Which is 'more important', Opus 111 or the Liszt sonata?

[Rach3]

Argh! I didn't see the replies before I posted! Really nightscape, outright namecalling is unneccessary and doesn't do any good,  I'm sure we can all recognize morons by ourselves without having them pointed out.

It seems he pretty much just ripped you apart.

I'm confused, who ripped whom apart? If you're referring to musicsdarkangel, just because he knows Music Theory 101 (or 301) doesn't make his point correct, valid, or even reasonable. For example - his brief analysis of the op. 111 introduction was extremely correct.  And extremely useless, and myopic, as well.

-Rach3

[Nightscape]

Rach3, well, said.  I think I learned a thing or two reading your post..... something I can't say about musicsdarkangel's post.

You're right though.... I probably shouldn't have called him a moron.  I was just a little frustrated that he was basically attacking me.

[Nightscape]

But now I'm confused!  Are you saying that my analysis of the introduction is useless and myopic?

If so, I must say in my defense that I was only trying to prove that the introduction is not harmonically bland or typical by providing examples that are not bland or typical.  But it is true that no analysis will convince someone alone... you must actually hear the work as it is intended.

[Rach3]

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.

Quite correct.

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.

He was complaining that Beethoven is too harmonically orthodox. The "changes" he uses are obviously not the easiest or simplest, but they are the most powerful and effective, even within what some might perceive as a 'limited' harmonic vocabulary.

[Rach3]

Rach3, well, said.  I think I learned a thing or two reading your post.....

Well, thank you!

But now I'm confused!  Are you saying that my analysis of the introduction is useless and myopic?

No, I am pointing out that musicsdarkangel's analysis is such. (edit!) I will proceed with my flame, which is directed again musicsdarkangel and not nightscape128:

Oh no, we have a circle of fifths afterwards, with the chromatic bass. 

...so you nailed the chords on the head, and ended it there, with some nice condescending remarks as well (and a "rolls-eyes" smiley). Indeed it's a circle of fifths with chromatic base, and what of it? Does it take forever to descend onto the tonic minor, with a slow inevitability that could only reflect Beethoven's own fear of mortality and death? Does the fierce 32nd-note dotted rhythm emphasize or detract from this? Does this contrast in any way with the apotheosis that is the C major movement? Maybe was there a hint of irony, exaggeration or self-criticism, a reminiscence to the dark funeral chords of the youthful Pathetique? What about his striking use of accented, offbeat minor seconds? Byronic perhaps? There is a heck of a lot more to reading music than saying "thats a V-I, and that's another V-I, oh boy!"

In short, your "analysis" of the op. 111 introduction was severely myopic and totally useless.

-Rach3

[Rach3]

If so, I must say in my defense that I was only trying to prove that the introduction is not harmonically bland or typical

ahem...

...The very first changes are 5-1's....oh wow, Authentic cadences, are they not the most common candences in music?

...it's pretty obvious that he is in C minor because the cadence resolves there...

...Oh no, we have a circle of fifths...

And why did he start naming chords in the first place?

nightscape128:

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.....

musicsdarkangel responds:

Oh wow, be prepared to be ripped apart...

-Rach3

[Nightscape]

But I didn't say that.  It was musicsdarkangel who mentioned something about a circle of fifths and placed the roll-eyes smiley.

[Nightscape]

Rach3 I think you're getting confused.  Please reread and make sure to distinguish what I said and what musicsdarkangel said.

[Rach3]

oops... fixed that...

[Rach3]

Now I'm totally lost. I've edited the part where I thought it was musicsdarkangel who asked if his/her analysis was myopic... but now I've lost the thread.

edit #95: okay, for the record, it was musicsdarkangel whose analysis I was critizing, apparently you (mis-)thought my criticism was of you, not him/her, but I misread the quote where you questioned me on that and so I misattributed it to the other person... but since it was two mistakes made, they cancel...

[Rach3]

Yeah, post count 499! One more to go...

[rob47]

Sorry guys, but the correct answer is 17.

17 years old is the acceptable age to start having sex.

