Late Beethoven works are astonishing. The Great Fugue [1,2] is also remarkable -- fiendishly tough on both audiences and players. It is hard to believe it was written during the early 19th century. The fugue also has an interesting story: originally the 4th movement of a quartet, its terrible reception caused the publisher to request a new 4th movement, and the fugue became a standalone piece. The best description I've heard of it is from Stravinsky: "a contemporary piece of music that will be contemporary forever".

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grosse_Fuge

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13ygvpIg-S0

"fiendishly tough on both audiences" is this a way of saying it's not very nice without saying it?

(Thanks for the YT link to it, nice touch)

At the end of the YT video, the audience applause seems tepid, nobody stands, and yet the performers must be exhausted. (I think it's a great performance.) There's no singable theme, nothing really catchy, just 15 minutes of pretty intense focus required by everybody. For me, it's completely gripping - it can't be background music and I cannot do other work if it is playing. I think it is somehow alien, and so it will never be as widely celebrated as his other works.

Indeed, listening to 2/3rds of it left me in a fugue-like state.

And that is how headbanging was invented

In this context I would like to point to the free edx Harvard course series "First Nights", which introduces some important pieces of classical music and the context around their first public performance. The series is aimed at laypeople. The series also includes one course for the one being discussed here:

https://www.edx.org/course/first-nights-beethovens-9th-symph...

> First Nights - Beethoven's 9th Symphony and the 19th Century Orchestra

> Learn about Beethoven’s monumental 9th Symphony and forms of orchestral music.

I found the entire series very interesting and very well made, and the instructor, Thomas Forrest Kelly (Professor of Music, Harvard University) doing a very good job.

If you like books instead of videos, there is a book based on this course, First Nights (by Kelly): https://www.amazon.com/First-Nights-Five-Musical-Premiers/dp...

> As a teenager, while auditing Kant’s lectures at the University of Bonn

This is not correct. Kant never left the vicinity of Königsberg.[1] Instead, Beethoven was briefly attenting lectures by Eulogius Schneider.[2]

[1] Here is a map: https://www.online.uni-marburg.de/kant_old/bilder/planstrk.j...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eulogius_Schneider

Nothing any of us do today will exist in 500 years, but I suspect Beethoven's Ninth will continue to inspire.

For comparison, the 500th anniversary of Jean d'Okeghem's death was commemorated in 1997, and there is small but significant scholarly and performance community active today which are devoted to his works. Although there is no unbroken tradition of performance for Okeghem's music, we would like to think that we are his heirs in some way. There was a particular touching anecdote relayed by Fabrice Fitch that on the very evening of the Okeghem anniversary after the conference, he gathered with a few fellow musicologists, and, using a photocopier as a lectern, sang the 16th century lament "Ergone conticuit" written in remembrance of Okeghem.

Similarly, the 500th anniversary of Josquin des Prez, a much bigger star, was celebrated last year via numerous CD releases, journal papers, and concerts. Josquin is so famous that even though he may have been neglected for 100-200 years he may well be considered part of the enlarged classical canon today. In fact Robert Levin in a lecture explicitly mentioned Josquin when he asked the very same question about Beethoven. Going by these examples, it seems likely that Beethoven will endure.

Symphony No. 9 was composed between 1822 and 1824, so around 200 years ago. It probably will still be as popular in 300 years time, but that is not a given. It is hard to say what society will look like and value 300 years from now.

I cite math papers written in the 19th century, and I suspect many people here will write math or comp sci-related papers cited in 200 years time. Certainly the contributions of contemporary mathematicians and scientists will endure, even if their names are lost to time.

Beethoven is better than Bach in his life time. The whole classical era is a revolt against complexity. Hence you get the “pop” music of Mozart.

Beethoven is an exception than cross many eras. His latest is really not classical but very post-modern. But even him has issue that later need Liszt to have concerts so to have money to keep Beethoven music alive.

The sit down and go to a concert hall … it is hard to tell. Love to see Bach and Beethoven survive. But hard to tell.

Beethoven bridged the Classical (think Haydn and Mozart) and the Romantic eras of classical music. In his early career was was very Classical, a student of Haydn and interpreter of Mozart. He's often considered the transitional composer between the two periods, and can hardly be considered "Modern," much less post-modern.

