Who is the Greatest composer after Beethoven?

You haven't backed up again.

You've just provided statements again. Back that up, instead of making me assume it IS backed up.

Why does "little or no preparation for a new key" mean that was a result of poor skills?

Why do the supposed faults of one composition translate to "Beethoven's works are often quite bad"?

If you're going to make bizarre statements, back them up, or no-one will believe you.

The opinions of a few violin players you know doesn't make Beethoven's orchestral violin writing bad.

Indeed, what if they're just bad violin players?

Why does "little or no preparation for a new key" mean that was a result of poor skills?

[quote[Why do the supposed faults of one composition translate to "Beethoven's works are often quite bad"?[/quote[Wow, you are good. I noted you missed the words in the brackets. Well done deliberately misinterpreting!

If you're going to make bizarre statements, back them up, or no-one will believe you.

The opinions of a few violin players you know doesn't make Beethoven's orchestral violin writing bad.

If you are going to say something that flys in the face of conventional wisdom like you did then you are going to have to back it up.

1: Look at Leonore

2: Musical Times, July 1933, page 635. - Musical Times, June 1933, page 538. - Music & Letters, April 1927, page 172.

Indeed, what if they're just bad violin players?

Didn't say poor skills! Sorry!

Just because I used a slightly different word doesn't mean I was misinterpreting. I WAS JUST USING A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT WORD.

The onus is on you to provide evidence. I will certainly check out the one article you've mentioned.

Btw, it is obvious by your almost facetious deflection of points that you are not here to engage in serious discussion, and just want to come across as being right.

I hereby end my part in this discussion. ;)

Does any one composer have to be the greatest?

Every composer has his/her own merits and faults.

So to avoid calling one better than the other, I will say that I enjoy the music of Mendelssohn most out of the Romantics working after Beethoven's death.

Beethoven's works are often quite bad (theory-wise) in terms of modulation, is orchestration was poor, especially for Violin.

... HAHAHA, oh wow!

Seriously!

Come on, more! Got some dirt on Dvorak or Sibelius you want to share too?

Oh wow, again!

Those guys mean BUSINESS.

and

IMO

This man had amazing skill besides the fact that he didn't chose to use his skills to the greatest extent most of the time. He was modest and fair and a true melodist.

I know I was shocked no one mentioned him.

Charles Ives hands down

... HAHAHA, oh wow!

Seriously!

Come on, more! Got some dirt on Dvorak or Sibelius you want to share too?

Oh wow, again!

Weber in his... one of his clarinet concertos... uses the German Aug6 wrong. He resolves it straight to chord V rather than going through I64, thus creating consecutive 5ths. Happy?

Weber in his... one of his clarinet concertos... uses the German Aug6 wrong. He resolves it straight to chord V rather than going through I64, thus creating consecutive 5ths. Happy?

That is, if you are talking about that chord and not something else...

I heard that debussy guy does lots of parallel 5ths and stuff. He must suck at theory too. . .

Though I find it hard to badmouth him now with that disgruntled photo of him staring at me.

Yeah. This case is even named "Mozart fifths". (That is in reply to nikolas, of course.)

Aside from that, theoretic rules (of counterpoint etc.) were never so much "rules" but guidelines of what was considered to "generally sound best". Using consecutive fifths and octaves can have a very powerful effect, if you use it directedly at the right place. Even Bach wrote consecutive octaves in fugues(!), when it served his musical intent. (Of course I'm not saying that Bach might not also have made a mistake once or twice. He was just a human too, after all.)

By the way: Here's a nice example from Bach's E Minor fugue in the first volume of the Well-tempered piano:

He certainly didn't do that by accident.

I heard that debussy guy does lots of parallel 5ths and stuff. He must suck at theory too. .

That is, if you are talking about that chord and not something else...

He was just a human too, after all.)

Even Bach wrote consecutive octaves in fugues(!), when it served his musical intent.

There is nothing actually wrong with consecutive fifths apart from the fact that they stand out to much in relation to the rest of the music. Debussy utilizes this to his advantage, but using it in the styles before him, it is too 'loud'.

Consecutive octaves can be seen as doubling (depending on relative music), but consecutive fifths stand out audibly way too much.

I don't know how much sense the concept of doubling makes in a fugue with only two voices, which move independantly, then suddenly move in parallel octaves, then move independantly again. (Like in the example I posted.)

You are right though that I can't think of an example where Bach uses consecutive fifths so blatantly as he uses the consecutive octaves here. Nevertheless, in this example even with the octaves, it is a very powerful and special effect that catches ones attention immediately.

Of course we can't say for sure whether Beethoven and Weber did such things deliberately or not. But Beethoven in the least clearly had a liking for some "rough", or even blunt, effects that don't always follow what is generally considered a "balanced" sound. (Take the opening chord of the Path

By the way: Here's a nice example from Bach's E Minor fugue in the first volume of the Well-tempered piano:

He certainly didn't do that by accident.

it's also not a case of "parallel octaves".

it's a phrase in unison.

parallel octaves (of the "error" variety) generally only occur in pairs.

