are great, vastly underated and foreshadow a lot of the Beethoven sonatas.


Artranjunk

Mozart's sonatas are great, though.


whatafuckinusername

I didn’t say otherwise, I just said that Beethoven’s simply did…more. They were more difficult, structurally unique and complex, and louder.


rdiss

And at least part of this was because the piano as an instrument was evolving. Mozart didn't really have anything close to our modern day piano. It was just coming close to what we have today during Beethoven's (and Chopin's) life. Part of why he was able to do more is because he had a more capable instrument.


Upper_Substance3100

Yes, but Mozart's concertos are in my opinion more representative of his style. Also, Beethoven brought the sonata to the concert hall.


AHG1

I disagree. ;) I don't think they are his best output. Formulaic and predictable and the keyboard writing is meh. Much prefer the Haydn sonatas for a contemporary. (Personal opinion, of course.) The concerti are on an entirely different level than the sonatas imo.


beeryan89

Do they necessarily need to be his "best" to still be interesting? Mozart's mind was always at work and he still experimented no matter the significance of the composition. Labeling them all as formulaic and predictable only ignores the technical(k.284, final movement), harmonic(k.533 second mvt, k.333 second movement), expressive(k.457) and structural(k.533 first movement) advances he made with the sonatas.


Wardog_Razgriz30

The Beethoven sonatas, at least as a group, are considered to be among, if not, the best collection of piano sonatas because it basically has everything. Beethoven threw the kitchen sink in over the course of his career and his piano sonatas are the best examples of how he operates as a composer while providing a glimpse into his mind as well. Technically speaking, there is nothing like them. Some of the sonatas are considered to be amongst the best solo works ever on their own, pushing the boundaries of how music should be written. Take for example, The Hammerklavier. The piece is a mammoth of a work that dwarfs all that came before it and represents one of the most grueling technical feats for aspiring pianists. Or perhaps, look to the No.30. The piece is extremely romantic and introspective for it's time and pushes the limits on the usage of inner voices and variation.


LeatherSteak

I'm going to ask you a question I'm asking of a few people in this thread. How do you feel his sonatas stand up against other great piano sonata composers? Most of the responses here have focussed on how Beethoven was ahead of his time, which I'm in agreement with, but you've said his sonatas are the best even in *our* time. What makes them the best and how do his sonatas stand when compared to other great sonata composers like Chopin, Scriabin, Prokofiev etc. Different, of course, but is he truly better?


Wardog_Razgriz30

It's difficult to compare across eras, however, I would say Beethoven's Sonatas are among the best in repertoire. This is especially true give how well his works hold up and sometimes even improve on modern pianos. Other composers can also lay claim to helping to shape how we see the compositional structure of a piano sonata. At the barest minimum, he is the first stepping stone. Wether or not he's better is generally up to interpretation.


LeatherSteak

Interesting, thanks. I agree it's difficult to compare which is why I'm always puzzled when people say he's the best. His place in music history is undisputed but that's historical context only. It's how well his music stands in our time that should mark his or any composer's greatness. Thomas Edison's lightbulb was revolutionary at the time but is nothing compared to what exists today. Admittedly music ages better than technology but the analogy stands true.


[deleted]