He is, of course, timeless.

We're coming up on 500 years of Thomas Tallis, a composer whose works are still popular and frequently performed.

I would guess that if there are still humans around in 300 years, they will still be discussing Beethoven.

I think a name like Einstein will stick around though. It's too embedded in the public consciousness to disappear, and his breakthroughs are too big to forget.

I suspect one of the longest lived names will be Julius Caesar; first his military and Roman history, then he is the name of a Shakespeare play which is a fame of its own, then he’s the name of the month July, and proxy related to August from Augustus Caesar. He’s the name of the Caesar Cipher in cryptography, and tangled up in the etymology of the Caesarian Section method of childbirth (which he probably didn’t have), the Caesar Salad (actually Caesar Cardini but often misunderstood (whom was the chef named after tho?)), and the German word Kaiser for Emperor e.g. Kaiser Wilhelm.

It’s a bit like if Martin Luther King became the dominant meaning of the word “King” and that became the reason “King” echoed down the centuries; famous things named after him so that everything King which isn’t named after him is often thought to be, or is a reminder of him.

In some animated cartoon, a character who sounds like a stereotype of an NYC construction worker complains to someone who cut the line: “Hey Copernicus! Navigate yourself to the back of the line!”

Most people don't understand special relativity, much less general (or the photoelectric effect) so it's not at all a given that Einstein will remain a household name.

Nowadays "Hitler" is the default bad guy but before him it was "Napoleon" in much of Europe, and before that "Pharaoh". I'm pretty sure the same will happen to $DEFAULT_SMART_GUY

We (collectively) remember Newton, even if the average person doesn't understand gravity beyond "keeps us on the ground" or calculus. We can go back thousands of years and we still remember Pythagoras.

Einstein's association with nuclear energy will be what keeps his memory alive.

I am not claiming that Einstein will be forgotten, only challenging the conjecture that he will be a figure well known and cited by the general public. I really doubt that most people on the street would remember even having heard of Newton, much less referring to him in any context.

Don’t worry, the same will be true of kardashians, probably sooner than It happens to Einstein.

I challenge the assumption that the average person associates nuclear energy with Einstein (or the other way around).

and I challenge the assumption that even physicists know much about gravity beyond "keeps stuff on the ground." We may have general relativity, but it somehow seems to miss something to say physical models of gravity are that well flushed. It doesn't explain something like 80-90% of the gross movements of large masses seen in the universe by astrophysicists. We know a heck of a lot more about the small scale.

But this is a silly point I'm making, I admit ;)

> Most people don't understand special relativity,

but most people recognize the formula E=MC^2 even if they don't know what it means, and can tell you the name of the dude sticking out his tongue in a picture.

Understanding someone's work is orthogonal to them being well known.

And hey, at least Einstein's equation is something Einstein was both responsible for and proud of - Schrödinger is famous for his thought experiment that's just supposed to show how ridiculous the Copenhagen interpretation is. In popular culture Schrödinger ends up standing for specifically the thing he disagreed with.

Archimedes?

Plato?

Beethoven sonatas are here to stay as well. Besides the "Moonlight" I think the "Hammerklavier", the "Waldstein", the "Tempest" and the "Pathetique" are absolute masterpieces (and probably others).

Fur Elise is so overplayed that I cannot take it seriously tbh:(

> I suspect Beethoven's Ninth will continue to inspire

I hope and suspect so, but taste is a fickle thing. It may be hard to believe but Bach, nowadays considered by many as the greatest composer ever, almost faded into obscurity.

The problem was, as often, that works fade out of fashion quickly and are put aside. Bach's style had been superseded by (the precursors to) Classical, and sounded old-fashioned at the end of the 18th century. It didn't take very long for it to be rediscovered, though: some 80 years. Rediscovering isn't even the correct word: the tradition was kept alive, but a bit underground. Mendelssohn got his inspiration from his teacher (Zelter), who had a profound love for Bach, and probably also from his aunt Sarah Levy who had studied with Bach's eldest son (W.F. Bach) and supported another (C.Ph.E).

