This poll is really pretty childish overall and has no factual answer, but a few people have been arguing about this recently (myself included) and I was curious what the majority thought.  Initially, I was going to do "which is the best piece", but that is even more subjective (if that's possible).  Which world would be more unimaginable... a world without Beethoven's 111 or a world without the liszt sonata?

I vote for this thread being the most pointless one ever... I should start a poll...

Beethoven didn't write anything extremely *important* for piano after op. 106

I take that personally. 

-Rach3

Its pointless because the question is hard?

Discussing music doesn't sound very pointless to me. Its fun.

I think I would say the Liszt work is more important. Beethoven has lots of sonatas. They kind of share their importance. While Liszt has only two.

Both were very important for introducing new musical ideas. Liszt just put alot of them in this one sonata.

But 111 is also a favorite of mine.

We're not discussing music here - we're making highly subjective value judgments where they cannot be made.

Most people call it music criticism.

Ok. Which is more spiritually significant to you, the Liszt sonata or Op. 111? May God have mercy on your soul if you say the Liszt sonata.

  Could you start a poll on this?

Ok. Which is more spiritually significant to you, the Liszt sonata or Op. 111? May God have mercy on your soul if you say the Liszt sonata.


Sorry,

You lose.


For me, Liszt by far.

The Hammerklavier....it's just, nothing special to me, a great piece, but not so spiritually significant as it is cool.

No, SteinwayGuy is not the loser here, you are. If you don't know the difference between the op. 106 ("Hammerklavier") and the op. 111, then I am forced to assume, among other things, that you have never heard op. 111. Or at the very least, that you are not in a place to be making criticisms of it.

Honestly, I believe that pieces that follow perfect theory and key changes, are not so creative, and are not written from the soul.

If you think the first pages of the Hammerklavier finale (assuming you've heard it at least once) are remotely orthodox in their chord structure...


(edited for word choice... -Rach3)

Ok. Which is more spiritually significant to you, the Liszt sonata or Op. 111? May God have mercy on your soul if you say the Liszt sonata.

i prefer the liszt sonata on a whole, i do really like the 1st movement of op111, but the 2nd movement hasnt really done it for me (may need further listens)

but can you explain this spiritual signifigance factor?
im not entirely sure, but the 2nd mvt of op111 sounds like a content and peaceful 'death', beethoven saying farewell to the piano, and to life...am i right?

is this why it means so much? and why people consider it a greater work?

Uuh? Almost sonata?

The only point you have is that Liszt called it a quasi sonata. Not many romantic sonatas are 'true' sonata.

We're not discussing music here - we're making highly subjective value judgments where they cannot be made. Arguing which of two monumentally great works from different eras, written in different contexts is greater does not yield a productive answer - it merely reflects indiviudal tastes. Plus it tends to be very demeaning to the 'less great' composer under any circumstance, because of the 'superior'/'inferior' labels we're using.

We do not ask wich is the greater work, we ask wich is the most important to play. So, the one that you will get the more of. This is not subjective, or value judgments.

Er, I just looked again at the op. 106 finale, it looks like he attempts to tonicize in five radically different keys in two pages, and goes into to the actual tonic (B-flat) doing the circle of fifths backwards (a sequence of IVs) from A through V in B-flat. The whole sonata is startingly original in this way, if you know this piece "backwards" you should have picked up on this by now.

Goldberg - you ask is the op. 111 revolutionary or unique? Well, for starters, it invents modern jazz... 

Seriously though, the structure of the arietta is an very sophisticated theme and variations, I am nowhere near figuring out how it works even structurally. Of course, it's absolutely beautiful as well. There's a lot of retrospection in both movements, Beethoven referring to his younger self. I'm sure there is a lot to be said about the overall design of the op. 111, but I'm not going to second-guess what it is just yet.

Someone else can probably give a less crappy answer...

Er, I just looked again at the op. 106 finale, it looks like he attempts to tonicize in five radically different keys in two pages, and goes into to the actual tonic (B-flat) doing the circle of fifths backwards (a sequence of IVs) from A through V in B-flat. The whole sonata is startingly original in this way, if you know this piece "backwards" you should have picked up on this by now.

Sure, there is a section....and yes, Beethoven was of course ahead of his time.

He is great, and dissonance doesn't exactly cut it for other people like it does me..... but his Hammer K and 111 both have not nearly as much as the Liszt (of course), and still, all four movements of the Hammerklavier follow common changes.