[Nightscape]

Now I'm totally lost. I've edited the part where I thought it was musicsdarkangel who asked if his/her analysis was myopic... but now I've lost the thread.

edit #95: okay, for the record, it was musicsdarkangel whose analysis I was critizing, apparently you (mis-)thought my criticism was of you, not him/her, but I misread the quote where you questioned me on that and so I misattributed it to the other person... but since it was two mistakes made, they cancel...

lol, I think something is wrong with your browser.... it was in fact I, nightscape128, who asked you, Rach3, if you thought it was either mine or musicsdarkangel's comments were myopic.  Apparently, you were referring to musicsdarkangel's comments as being myopic.  So that means that originally your responses were directed at musicsdarkangel's criticisms of the Beethoven, and the reason you were quoting me was to help illustrate your point, not to refute my claims.....

Just so long as we're clear!

[Rach3]

Yup.

-Rach3

[viking]

.

[Daevren]

Haha...

Let me ask a new question.

If you would listen to both pieces at the same time, yes the music sounding together, which part of the sound would you enjoy most, the Beethoven or the Liszt?

[steinwayguy]

Haha...

Let me ask a new question.

If you would listen to both pieces at the same time, yes the music sounding together, which part of the sound would you enjoy most, the Beethoven or the Liszt?

what?

[musicsdarkangel]

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.

using the word Idiocy = personal attack...It is you....being more of a moron than I, because you made the personal attack.

Incomprehensible garbage?  I'm sorry that you don't understand basic theory, and I will not bother teaching you.

[musicsdarkangel]

Wow!
Is this supposed to be a criticism of Beethoven? Because it really comes across as an angry rant from someone who really hates Beethoven to begin with. It's obviously a circle of fifths with chromatic bass, it's also extremely long and dissonant, and does a marvelous job at avoiding the tonic. And yes, I'm aware that m. 2 has a tonic chord! It lasts for one beat before cadencing on the V - so it definitely doesn't tonicize there. Well it doesn't tonicize until page 2 - but you knew that of course.
And powerfully effective. Do you even bother listening to music, or do you just count chords?
Not a failing of Mozart, a failing of people with short attention spans.
Yes I can. Moonlight is far more conventional than late Beethoven - the progressions in it are in fact textbook examples of 'orthodox' theory (very unlike op. 111). And yet you find it beautiful? Not too bland? Late Beethoven is a lot like Moonlight, but on far more sophisticated landscape - it takes a long time to even begin to get an appreciation for its genius.
But to attack it because its 'harmonic changes' are too ordinary - makes far less sense than the same criticism of Moonlight. Which I think we can both agree would be invalid.
No - Bach is generally characterized by much slower harmonic motion - even in his dense fugues. There is a big difference between  having lots of chords and having actual reharmonization. But on the counterside, Bach was even more creative with modulations and cadences than Beethoven! That's exactly what counterpoint is - harmony. And harmony is counterpoint. It's not about getting different chords, it's about how the whole music shifts around getting there. No doubt contrupuntal music can be predictable as to what key you're going into - which makes the prolonged modulations all the stronger.
I'd love to watch. I'll bring the coffee.

-Rach3



edited for punctuation

Once again, you are being ignorant... I made my point, Beethoven is harmonically much more simple than Liszt.  It's the closest thing to Mozart for godsake... how can you even argue that?  I find this funny.  We even discuss the use of common cadences for Mozart/Beethoven/Bach in various theory classes.

You must have never taken theory, or maybe don't understand it.

I'm not going to waste my time explaining to you, because it seems you don't take this with an open mind.  Everything that needs to be said already has.  If you don't share my taste in music, I understand, but the fact that you are arguing Beethoven less harmonically simple than Liszt, is, HILARIOUS.

Oh and about Bach, that depends on the piece, but many of his works go through key changes quickly, usually the circle of fifths, say, such as Prelude in d minor first book WTC.  I was mainly a violinist, and now I regularly play gigs for violin, as well as piano: I think I would know.

I have made my statement, and I haven't understood anything you have said other than your ignorant attacking.  I guarentee if I show another pianist what you have said, he will laugh, or nod his head in disgust.  I've even chatted about the comedic effect of your posts, and so far, people in chat tend to notice how incredibly wrong you are.   Hmmm, they don't even bother posting in this thread anymore.... I wonder why.

Why not let this thread die?  You obviously do not know understand theory, or you are pulling my leg, so why argue? 