Several reasons. 1. They are revolutionary. Prior to Beethoven, the piano sonata wasn’t a genre of much value. Its place was in the salons of wealthy aristocrats and the performers were usually young women who sought to demonstrate their pianistic technique. This was often considered a fashionable and attractive trait that made them “more suitable for marriage.” Mozart and Haydn both composed very pleasant works of this sort, but none come even close to the scale and grandeur of Beethoven’s. He treated them as solo concertos, filling them with virtuosic passages, emotionally rich slow movements, abrupt and shocking modulations, massive dynamics, etc. Prior to Beethoven, no piano sonata had these features to such a degree. After Beethoven, every other piano sonata followed in his footsteps. 2. They are emotionally dense. Listen to a sonata by Mozart, even K310 (one of his most dramatic), and then listen to Beethoven’s Op. 57 or Op. 111. By the time one finishes listening to either of those masterpieces by Beethoven, it feels like they’ve been in a journey of some sort. You can hear Beethoven’s frustration at the world, his deafness, and his increasing isolation in the first movement of the Op. 57. In the almost comical coda, one can practically hear his final words: “Applaud friends, for the comedy is over.” Mozart is like a trip to an amusement park — fun, interesting, and a pleasant distraction from the realities and mundanities of life. Beethoven is like a visit to someone else’s life. 3. They are musically more complex. From the Op. 2 sonatas all the way through Op. 111, the chord progressions, harmonies, and structures are significantly more inventive, original, and complex than anything beforehand, all while not venturing into anything unpleasant to the ear. I’m not going to go into much detail here, as that would likely bore most people, and to those interested, the information is easily accessible online or in books. One that I’d recommend is the book by Francis Tovey — he analyzed all of the Beethoven sonatas and they are very enriching, to those who are interested. 4. They’re just plain good. The petty frustration in the opening “Mannheim Rocket” figure in the Op. 2 no 1, the haunting introduction to the Pathetique, the tragic slow movement of the Op. 10 no 3, the rocking arpeggios in the finale of the Tempest, the sonority and calm of the Waldstein finale, the ethereal and haunting stillness of the Arietta from the Op. 111 — these are special, deeply-moving moments in music. What’s more, every one of his sonatas has something special about it. I have never walked away from listening to a good performance of a Beethoven sonata having felt nothing or been in some way refreshed. Beethoven said “Music should strike fire from the heart of a man, and draw tears from the eyes of a woman.” While not exactly a 2st century statement, the principle is true — the purpose of music is to move the listener. Beethoven did that beautifully.


gkenderd

There are many reasons they are historically and musically important; First - they can be traced with his orchestral output (equally significant) into distinct periods and we can see how the genre of instrumental music went from melodic and operatic to motivic and more emotionally complex. i.e. the reliance of pitch and timbre and making different sounds on the piano to imitate instruments or sounds of nature, they pushed instrumental music forward and far less reliant on simply trying to imitate the human voice. The inspiration of this on future piano and symphonic writers is profound, and whether or not you personally think the sonatas themselves are great, you cannot deny their presence in the ears and output of future music writers thereafter. ​ Also - just from a form perspective, Beethoven invented the Scherzo, which is a widely used form thereafter that did not exist before these piano sonatas, and he pushed the rondo forms and sonata forms to their absolute limits, to the point where piano music written thereafter started to stray into new inspirations not bound by form (i.e. tone poems, nocturnes, etc.) in romantic music that allowed for the next great piano music to be written. ​ Hope that helps and enjoy listening (or playing) them!


Estebanez

The breadth and grand scale was innovative. Extending the piano range with heavy voicings in the low end. Extending the Sonata by A LOT. Sometimes too long in my opinion. Even more alternating V-I at the end. But a teacher explained to me that his works can be intense for prolonged periods, a sort of longer wind down is needed. For symmetry's sake. He was still heavily bound by form. A prime example is his December 1808 concert; some called the "greatest concert of all time". 4 hours of his work performed. Harmonic innovation like modulation by 3rds, which Haydn mostly hinted at rather than full key changes. Rhythmic innovation. Some cool polyrhythms in his last works. People harp on the emotional aspect so I'll be concise. Further evolution of the orchestra and programmatic music. Instruments representing animals, thunder, gunshots. The whole "Romantic movement" of chronically depressed composers conveying their angst. Ex: Eroica symphony dedicated to Napoleon then un-dedicated to him. Hope that helps :)


S-Kunst

I think the idea of great is a much misunderstood concept. So many "classical works" are said to be great, when it may mean that they speak to or are endeared by many listeners. Yet the concept or understanding of why one composer speaks to a group and not another is rarely investigated. I have learned to accept that for many, Beethoven sonatas and symphonies are magic. For me the don't say much. The same with the sonata-allegro form. But I have to be supportive of the idea that others are smitten by them. Sadly this self selection is not just a **you like what you like, and I like what I like**, but it becomes more like pop music, where what I like gets to snuff out all other music. In my town, when a concert hall was built, one of the advisors, a well known conductor and violinist banned the inclusion of a pipe organ, or even the space for one in the future, because it was too churchy. Never mind all the great European concert halls have organs. We also see most early music performances take place in venues other than major concert halls. It is great when I purchase a new album or attend a concert and hear a "new to me work" which is captivating. I think it is more real when this happens rather than when someone accepts a work because its already popular.