Sorry,

You lose.


For me, Liszt by far.

The Hammerklavier....it's just, nothing special to me, a great piece, but not so spiritually significant as it is cool.

Honestly, I believe that pieces that follow perfect theory and key changes, are not so creative, and are not written from the soul.

 

Whoops, yes I do know the difference. 111 is only mentioned in the thread, and because of all of the threads on the hammerklavier, I screwed up

Its a simple mistake, don't be immature about it.  And I am seeing op 111 live, I know the difference, I know both pieces backwards, and listen to them on average every other day.

Sorry, but the Hammerklavier does follow pretty natural key changes, you don't know theory if you say otherwise. Sure, there are small sections that don'tfollow custom changes. If you want, we can get into a whole time battle, which would be a good time waster, where I can point out the several 5 minute + sections where there is no dissonance whatsoever. 

Liszt wins in my books.  111 is not nearly as special to me.

Sure, there is a section....and yes, Beethoven was of course ahead of his time.

He is great, and dissonance doesn't exactly cut it for other people like it does me..... but his Hammer K and 111 both have not nearly as much as the Liszt (of course), and still, all four movements of the Hammerklavier follow common changes.

That's so pathetic it's almost mind-boggling.

musicsdarkangel states his opinion, and you all chastize him, call him an idiot. that's just brilliant of you, you should be proud

this is why i avoid being honest about how i feel about the "great" composers

musicsdarkangel states his opinion, and you all chastize him, call him an idiot. that's just brilliant of you, you should be proud

this is why i avoid being honest about how i feel about the "great" composers

I used the word "idiocy" because it fit. He clearly has no idea what he's talking about when it comes to the Beethoven sonata(s) at hand, which has been proven more than once on this thread. He also said, "Honestly, I believe that pieces that follow perfect theory and key changes, are not so creative, and are not written from the soul," as though Opp. 106/111 fit this description in any way.

"I can point out the several 5 minute + sections where there is no dissonance whatsoever [in the Hammerklavier]." Is this just an opinion? No, it's a false claim. Dissonance occurs all the time in Beethoven -- it's just usually resolved quickly.

"He is great, and dissonance doesn't exactly cut it for other people like it does me..... but his Hammer K and 111 both have not nearly as much as the Liszt (of course), and still, all four movements of the Hammerklavier follow common changes." -- Okay, well if you judge music based on how much "dissonance" they have, then sure, Liszt is better than Beethoven. But hey, why bother with Liszt, then, when you could listen to some Schoenberg or Boulez, or hell, even some microtonal music? I mean, if the amount of dissonance is the ultimate factor in judging a piece of work...

Lance, your criticism would be legit if musicdarkangel had, in fact, simply "stated his opinion." Sure, there was some opinion in his posts, but it was mostly hidden in a grandiose display of ignorance.

I used the word "idiocy" because it fit. He clearly has no idea what he's talking about when it comes to the Beethoven sonata(s) at hand, which has been proven more than once on this thread. He also said, "Honestly, I believe that pieces that follow perfect theory and key changes, are not so creative, and are not written from the soul," as though Opp. 106/111 fit this description in any way.

"I can point out the several 5 minute + sections where there is no dissonance whatsoever [in the Hammerklavier]." Is this just an opinion? No, it's a false claim. Dissonance occurs all the time in Beethoven -- it's just usually resolved quickly.

"He is great, and dissonance doesn't exactly cut it for other people like it does me..... but his Hammer K and 111 both have not nearly as much as the Liszt (of course), and still, all four movements of the Hammerklavier follow common changes." -- Okay, well if you judge music based on how much "dissonance" they have, then sure, Liszt is better than Beethoven. But hey, why bother with Liszt, then, when you could listen to some Schoenberg or Boulez, or hell, even some microtonal music? I mean, if the amount of dissonance is the ultimate factor in judging a piece of work...

Lance, your criticism would be legit if musicdarkangel had, in fact, simply "stated his opinion." Sure, there was some opinion in his posts, but it was mostly hidden in a grandiose display of ignorance.

You are full of it buddy.

Yes, sure, he will have a note out of the scale....every now and then, this does not change the fact that the changes are used commonly. 

Learn your theory, then call me an idiot.

I agree with musicsdarkangel and Lance Morrison.

(late) Beethoven wasn't a romatic because of his harmonic dissonance. This stayed pretty conservative in that. He was a romantic because of his new way of using form and structure. He did lay down the way for other people to write exotic harmony.