Tell me this, do you deny the fact that as music has progressed through time, it has become more harmonically complex and experimental?  This was my point, and I don't see how you can disagree.  Beethoven and Liszt fit in there as well.  Answer this question with some sense (even maturity?), or agree to put this thread away.... than maybe I will give you an ounce of respect.  I type 115 words a minute, and would rather spend that speed on the Rachmaninoff Rhapsody than arguing with uneducated claims.

P.S. see my post in the 75 minute program thread.

[aquariuswb]

Once again, you are being ignorant... I made my point, Beethoven is harmonically much more simple than Liszt.  It's the closest thing to Mozart for godsake... how can you even argue that?  I find this funny.  We even discuss the use of common cadences for Mozart/Beethoven/Bach in various theory classes.

You must have never taken theory, or maybe don't understand it.

I'm not going to waste my time explaining to you, because it seems you don't take this with an open mind.  Everything that needs to be said already has.  If you don't share my taste in music, I understand, but the fact that you are arguing Beethoven less harmonically simple than Liszt, is, HILARIOUS.

Oh and about Bach, that depends on the piece, but many of his works go through key changes quickly, usually the circle of fifths, say, such as Prelude in d minor first book WTC.  I was mainly a violinist, and now I regularly play gigs for violin, as well as piano: I think I would know.

I have made my statement, and I haven't understood anything you have said other than your ignorant attacking.  I guarentee if I show another pianist what you have said, he will laugh, or nod his head in disgust.  I've even chatted about the comedic effect of your posts, and so far, people in chat tend to notice how incredibly wrong you are.   Hmmm, they don't even bother posting in this thread anymore.... I wonder why.

Why not let this thread die?  You obviously do not know understand theory, or you are pulling my leg, so why argue? 

Tell me this, do you deny the fact that as music has progressed through time, it has become more harmonically complex and experimental?  This was my point, and I don't see how you can disagree.  Beethoven and Liszt fit in there as well.  Answer this question with some sense (even maturity?), or agree to put this thread away.... than maybe I will give you an ounce of respect.  I type 115 words a minute, and would rather spend that speed on the Rachmaninoff Rhapsody than arguing with uneducated claims.

P.S. see my post in the 75 minute program thread.

You clearly didn't read a single thing Rach3 said. He never said that Beethoven was MORE complex harmonically than Liszt, he simply said that your so-called analysis was so narrow in scope and out of context as to be laughable and essentially useless/meaningless; and he also said that Beethoven is not harmonically simple (although he never said he was more complex harmonically than Liszt). You should really stop posting these pompous remarks because everyone in here is now fully aware that you are full of yourself, don't know what you are talking about, and have extremely selective reading. Stop making yourself look like a moron.

[Nightscape]

using the word Idiocy = personal attack...It is you....being more of a moron than I, because you made the personal attack.

Incomprehensible garbage?  I'm sorry that you don't understand basic theory, and I will not bother teaching you.

I wasn't so much making an attack, as I was making a general, widely accepted, observation.

I find it interesting that you don't want to defend yourself because "it would be a waste of time".  Well, for someone who types 115 words a minute, it shouldn't take too long, right?

And also apparently everyone else you mention who agrees with you also doesn't want to waste thier time defending you.  Very interesting, indeed....

Could it just be you don't know what you're talking about, and now you're using a lame cop-out to avoid the situation? I think so.

[musicsdarkangel]

I wasn't so much making an attack, as I was making a general, widely accepted, observation.

I find it interesting that you don't want to defend yourself because "it would be a waste of time".  Well, for someone who types 115 words a minute, it shouldn't take too long, right?

And also apparently everyone else you mention who agrees with you also doesn't want to waste thier time defending you.  Very interesting, indeed....

Could it just be you don't know what you're talking about, and now you're using a lame cop-out to avoid the situation? I think so.

Avoiding a situation?  No, why bother explaining something to someone who won't listen?

Oh, hmm...ok........

look at this

op 111
1) is not as 'structurally complex' as the Liszt sonata (perhaps you thing it's an improvisatory piece?)
2) is not as 'creative' as the Liszt sonata (its experimentation in rhythmic form was only about, oh, a century ahead of its time...)
3) is not as 'musically complex' as the Liszt sonata

If this doesn't put an end to things, nothing will.  Neither of us will be able to convince the other otherwise, so why continue?