If you want to see some beautiful parallel 5ths and 8ves in Bach, see how he camouflaged them in the opening of the big C minor passacaglia.

He does a wonderful job of camouflaging them with suspensions. The point being, they are inaudible.

The only way to resolve a German Augmented 6th to V is to go through the Italian or French. The Mozart 5ths are treated differently, they are not treated as a straight GerAug6 cadence. The way the Mozart 5ths are treated hide the powerful sound of consecutive 5ths and are barely audible. A straight GerAug6 - V is easily audible.

I almost didn't realise it was you AW7!

Ok, I took my degree in harmony at '98 which is 10 years from now, and I never practiced since then, so I will admit that I could be mistaken, BUT:

We're talking about this, right?:

As far as I remember this is "correct" stylisticly. Ab and Eb both NEED to be resolved to G and D respectivly. Of course the "logical" step is to go to I6/4 but I do recall that these parallel 5ths are one of the exceptions...

I think you recall correctly and I know it the same way; Mozartian fifths (parallel fifths by a semitone).

Wow, those are exceptions?!

*goes correct old compositions*

I for one would like to know why beeth is a household name and not many other composers who worked just as hard or went through just as much strife....hmm...I think tchaikovsky represented his country or heritage well as did mahler and others except tchaikovsky seems to me to be a bit...hmmm can't even think of the word..like I'd rather listen to a tchaikovsky piece than beeth...

I don't see how it matters how hard a composer worked, how much strife he went through, and how they "represented their country or heritage"...

It's about the music, isn't it? (If you'd rather listen to Tchaikovsky, that's a valid opinion of course.)

I don't see how it matters how hard a composer worked, how much strife he went through, and how they "represented their country or heritage"...

It's about the music, isn't it? (If you'd rather listen to Tchaikovsky, that's a valid opinion of course.)

well yes....but what makes beethoven so important then in that case, there were many more influencing composers before his time.....

Many things. For one, he placed a much greater emphasis on the single piece (in contrast to groups of pieces) than most composers before him. Just compare the length of his (later) symphonies, string quartets, piano sonatas etc. to those of composers before his time. Many composers before him were "mass producers" who hadn't the intention of writing "one great symphony", but wrote lots of smaller ones relatively quickly. (See Haydn for example. Don't take me wrong though, I love Haydn!) Even most of the greater works of Mozart, like the operas, aren't really "one thing", but a series of different pieces. Beethoven managed to take a small idea and build a huge structure out of it.

He was also exceptionally audacious at playing with established forms to make his very own thing. Take the beginning modulations of the first symphony. Or the sheer dimensions of the third symphony (especially the fourth movement and the development of the first), along with other peculiarities such as having no "proper" main theme in the first movement. Or the late string quartets, which are a whole different world from everything that existed in this genre so far, and for many years after Beethoven. Or his part in the development of "programmatic music" with the sixth symphony (Even though he didn't think of it as program music).

Not to mention how he sought a personal expressiveness with his later music that was incomparable with anything that had been written so far. (Maybe this also comes from the fact that he was one of the first composers who managed to make a living without being regularly employed by the nobility, and was more free to "do his own thing" than most composers before him.)

There are very few composers of the 19th century that weren't influenced by him.

Many things. For one, he placed a much greater emphasis on the single piece (in contrast to groups of pieces) than most composers before him. Just compare the length of his (later) symphonies, string quartets, piano sonatas etc. to those of composers before his time. Many composers before him were "mass producers" who hadn't the intention of writing "one great symphony", but wrote lots of smaller ones relatively quickly. (See Haydn for example. Don't take me wrong though, I love Haydn!) Even most of the greater works of Mozart, like the operas, aren't really "one thing", but a series of different pieces. Beethoven managed to take a small idea and build a huge structure out of it.

He was also exceptionally audacious at playing with established forms to make his very own thing. Take the beginning modulations of the first symphony. Or the sheer dimensions of the third symphony (especially the fourth movement and the development of the first), along with other peculiarities such as having no "proper" main theme in the first movement. Or the late string quartets, which are a whole different world from everything that existed in this genre so far, and for many years after Beethoven. Or his part in the development of "programmatic music" with the sixth symphony (Even though he didn't think of it as program music).

Not to mention how he sought a personal expressiveness with his later music that was incomparable with anything that had been written so far. (Maybe this also comes from the fact that he was one of the first composers who managed to make a living without being regularly employed by the nobility, and was more free to "do his own thing" than most composers before him.)

There are very few composers of the 19th century that weren't influenced by him.

Yes but don't get me wrong either, I love beeth and his music but, his style becomes very repetitive his music after a while bores a hole in me because it gets so boring....yes I understand what he did how many composers followed after him, but goodness I would love if he would change it around here and there but hey that's me....