What made this guy better than most?

youtube.com/watch?v=41pBo0mHMNM

His keen ear for sampling. The way the 808's hit.

Beethoven combined power and beauty more masterfully than anyone.

There is an element of luck at play with Beethoven's popularity, being born and working in the right place at the right time is part of it.
He was working at a time when the Classical era (of Haydn and Mozart's influence) was starting to overstay its welcome. Mozart's late-period Classical already started incorporating a more bombastic-sounding, if not "more emotionally lyrical" approach to composition. And this is the place Beethoven was young enough as a composer to pick up where Mozart left off in the 1790's, wheras older more established composers may be more set in a more "conservative" 18th century Classical style of habitual composition.

And yeah it "sounds good" because Beethoven's transitional-era music keeps one foot in the subtle grace of 18th century Classical while adopting a more "populist/emotional" approach that the general public might more easily latch on to. He'd probably be ridiculed for his ideas if he wete born 10 or 20 years earlier, and wouldn't have as many willing patrons to comission his work.

Also, Beethoven really was a once-in-a-generation genius because not only did he establish "Romantic" aestehetics as the norm for the next 80 years of music, he also in his late period kind of anticipated what would happen to romanticism once its well ran dry (listen to Grosse Fuge and 29th Piano Sonata, it's almost like proto-modernism with its bending of "acceptable" tonality). These late period compositions were kind of ignored and dismissed as the ramblings of a deaf old madman during its time, but in hindsight, may have just been 90 years ahead of its time.

tl/dr: Beethoven is based and only contrarians and ignoramuses say otherwise.

beethoven can't hold a light to hans zimmer

Yeah, he holds a blowtorch to his shitty fucking braaps

zimmer down, user

This
youtu.be/4Tr0otuiQuU

The 9th Symphony at the proper tempo is one of the most overwhelming tour de force in history. The sheer momentum that builds is stunning.

This shit again.

there were many factors but one of them was something to do with him being deaf pushed him to make better music. he composed Eroica symphony basically just after he found out he was deaf. go read the heilgenstadt testament - it's very revealing but also somewhat heartbreaking

His manic depressive personality likely helped with the more transitional aspects. Of course, he already had experience with traditional style as you mentioned.

I would also say, to further answer OP's question, that he wasn't necessarily the best overall. That's a little more subjective. Although, he is often regarded as one of the best and the best of his time. Bach, Mozart, and somewhat lesser known greats have also exhibited mastery of style in their own ages. And when comparing different periods it can become a case of apples and oranges.

He invented new ways of making compositions, like adding a movement before an interlude or making more eclectic pieces. Basically he changed how classical music was structured, like the beatles did in a way.

This user knows, this is basically how my musical appreciation teacher in collegue explained it.

>(Courses in enjoyment or Music Appreciation should not be called teaching at all, but
>are a benevolent-and sometimes sinister-effort of public relations:
>a gigantic advance publicity to persuade people to go to more concerts
>and buy more records, and a hope that by exposing the "students"
>to music and persuading them that they like it, they will eventually
>acquire the taste for it. But whose taste?)
>[...]
>We have courses on differential equations, but there
>are none on the appreciation of the beauty of analytic functions
>(although some of them are, indeed, very beautiful). Those students
>who wish to study about music should be given courses in harmony,
>counterpoint, fugue, orchestration, twelve-tonetechnique,and enough
>engineering to compose electronic music. They should learn how to
>figure a bass and how to read score at the keyboard.The music of
>the past should be examined, historically if necessary, to find out
>what it can teach us about composition. In conservatories,more
>contemporary works should be demanded of all instrumentalists, and
>they should certainly all be taught composition,too. If this were even
>half carried out, the standard of musical education would be incalculably higher.
>Music appreciation can be left to television. But those
>who wish really to study music should be taught composition in all
>of its contemporary forms: we may then hope and pray that the
>majority will never become composers.

Where is this quote from? That's kind of how I felt about that course. In literary appreciation you at least practiced writing poems. In music appreciation I learned zero about how those compositions where built. It was less a music course and more a history course. The tests where a ten seconds sample of a piece and we had to guess the correct one and the years it was written. That ended up making the course a total drag.

Attached: charles rosen.jpg (460x276, 25K)

Thanks user!

autism

This

Beethoven isn't based specifically because he took that "emotionally lyrical" part of Mozart and made it the focus. What a fag
Then Wagner fixed Beethoven

that sounds like boomer shit, bro.... kinda cringe

why did classical music not continue to evolve into different subgenres throughout the 20th and 21st century?

people just want to virtue signal by praising a deaf composer

Nobody does this except for maybe kids. Him gradually losing his hearing is an after-thought when considering why his music was so intetesting. There's evidence that suggests he never actually went completely deaf but just lost most of it as he aged.

>There's evidence that suggests he never actually went completely deaf but just lost most of it as he aged.
wow very relevant since most people know about that you sure think good

I actually like De Bussy way better. Mozart and Beethoven's stuff mainly sounds like chamber music. Mozart slightly better but not that interesting honestly. It was what the high class commissioned at the time, not meant to be innovative. Not so sure what makes him such a "genius". Anyone with his education and aristocracy with some music talent could have done it.

Are you the guy that keeps saying Bach is shit too

semi based pseud response, no beethoven wouldn't have been ridiculed if his work came out a decade or two later than it did, everyone would still have marveled at its craftsmanship but yes he was a once in a century level genius