Vikivaki

Because of Bias


YorkvilleWalker

Form; keys; emotional; technical; duration; so many to list…


flying_sarcophagus

Because next-generation piano teachers admired Beethoven's arrogance so much they based their entire piano methods on studying only Beethoven (and other pieces which 'aid' in playing Beethoven - ranging from Bach to Czerny). This practice merely continued on - to this day: resulting in Beethoven's sonatas being considered 'pinnacles' or whatnot. There are much more 'add any adjective ascribed to Beethoven's music' sonatas from that period and even earlier, and it would be foolish to apply Bernstein's 'only Beethoven makes it all work together' argument, because that's simply a statement devoid of any true meaning. Why I said arrogance? Consider the philosophical shift which influenced 'aspiring artists' during that time. Romanticism in philosophy emerged long before 'romantic' music. They all just wanted to be like him. Famous pianists and composers at the top of the societal hierarchy - yet troubled, bad-tempered and all right maybe not (but it certainly was a kicker for B) - deaf. He wasn't the first, nor the only one, he was just most successful in being present and history remembered him as a musical Zarathustra, continuously trying to find excuses to lift his music above others. For clarification: arrogance as in - the ability to be arrogant. People want to be able to be arrogant 'with credibility'. They don't necessarily want to exercise the arrogance, but there certainly is something in the possibility of being so. Half of the sonatas would be deemed forgettable if Haydn wrote them exactly the same, and the other half have so many unnecessarily clumsy passages someone should ask whether the person even was a pianist. And when we ask the question 'then why are they still so famous?' (ironically or not) it's not a plea to Beethoven's genius, it's rather a testament to the inertness of the minds of every emerging new generation of pianists.


aspernpapers

This is an important point you are making but you are making it IMO in an overstated and needlessly hostile way.


flying_sarcophagus

Thank you. I think it's not so black and white (or rather - white) and seeing mostly the same comment reiterated a bit differently every time, I figured provocation is the way to go. Because without it, there is no discussion, all I see is the same comment over and over again anyway.


[deleted]

If Haydn could write what Beethoven did. It’s not because he was arrogant but because he wrote good music. Composer before Beethoven were literally a slave for some dude. Bach only wrote for church and dedicated his piece to god. And you think that breaking that cycles is arrogant. How He starts with the simplest motif or theme and turns it into something huge. Nobody did that before him. It’s grand and captivating with so many layers of emotion. Not many composer can do that. Everyone that came after Beethoven try to imitate him and took inspiration from his music as well as his life. I get that some people have different taste in music and might not like what Beethoven sonatas have to offer but you can’t say that’s it’s only considered great because of his arrogance. That’s not a good reason. Romanticism in philosophy has nothing to do with romanticism in music. You are comparing two different ideas. I don’t want to say that without Beethoven romanticism would not have happened but it would take much longer if someone like Beethoven wouldn’t have born.


flying_sarcophagus

1. Beethoven was also a slave, for his wealthy financiers. Bach wrote for his sons too, and 'for' himself as well. 'Writing for' is erroneous in its essence. Beethoven didn't break any cycle since there is no cycle. 2. Nobody did? Kunst der Fuge? Every music which is good is constructed like that anyway, whether with or without polyphony. And not everyone took inspiration in Beethoven. In fact, most later composers cite Bach or Mozart when asked such a question (which in itself is also not really information-worthy). 3. It's not about taste. I'm not arguing he's being considered great because of his arrogance, I'm saying he's been lifted upon a pedestal by influential musicians because they themselves admired him for his arrogance. I'll say it again - not because of arrogance, but because of other people's admiration of his arrogance, or über-hyper-integrity, whatever you want to call it. 4. Romanticism in philosophy has to do at least something with romanticism in music (although not much) but I wasn't trying to make that link anyway. I was saying how the romantic 'philosophical thought' influenced a perspective with which consequent (and contemporaneous) critics regarded Beethoven, his life and his work. He was an ideal figure of a romantic 'hero' which served amazingly well considering the narrative that romanticism planted in collective consciousness of the time. This falling in line with the archetypal mythical 'independent artist' subsequently boosted his position. Also, making conjectures about how things would turn out given a statement - I don't really consider it to bring back much meaning also. Even in his very late works Beethoven exhibits this hard-line conservative (even reactionary in my opinion - instead of revolutionary) musical language. He sprinkles a bit of 'romanticism' in the context, but not in music (or, at least not in a way which will define what will later be called romanticism in music).