[musicsdarkangel]

You clearly didn't read a single thing Rach3 said. He never said that Beethoven was MORE complex harmonically than Liszt, he simply said that your so-called analysis was so narrow in scope and out of context as to be laughable and essentially useless/meaningless; and he also said that Beethoven is not harmonically simple (although he never said he was more complex harmonically than Liszt). You should really stop posting these pompous remarks because everyone in here is now fully aware that you are full of yourself, don't know what you are talking about, and have extremely selective reading. Stop making yourself look like a moron.

I am not full of myself, i know there are many many better pianists and theorists than me, I am just trying to prove my case, which should be obvious.  Arguing my points does not make me full of myself. 

He is obviously arguing against my saying that Liszt is harmonically more complicated than Beethoven.  Read the full discussion.
It is the truth.

[aquariuswb]

I am not full of myself, i know there are many many better pianists and theorists than me, I am just trying to prove my case, which should be obvious.  Arguing my points does not make me full of myself. 

He is obviously arguing against my saying that Liszt is harmonically more complicated than Beethoven.  Read the full discussion.
It is the truth.

I read through the whole discussion. Again. And this is the only mention Rach3 even makes of Liszt:

"How the heck is late Beethoven harmonically bland? The harmonic speed in op. 110 (for example) is much faster than the Liszt sonata. About every freakin' note in the fugue implies a new harmony. "

In the context of the entire discussion, this hardly qualifies as Rach3 arguing against your saying that Liszt is harmonically more complex than Beethoven. On the contrary, it is quite clear that Rach3 was responding to the comment that late Beethoven is harmonically bland; his mention of Liszt here is only used as an example for his point, not as a focal point of his argument.

No, arguing your point does not make you full of yourself, but the following quotes do:

"I was mainly a violinist, and now I regularly play gigs for violin, as well as piano: I think I would know."

"Answer this question with some sense (even maturity?), or agree to put this thread away.... than maybe I will give you an ounce of respect.  I type 115 words a minute, and would rather spend that speed on the Rachmaninoff Rhapsody than arguing with uneducated claims."

"I'm sorry that you don't understand basic theory, and I will not bother teaching you."

The only thing you've posted that I agree with is: "Everything that needs to be said already has." Please stop embarrassing yourself.

[Derek]

blah.

[musicsdarkangel]

I read through the whole discussion. Again. And this is the only mention Rach3 even makes of Liszt:

"How the heck is late Beethoven harmonically bland? The harmonic speed in op. 110 (for example) is much faster than the Liszt sonata. About every freakin' note in the fugue implies a new harmony. "

In the context of the entire discussion, this hardly qualifies as Rach3 arguing against your saying that Liszt is harmonically more complex than Beethoven. On the contrary, it is quite clear that Rach3 was responding to the comment that late Beethoven is harmonically bland; his mention of Liszt here is only used as an example for his point, not as a focal point of his argument.

No, arguing your point does not make you full of yourself, but the following quotes do:

"I was mainly a violinist, and now I regularly play gigs for violin, as well as piano: I think I would know."

"Answer this question with some sense (even maturity?), or agree to put this thread away.... than maybe I will give you an ounce of respect.  I type 115 words a minute, and would rather spend that speed on the Rachmaninoff Rhapsody than arguing with uneducated claims."

"I'm sorry that you don't understand basic theory, and I will not bother teaching you."

The only thing you've posted that I agree with is: "Everything that needs to be said already has." Please stop embarrassing yourself.

I am egotistical about my typing?  I am saying that I have played gigs and know a lot about Bach...so what...that's nothing special.  I have no idea how the Rach Rhapsody one makes me full of myself, i'm just making a point that this is, well, pointless.  The theory comment was anger of the moment, and I think that Rach3 lacks theory knowledge to discuss/argue it.

  Talking with an unnamed forum member on AIM, who happens to think that you are embarassing yourself while I am defending my opinion. 

I was bashed. 

P.S. Beethoven, i was arguing, is harmonically bland, compared to Liszt.. you should have picked that up by now...afterall, the thread is about the two sonatas.  Harmonic speed means nothing.  Baroque composers often have blazing speeds.  Notice that I have stopped the smart*## remarks and you haven't?  Try to put an end to this argument, it's going no where.  As long as you keep making these snyde comments, I know I won't.