Beethoven was important but the most important thing he did was in the field of orchestration and symphonies. It is here where gets the most of his fame.


It is a fact that alot of people cannot stand too much Beethoven on one day because of the harmonic blandlessness. It lacks colour and depth and starts to work on the nerves.

Even some Liszt isn't dissnant enough for me. I am not saying that Beethoven wasn't a very clever composer because he was. He just lived earlier than you and me.

I don't hate Mozart. But I never listen to it because I do not enjoy it.

So what? Its only Mozart.

I don't hate Mozart. But I never listen to it because I do not enjoy it.

So what? Its only Mozart.

only mozart?...i think threads like this..should have a mandatory rule..everyone before saying any sentence..should start it with "In my humble opinion"..or "I solidly believe"...or.." In my little fanatasy world" <-----lol

i love mozart...

EDIT: almost for got to contribute...my vote goes to the Beethoven Sonata because in my fantasy world Beethoven  can beat Liszt up..and thats pretty good measure for deciding musical superiority right?...

Let's look at harmony objectively here.

Liszt Sonata in B minor -
first 17 measures (whole intro), 9 harmonic changes.

Beethoven op.111 -
first 18 measures (whole intro), 41 harmonic changes.

I believe this trend continues throughout both sonatas. While I personally prefer the Liszt (as witnessed by my Itunes playcounts), please don't say that the Beethoven is harmonically bland and follows "common changes".  Just look at the introduction to the op.111 sonata!  What exactly is common about that?  The fact that it is tonal?  Well, I hate to break it to you but atonality isn't exactly uncommon anymore.

But seriously, let's take a closer look at the Beethoven and see just how harmonically bland it is.  Look at the first two measures..... what other sonata up to this point begins so objectively.... no key is implied at all!  Look at measures 6 through 10.  In this passage alone there are 16 different chords harmonizing a rising chromatic bass.  Very interesting.... certainly not a simple V-I cadence here!  Then look at measures 11-12 (also 13-14).  The l.h is very dissonant here... with minor seconds right next to each other.  Also in measures 16 through 18 there is a deliciously dissonant trill in the bass just dying for resolution.....

Furthermore, the only real indication that this piece is in C minor in the introduction, is the V-I cadence in measure 3.  Other than that, there is awful lot of avoidance of the tonic in the introduction.  From measure 11 all the way to measure 19 V is torturously prolonged..... certainly not a 'quick' resolution of dissonance!

The fact is is that no great composer is "harmonically" bland... you'll find that each developed his or her own personal harmonic vocabulary that is rich with color.  In this way, even Webern is not necessarily more colorful or harmonically exciting than Beethoven - his vocabulary is certainly different than Beethoven, but no larger.  Just as you won't see a tone row in Beethoven, you won't see a plagal cadence in Webern.

(BTW, if you ever actually listen to renaissance madrigal music, you'll probably find it unusually dissonant to your ears... more so than the Classical and Romantic periods anyway.  Listen to some Gesualdo.)

True, but Renaisance music still doesn't adhere to the same rules that classical and romantic music does.  My point is, is that it is not bland music.

that 111 is an exceptional work and one of Beethovens latest works.

Besides the Ninth symphony, the Diabelli variations, and the last six string quartets you mean? I would say that quite a few of Beethoven's greatest (therefore most representative) works were written after op. 111 (or are op. 111).

Incidentally, the last three piano sonatas were all written in a two-year period (1820-1).   The Ninth was not written till '24, and the late string quartets were composed even later.

Let's look at harmony objectively here.

Liszt Sonata in B minor -
first 17 measures (whole intro), 9 harmonic changes.

Beethoven op.111 -
first 18 measures (whole intro), 41 harmonic changes.

I believe this trend continues throughout both sonatas. While I personally prefer the Liszt (as witnessed by my Itunes playcounts), please don't say that the Beethoven is harmonically bland and follows "common changes".  Just look at the introduction to the op.111 sonata!  What exactly is common about that?  The fact that it is tonal?  Well, I hate to break it to you but atonality isn't exactly uncommon anymore.