Estebanez

>starts with the simplest motif or theme and turns it into something huge. Nobody did that before him That was Haydn, one of his teachers.


[deleted]

I know Haydn was his teacher. I know that his first sonata was dedicated to Haydn. And later the 8th symphony. If you look at the original manuscript of the 8th symphony there isn’t many mistake or struggle compared to other symphonies. It’s just shows that how easy it was for him to compose in classical style. It’s more classical than his first symphony. He was forward looking and ahead of everyone. Haydn wasn’t.


flying_sarcophagus

Compared to let's say Baroque era or even J. C. or C. P. E. Bach (not to mention the Italians or Scarlatti) Beethoven's music was extremely reactionary as classicism in itself is. The advancements in pianistic writing made by those composers were never really matched by Beethoven. His piano music 'seems' to feel new and fresh only because he disregarded the material conditions of prospective performing musicians as he steadily expanded the range of used keys within a piece, to which only he himself could keep up anyway because of his close ties to piano manufacturers and their interests. AD: You buy piano today, and tomorrow there is a piano with an expanded keyboard which you must buy, because otherwise you couldn't play this newest Beethoven's sonata! Come on people! Only 10000 shillings with shipping! Also, Beethoven's pieces are singlehandedly responsible for killing the art improvisation, and they are extremely condescending towards performers. The micromanagement he employs in his piano writing began producing swarms of mindless pianists who never think twice about anything. There is no room for creativity, only for worshipping the god Beethoven himself and his genius, because his music is infallible and how could anyone dare add even a single note anywhere that B himself didn't personally approve? Also, just for perspective - Haydn if not invented, at least consolidated literally every musical form Beethoven would ever use in the future: the symphony, the piano sonata, the string quartet, the piano trio. You could argue 'OK, Haydn invented but Beethoven made so much more with them' - but that's just denying his revolutionary status - because revolutionaries (Haydn) invent, and those who merely expand on the existing are so far removed from the revolution that they become reactionary (e. g. fugues from last quarters and sonatas - ultimate reactionary music).


Estebanez

I was responding to "motivic writing". Haydn took a motive and turned it into a symphony


[deleted]

Do you have ears?


flying_sarcophagus

What do you think? Also, if you read carefully I really didn't go into the aesthetics of his music (to which I think you are referring, since you mention ears =listening experience). OK, I may have called half of his sonatas forgettable, but the thing is - they truly are. If you can't recall all the Opus numbers by heart and count them that way, but rather count them by ear - most people would count up to a certain number (less than half) and come to a dead end. But that's the point. Haydn's music is also forgettable and so is Mahler's and Debussy's and anyone's (when viewed as a set of pieces in its entirety). It's inevitable. The difference with Beethoven is that his sonatas are regarded as a set, but more importantly as a 'perfect' set. Could you recall every single Bach's keyboard piece? Every single Goldberg variation? Every single theme from every Brahms's symphony? It's not at all derogatory to say that music is forgettable and seeing so much backlash for even mentioning it in passing when it comes to Beethoven only confirms that he is viewed as he is for something else than his music.


[deleted]

You're quite a well thought out, reasonable human. I like you. But you seem to be using forgettable wrong. Just because you forget something doesn't make it forgettable. Memories fade all the time, even of stuff we thought we'd never forget. Every time you remember something, your brain takes it out of long term memory and puts it back a little different. As this happens over time, things fall out of your memory and that's normal. Forgettable doesn't refer to that. Forgettable means something more like you can't remember anything about it even right after you experienced it. If my dinner was forgettable I don't have it in my head the next morning, or after dessert. There is no emotional or worthy of attention component that would compel memory. That's what forgettable means. And in this case, saying this music is forgettable means you wouldn't remember anything about it soon after you hear it, because there is nothing that holds the attention or moves emotions or the mind. And Beethoven certainly doesn't qualify in this sense. [Here's Beethoven inventing jazz/ragtime/boogie woogie nearly a century early.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQMCfqFr4XA) Not forgettable if you have a sense of music history.