Not hard to believe, even now Bach is considered an acquired taste

But many are acquiring it. Source: me. I have sung Bach for a living in my life. :)

“Ahhhh Bach”

True words. Enjoy the moment we are here!

Speak for yourself.

I still await the ideal biopic about Beethoven. Immortal Beloved was not bad at all, but I think there's a better one gestating in someone's mind, somewhere.

100%. While I can’t escape the running away sequence from that film, I could imagine a very different expression, though probably similar intensity. Someone will get round to it sooner or later.

My favorite musical composition story is Beethoven's Fur Elise. He started writing the song for his student, whom he was in love with. She wasn't very good, so the song was easy.

Then he found out she got engaged, and he made the rest of the song super difficult so she could never play it.

You can listen to the song and hear when his heart breaks: https://youtu.be/CQIDLhBJ2y4

> Then he found out she got engaged, and he made the rest of the song super difficult so she could never play it.

It is very unlikely that this story is anything more than a fanciful tale: The dedicatee of the piece is unknown; the work was found in papers long after Beethoven's death and was unknown before that. So, the prospect of there being someone who was told the story and wrote it down, even though it's recorded nowhere is close to nil. See the Wikipedia article for more details.

Speculation is fun, if you’re aware that you’re not doing science.

Another fun theory I’ve read is that the piece was called “Für X” for different values of X at different times.

According to this theory, Beethoven intentionally didn’t publish it so that he could continue to use the same piece to impress different women, “Look what I wrote for you”.

Efficient.

The Beautiful South, Song For Whoever: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=J-q_gAM1BXQ

Bo Burnham, Repeat Stuff: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nt9c0UeYhFc

I'm not sure there's enough evidence for this theory, but it does sound amusing

This may be true. I've heard it enough times that I forget to question it. But it's fun. :)

if you are someone with very little musical knowledge but have a mild interest in Beethoven, I highly recommend the Wondrium (was: "Great Courses") class on him[0], by Prof. Greenberg (also available on Audible).

And basically all other classes by the same author too, they're fun, educational, and you can feel the passion coming through and get to you.

[0] https://www.thegreatcourses.com/courses/great-masters-beetho...

The author does make it clear that Ode To Joy was by Schiller, not by Beethoven; but for me it grates that throughout the article (as well as in the title) he refers to "Beethoven's Ode to Joy", instead of "Beethoven's 9th Symphony". The chorale movement is only a part of the work; and the ode wasn't written by Beethoven.

If it helps, it's really ok; the German title is "An die Freude". This was the title of Schiller's poem, and it's also the title of the final choral movement of Beethoven 9. So the usage is correct. It's right there on the title page of the score in every German edition. (I have three.)

Source: me. I've sung as the soloist in Beethoven 9 numerous times.

I am kind of ashamed to bring this anecdote in a comment to such a high brow article, but it should be noted that "Ode to Joy" was the villain's song in the first "Die Hard" movie. It's played when the bad guys finally open the vault. The chief villain, Hans Gruber, is himself, of course, German and has received "a classical education".

(The director, McTiernan, had noticed the use of Ode to Joy in A Clockwork Orange and was a big fan of all things Kubrick's).

Using that music for the villain also plays beautifully in building some moral ambiguity; it can be argued that Gruber is in fact the protagonist, trying to achieve something (and succeeding, when the vault opens), while John McClane, who doesn't want anything and isn't even happy to be there, is the antagonist.

But then in subsequent movies, the Ode to Joy somehow becomes the good guy's song, which is super weird because McClane is anything but German, or classically educated, or... educated.

The use of Ode to Joy in A Clockwork Orange is not incidental. In the original novel Alex is obsessed with classical music and Beethoven in particular. When he is subjected to the Ludovico technique it is Ode to Joy that is playing, which renders him unable to enjoy his passion any more.

I haven’t read A Clockwork Orange, but clearly Ludovico is a reference to Ludwig van Beethoven‘s first name.

I wouldn’t say clearly, it could be a reference to Ludovico Sforza… or maybe just to the meaning of “ famous fighter “, which Ludwig also has a similar meaning.

In which case, it is a very clever reference in a way

Poor Beethoven, mistaken and arrested as a tramp! That never happened to Stevie Nicks, as far as I know.