[Rach3]

Oh no,

C G Bb   G D# F

..this chord somehow got into my copy of op. 120 Diabelli variations (var II m21), how could it have gotten in there?! Did you put it there, musicsdarkangel?

[Daevren]

One of Scriabins students in a letter to someone:

"One time, knowing I had prepared some Beethoven and a piece by Liszt, Scriabin said before I had begun, "No Beethoven, I can't face it today. Give me Liszt."

[AvoidedCadence]

Not to denigrate his achievements, but Scriabin also said, "I am the creator of new worlds! I am God!"  So much for him as a rational source upon whom we can rely in such an important discussion 

I won't really go into theory ... I simply don't feel it's important.  Comparing the number of harmonic changes per bar is completely irrelevant in determining its worth or importance anyway.  Likeways, to compare the harmonic blandness of two pieces is also useless.  What is more important, the Goldberg Variations or some bizarre Schoenberg piece nobody has ever heard?

Even the most harmonically simple piece can be great.  For example, look at the first line of the slow mvmt from Beethoven's Op 57, or Rachmaninoff Op 32 no 10.  Simple? Yes.  Magnificent?  I think so.

That said, Op 111 is not simple in any way.  Despite Beethoven's more restricted harmonic language, the daring use of 7ths in the opening is extraordinary.  Compare this with the opening of the Pathetique - or just about any other sonata - and you'll immediately see how far this composer has gone in exploring the harmonic language.  In Liszt's time, though, experimenting with forms and harmony was the NORM much more than in the classical period.

At the same time, while Op 111 was clearly extraordinary, even for Beethoven, I think Liszt's sonata, while perhaps more unpianistic than many of his other works, is still representative of his style.  We find a similar one-movement form in many of his other works - symphonic poems, concerti.  And the B Minor still contains many hallmarks of the Liszt style - melodies over a repeated chord, episodes of transcendental virtuosity, and so on.

With these considerations in mind, I'll give my OPINION (I have not listened to 70 recordings of the Liszt sonata, for instance, or learned either of these works).  For me, the Op 111 is a superior work.  The B Minor is great as well, but not sublime - I don't feel the same economy of every note being in place.  The C Minor is sacred.

The contrapuntal style just into the first movement elevates the tension to fantastic levels, especially with the ingenious subject Beethoven uses.  The peaceful episodes, too, are visionary.  The arietta - here the piano ends and Heaven begins in a shower of arpeggios and trills.
I'll stop now 

Therefore....

Which was more important to Horowitz?  Probably the Liszt sonata.
Which was more important to Schnabel?  Chances are, Op 111.
Which was more important to Arrau? Who knows?
Which was more important to ALL OF MUSIC?  No idea.
Which is more important to me? Op 111.

[musicsdarkangel]

AvoidedCadence, I respect your post.

That's the comedic effect of this thread, I was talking about MY taste and for ME personally, Liszt has the perfect balance of dissonance while Beethoven doesn't.  Of course, I was argued against, and the only way to prove it would be through theory.

Unfortunately, Steinwayguy has a pole in his behind.

Doesn't matter, most people on this board have no respect for him to begin with.  (I don't know half of the Rach concertos!  But I must be a genius!  Who am i?)

[steinwayguy]

Unfortunately, Steinwayguy has a pole in his behind.

Doesn't matter, most people on this board have no respect for him to begin with. (I don't know half of the Rach concertos! But I must be a genius! Who am i?)

And I'm sure a lot of people on this forum have no respect for you to begin with because you think that 106 and 111 are overrated, which is a lot more pathetic than not having heard the 2nd or 3rd movements of the Rach 1 and any of the Rach 4. Besides, I'm 16, I've been playing really seriously for two years and I don't have easy access to a music library.

[Lance Morrison]

And I'm sure a lot of people on this forum have no respect for you to begin with because you think that 106 and 111 are overrated, which is a lot more pathetic than not having heard the 2nd or 3rd movements of the Rach 1 and any of the Rach 4.

O-k then---I also happen to think 106 and 111 are quite overrated, although I do like them. So, ladies and gentlemen, if it would really make you happy to lose all respect for me because of this opinion I have, then, by all means, please proceed to do so, especially if it would make you feel all the more brilliant.