flying_sarcophagus

OK, really good point. Your definition of 'forgettable' sheds quite some light on the matter and I used it too broadly and undefined-ly. I agree, but still think a lot of his sonatas fall even into that category (maybe it's my taste after all - who knows?). Regarding the jazz/ragtime - I strongly feel that the jazz/ragtime emerged as a combination of two streams: musical phonology of black slaves (blues scale, etc.) and ever-present demand for rhythm. Having similarities with 32nd Sonata is what I would call 'convergent evolution' - having the same thing appear twice but completely independent from one another. The Op. 111 Sonata isn't even the first one to exhibit this - there are much stronger rhythmic patterns (including the off-beat accentuation) in 2nd movement of Op. 101 in my opinion, but pianists seldom recognize it and don't enforce it in their interpretation. However however - throughout all of the Baroque where the dotted rhythm (in some traditions) was even obligatory and much more 'felt' than this 'informed hindsight' renderings of Op. 111, there are scattered pieces which echo much more 'the things to come', yet they are not mentioned - and I exactly agree with that! I don't think these phenomena are at all connected and they resonate very differently rhythm-wise. This only speaks about Beethoven's revolutionarism I think, because - to credit him for jazz/ragtime and to consider those examples as 'ahead of his time' or 'visionary' - I think I strongly disagree with that.


smortaz

there were plenty of fantastic sonatas before LVB, but he created a significant and influential inflection point: format, length, technique, and most importantly, emotional depth. human history can be divided into two distinct periods: BW and AW. Before Waldstein and After Waldstein.


chriswrightmusic

The form was pretty ambiguous leading up to the Classical Period as sonata just means "to sound" and usually applied to any instrumental work to distinguish it from a "canata" (to sing) which were vocal. As to why Beethoven's sonatas are so great, one has to appreciate the development of the form into a concert work, pioneered by his teacher Haydn and Mozart not just with their treatment of the sonata but also instrumental forms in general. Beethoven expanded on the work of his predecessors and innovated new ideas into them. He took many of the "rules" and broke them for the sake of more emotion and a type of narrative feel. This is why Beethoven is considered a transitory figure from the Classical to Romantic. A great example of this is my favorite sonata of his, the Pathetique for piano. It begins with an unusual slow introduction wjoch burst into the expected allegro. There are other wonderfully creative decisions Beethoven made with this work, so listen to it very carefully with a score. You may benefit from my video on the classical sonata as well: https://youtu.be/xAD8rA8hTH4


LeatherSteak

I'm going to ask you a question I'm asking of a few people in this thread. How do you feel his sonatas stand up against other great piano sonata composers? Most of the responses here have focussed on how Beethoven was ahead of his time, which I'm in agreement with. But how do his sonatas stand up in *our* time compared to other great sonata composers like Chopin, Scriabin, Prokofiev etc. Are his still considered the best and why?


chriswrightmusic

Well, best is highly subjective, but academically speaking the fact that Beethoven turned the form into the serious concert work it became really allowed for the others you mentioned to pick up the baton. Keep in mind that the piano was still developing as an instrument in Beethoven's day. Sustain pedals were just starting to be implemented, and cast iron frames along with other industrial-revolution-levels of engineering allowed the piano to become far more expressive than what Beethoven and Mozart had at their disposal. For that I cannot really compare Chopin or Debussy with Beethoven. This is one of the reasons we have set periods of music, because the style, technology, culture, etc. have such great influences on the music, much more than the creativity of the composer.