But seriously, let's take a closer look at the Beethoven and see just how harmonically bland it is.  Look at the first two measures..... what other sonata up to this point begins so objectively.... no key is implied at all!  Look at measures 6 through 10.  In this passage alone there are 16 different chords harmonizing a rising chromatic bass.  Very interesting.... certainly not a simple V-I cadence here!  Then look at measures 11-12 (also 13-14).  The l.h is very dissonant here... with minor seconds right next to each other.  Also in measures 16 through 18 there is a deliciously dissonant trill in the bass just dying for resolution.....

Furthermore, the only real indication that this piece is in C minor in the introduction, is the V-I cadence in measure 3.  Other than that, there is awful lot of avoidance of the tonic in the introduction.  From measure 11 all the way to measure 19 V is torturously prolonged..... certainly not a 'quick' resolution of dissonance!

The fact is is that no great composer is "harmonically" bland... you'll find that each developed his or her own personal harmonic vocabulary that is rich with color.  In this way, even Webern is not necessarily more colorful or harmonically exciting than Beethoven - his vocabulary is certainly different than Beethoven, but no larger.  Just as you won't see a tone row in Beethoven, you won't see a plagal cadence in Webern.

(BTW, if you ever actually listen to renaissance madrigal music, you'll probably find it unusually dissonant to your ears... more so than the Classical and Romantic periods anyway.  Listen to some Gesualdo.)

Oh wow, be prepared to be ripped apart.

The very first changes are 5-1's....oh wow, Authentic cadences, are they not the most common candences in music?  Hmmmmm, he basically modulations through the cleanest changes possible for a while, but at the very start, and i mean very start, it's pretty obvious that he is in C minor because the cadence resolves there.  When the main theme comes around, the 5-1's are uncountable.  Oh no, we have a circle of fifths afterwards, with the chromatic bass.    

Just because this piece doesn't start in the tonic, does not mean that it has advanced modulations.....  If you need help defining words, I can be of assistance.

Ok, quantity of modulations is a different ball park than the TYPE of modulations.  Who cares about the number?  Bach had more changes than Beethoven ever would, yet Beethoven's changes are IMO more creative.... same goes for Liszt compared to Beethoven, you do not have a clue what you are talking about.


Try op 106.... can you listen to the first theme and say that it doesn't completely follow changes that are perfectly set up?  It sounds to me like it is written because it works.

Anyway, I am not bashing Beethoven, these are just not my favorite sonatas by him and this is because of the changes.

The moonlight sonata itself has more interesting changes, and that, although played out, I do believe is written from his mood at the time, and soul.

Can you argue this point?  Nope.

Anyway, I can make this even more hilarious by dragging out the Liszt and analyzing that, is that what you want?

So judging from what you have both said, I'm betting you hate Mozart, don't you? And if you do, my God I don't know what I'll do.

So what if he does?

Most people I know are turned off to classical music because they are used to hearing earlier classical pieces, which Mozart was a part of.  For some people, the later works cut it, and convey more emotion.

Older music tends to sound more similar (Gluck, Corelli) and use the same type of cadences (Corelli's clash cadence, he used it in basically every piece).  All Gregorian chant sounds the same to me.  This is because their is more variation in notes in later music, causing more of a variation in modulations, cadences, TEXTURES.  So there is a perfect balance for me, which is the later romantic era.  Name two composers who sounded more similar (in a later time) than Haydn + Mozart, or Mozart + Beethoven.  This is impossible with the exception of French music, but still, even French music has more variation.


Are you obsessed with Gregorian chant?  It's all relative, Mozart to me might be what Gregorian chant is to you.  Barber to an atonal listener might be what Rachmaninoff is to me.

You are different.  Congradulations.

musicsdarkangel,  I wasn't trying to attack you, but you have seen it fit to make a personal attack against me.  You are an incompetent moron, and you are obviously tainted with narcissism. 

I'm afraid I don't understand exactly what you are trying to say in your post.  It really looks like incomprehensible garbage to me.

Let me ask you this.... If you heard but only the first two bars of the op.111, could you possibly say it is in C minor?  No.   That is what I was trying to say... that in fact the sonata is quite revolutionary by being ambiguous at the beginning.  And I did point out the cadence in measure 3, but that is the only true V-I cadence in the entire introduction.  But you were obviously too caught up in your own pride to see my point.

What does "cleanest changes" mean?  The harmonic changes Beethoven employs in the introduction are certainly not the easiest or simplest ones Beethoven could have picked. 

If you are going to attempt to argue with me, why don't you use actual evidence instead of heresay, and try to present your evidence in a manner that doesn't make you look stupid.

It seems he pretty much just ripped you apart.