What is more important, the Goldberg Variations or some bizarre Schoenberg piece nobody has ever heard?

I would rather listen to Schönberg than Bach on any occasion, especially rather than the bloody Goldberg Variations. I happen to think that a number of Arnold's compositions are superior to it. But I guess I'll lose everyone's respect for this too 

btw, the namecalling on this thread is f*cking ridiculous

[Daevren]

Bah, Rachmaninoff is crap. Any Beethoven and most Liszt is better than Rachs best works (imo).

Now let the flames begin.

[musicsdarkangel]

I'm 16, I've been playing really seriously for two years and I don't have easy access to a music library.

I understand, i'm 19 and have only been practicing more than 15 min per day (Playing seriously) for 2 years.
 

If you don't have a library, I'd highly recommend www.karadar.com

No one loses respect for me because of my opinion, other than people who can't stand the fact that others have different taste than them.

 

[musicsdarkangel]

Bah, Rachmaninoff is crap. Any Beethoven and most Liszt is better than Rachs best works (imo).

Now let the flames begin.

That's your opinion and although I rarely hear a similar opinion, and although I disagree, I'm not going to "let the flames begin". 
That's what opinions are about.

Diversity.

[steinwayguy]

Yay now everybody's  and  and  and  and 

[AvoidedCadence]

Sorry if I somehow offended you, Lance Morrison.  And no, I haven't lost all respect for you ... in fact, the fact that you prefer Schoenberg over Bach suggests that you are probably more educated about 20th century music than I (for the time being, tonal music offers quite enough for me to discover).  I simply used the piece as an example.  Given that you disagree with my example, it's not surprising that you think 111 is overrated.  Logically consistent 

The only other thing I can think of to say about this topic:  I've noticed that earlier-period pieces (Bach, Scarlatti) really have to be played to be appreciated.  Like math:  If you don't have the background to understand the lecture (haven't learned the piece) you won't understand what the lecturer is saying (won't benefit from the performance).  This is true for any period, of course, but Liszt and Rachmaninoff offer enough flash-and-dazzle that any pianist can appreciate them immediately (usually).
Beethoven is sort of in-between:  I find his music (especially slow movements) sometimes hard to understand at first - Mozart, Chopin, and company are much more 'accessible'.  I used to agree that these pieces (106/111) were overrated, too.  But then I sight-read through parts of them the other month... badly.

But I could still feel them becoming part of my soul.

I understand, i'm 19 and have only been practicing more than 15 min per day (Playing seriously) for 2 years.
 

I'm in a similar situation.  Which makes me glad I didn't find this forum a year ago - I would have been EXECUTED for my ignorance.

No one loses respect for me because of my opinion, other than people who can't stand the fact that others have different taste than them.
 

That's your opinion and although I rarely hear a similar opinion, and although I disagree, I'm not going to "let the flames begin". 
That's what opinions are about.

Diversity.

Amen 

[Daevren]

Any Schoenberg over Bach? Whoa!

One listening of Pierrot Lunaire is enough to damage someone for life.

Bloody Goldberg Vars... ooh my... Bach at his most inhuman and human, genius and silly. The music is in a class of its own.

I really do not understand pianists obsession with Rachmaninoff.

Of course Beethoven 106 is overrated. But its still a nice work. But 111 is alot better. Rachmaninoff is clumsy compared to people like Beethoven, Bach, Liszt and Schoenberg.

[Nightscape]

Any Schoenberg over Bach? Whoa!

One listening of Pierrot Lunaire is enough to damage someone for life.

Bloody Goldberg Vars... ooh my... Bach at his most inhuman and human, genius and silly. The music is in a class of its own.

I really do not understand pianists obsession with Rachmaninoff.

Of course Beethoven 106 is overrated. But its still a nice work. But 111 is alot better. Rachmaninoff is clumsy compared to people like Beethoven, Bach, Liszt and Schoenberg.

Do you really dislike Rachmaninoff?  I've never met a pianist who did.  (But I have heard of them.  For example, Nadia Boulanger)

[Daevren]

Nah not really. But first of all it never impresses me and I rarely listen to it. I must be really bored before I can enjoy Rach. If you compare Beethoven with Rachmaninoff you really see the missing elegance in Rach. I guess for me that is his main problem.