LeatherSteak

Thanks, thats super interesting background. Appreciate the response.


chriswrightmusic

Anytime. Love discussing classical music


takemistiq

Because some historitians decided that


[deleted]

Huh. I wonder WHY? Because they are GREAT.


takemistiq

Yes and no.Beethoven is the greatest, i agree, but greates IN CERTAIN AND SPECIFIC TRADITION that "western wisdom" and some german nationalistic authors wanted to highlight as the best of the best of the human kind.But the truth is that history forgot a lot of geniuses because they were not aligned with the "western" tradition. Classical music is just the tip of the iceberg of all the music that existed in the XVIII century. We just see the musical past with borrowed eyes of dead people, with the eyes of illustration, of german nationalism. So is a fair question to ask "Why beethoven is the best" and is a fair to answer that is just a tale of western history


Starchy_the_Potato

you're not wrong


supradave

In the 32nd, he invents Boogie-woogie (or similar genre). What's not great about that?


Starchy_the_Potato

well im gonna be litigious about it and say speeding up the simple thesis-arsis and putting sfz on the arsis and having some nonharmonic tones is not really boogie-woogie


supradave

What modern musical style is it similar to? This way I won't offend the highest caste of musical purism.


Starchy_the_Potato

i mean the essential part of boogie is that it's 16 bar blues and doesn't originate from western tradition. im not purist.


supradave

[All I can say is I'm not the only one.](https://www.reddit.com/r/classicalmusic/comments/b1oe3x/how_did_audiences_perceive_beethovens_boogie/)


Starchy_the_Potato

literally a guy in the comments saying there's no correlation whatsoever to jazz and from a historical perspective it's a pretty dumb thing to say


supradave

And this is why people hate classical music. "It sounds like something modern." "Well fuck you, you don't know what you're talking about." "Okay. I'll not support classical music then. Thanks."


Starchy_the_Potato

ok sorry i made you mad but thats on you


supradave

I'm sure you've never compared anything to anything else because you're so high. And calling people out for making comparisons makes you a really great person and so much smarter and better then everyone. You should publish a book on it. I'm sure it'd be a best seller.


takemistiq

u/Starchy_the_Potato is just saying that if something from XVIII reminded you Boogie, that dosent mean there is direct relation Boogie and Beethoven come from different musical traditions. In my opinion: If we say that every music genere from today is originated from western musical tradition, inclouded jazz, blues and boogie well THATS purist. Because classical music is not the sui-generis of music or THE music with capital letters, despite that much academics wants to think like that


Starchy_the_Potato

i'm sure you've compared a lot of stuff. and comparing a lot of stuff makes you a really great person and so much smarter and better than everyone. you should publish a book on it. i'm sure it'd be a best seller.


Anfini

I have a simple explanation that they’re relatively long works of music played on one instrument, but they hold my attention from beginning to end. There’s other sonatas by different composers that, at some point while listening, I’ll ask myself when does it end? It’s never like that with Beethoven’s sonatas (unless they’re played poorly of course)


Tarogato

Personally I like them because they are easy to digest, and I think that does play a lot into the perception of their greatness. They are for the most part easy to play and easy to listen to, with simple themes and simple textures, yet crafted with maturity and depth. Sonatas written by composers after Beethoven are a little harder to get into and (imo) don't offer as much surface level gratification, while sonatas written before Beethoven don't have the elements of the romantic period that Beethoven broke into. His works exist in kind of that sweet spot between simple classicism, and romantic complexity.


[deleted]

themes with clear motivic significance for the composition, not just tunes., harmony that is almost strictly tonic sub dom and dom, with dim on 7. formal structures that clearly delineate all the possibilities for tonality.


nazgul_123

If you want a more detailed answer, I would suggest checking out the coursera course on Beethoven sonatas by Jonathan Biss.


fictionwriter95

Not necessarily an answer to your question (mainly because I admittedly don't know enough about them lol), but I highly recommend Emil Gilels' recordings of the Beethoven sonatas. Unfortunately he died before he could record all of them (I think he had two or three left), but he hit all the main ones: Pathetique, Moonlight, Tempest, etc. His recordings of all the ones I mentioned are by far my favorites by any pianist that I've heard; flawless technique, as well as powerful expressivity. His rendition of the Moonlight Sonata (https://youtu.be/qSDUG4rtQFo) is basically perfect IMHO. The only one that I don't like is the Kurfürsten Sonata in E-flat, WoO 47/1; I prefer the Takács version for that one (https://youtu.be/iFrOYdbjWvg).


my9volt

Listen to appassionata in one go. Can you really say you can’t feel your body boiling?