[gouldfischer]

If you compare Beethoven with Rachmaninoff you really see the missing elegance in Rach.

Exactly. I couldn't agree more.

[Pronske]

Both the Liszt Sonata and the Beethoven 111 are, in my opinion, great and important works.  Although each piece supports arguments in favor of a vote for the most significant, I would go with the 111.  To me, the Arietta is one of the most amazing pieces in all of music.  It is an intense emotional and sentimental journey.  The harmonies are not romantic as in the Liszt Sonata, but instead pinpoint a particular emotional conveyance.  The Arietta has 2 distinct themes that are varied throughout - the first in C major and the second in A minor.  To me, the C major theme is joyful, peaceful, and majestic, but always with a troubled overtone.  The A minor theme is emptiness and dispair which, however, never lasts. 

The structure of the theme and variations, I think, is a progressive rhythmic tightening up to a climax in the middle, which then begins the rhythmic tigthening process anew.  The first variation in a sixteenth note dotted rhythm, the second in a 32nd note dotted rhythm, the third in a 64th note dotted rhythm - now adding jazzlike synchopation to an extreme point of intensity that gives way to a moment of calm (measures 65 - 71).  Again, the joy expressed in this section has a undertone of trouble, which arises out of the bass accompaniment.  Then, there is a sort of George Winston-like cadenza based on the first theme (72 - 80), which then likewise gives way to calm.  However, in this restated calm, the despair of the A minor theme is back.  This is very troubled stuff, I think.  Listen to the depth of emotion in this passage (81 - 88)  Again, the calm returns to another cadenza (beginning at measure 89).  The emptiness of the emotion in the first 3 measures of the passage is heightened by the repeated E in the accompaniment.  The repeated E almost sounds like it is crying.  I don't know of anything that Beethoven wrote that is quite like this.  Very emotional stuff.  Then the climax of the movement rhythmically tightens up to the point of a trill - the continuation of which brings the piece to the first time out of the home key of C major.  We are know in the key of E Flat in a truely mystical passage.  Again, the emotion here is expressed not so much with a use of a romantic type of harmony, but instead as a highly creative and personal form of expression.  The rhythmic structure in the E Flat section borders on random, but expresses a deep emotional meaning, I think.  Beethoven then modulates back to C Major (measure 130) for a restatement of the origninal theme in the most triumphant manner possible.  But again, the feeling doesn't stay joyful for long - at measure 139, we are back to the dispair of the second theme.  Again, in the first few measures, amidst a more complicated accompaniment, Beethoven repeats the E note over and over, which has the effect of driving the emptiness into a more active dispair.  Slowly, the mood again changes and builds up to an intense and triumphant climax, ending with a trill.  The "trill section," the last variation of the last movement of the last Sonata, ends the journey of this piece in the most sentimental way possible.  The emotion of the entire second movement, until the trill section, is equivical.  The C major theme is portrayed as joy, but always with a hint that darkness is coming.  The A major theme is dispair, but always travels back toward joy.  When we get to the trill section, there is no question that the final expression is peace - but it's a kind of peace that is a truly personal and sentimental expression.  How Beethoven does this with the simplicity of the harmonies presented here, I don't understand.  How he did this without being able to hear, I also don't understand.

But this is the point of the piece - to me.  The personal journey through the good stuff and the bad stuff, and ending with a deep and sentimental expression of peace.  It took me years of listening to hear things in this piece that I hear today, as well as in Op. 109 and 100.  All 3 of these pieces have their own different and intense personal expressions.  I think that Beethoven's sometimes "odd" harmonies are not odd at all, but are masterful uses of color in the music to express emotion.   

Sorry for the long-winded message.

[apion]

I'm a giant Liszt fan, but I voted for op. 111 ........ it's just so terrific.

[Pronske]

One more round.

[dikai_yang]

106 is like a standard!!  all of us needed to learn it, analyze it, it's the standard music textbook material... personally i find the 111 (well, any of his later works) to be somewhat of a transition between classical and romantec... but i don't find them all that great... beethoven seemed to just add some weird notes to his music just to see what would happen, seemingly without any particular reason... he attempted to make some revolutionary happen... well, nice try for sure...

but for even more sure by the time liszt wrote his sonata, the romantism is mature enough...