You don't just 'correct' Beethoven!! - Copying Beethoven (2007) Discussion

Maybe everything you said is true, but still its a fun movie if you just see it for what it is, a fiction.

reply

I have not yet seen the movie but unless the names Karajan or Kempff for example are not mentioned I am not interested. I would not like to see an "entertaining version" of what someone "would like to have happened" when it comes to Beethoven. He is, in my opinion, the hallmark of music in the human history. They should have made a picture about his life, according to the sources and work we have so far and not some Hollywooded version of his love life.

reply

[–] hbytnar 17 years ago

It is not about his love life. It is strictly about music and creativity and what makes true artist, and you can see that through the plot, which was a little enforced, I presume by the studio so they could;
a) know what are they financing, if they were illiterate in music
b) give average people something to follow, in case they were illiterate in music
c) make reviewers life easier and include the plot so they could summarize it unjustly in two sentences, in case they were illiterate in music
d) give fiery forum writers something to argue about, in case they thought the movie wa about the plot, not music.

So yes, it is not a wonderful movie, Harris wears way to much make up to actually stamp himself on some viewers minds and Krueger, although charming, seems a little wimpy and too much of a groupie to portray a person in front of whom we should think Beethowen would eventually bow; yet it is about music, made by someone who seems to know something about it, therefore worth it.

So please go and see the movie, it is not that bad, and more, about music and courage to be genious ;).

I expect a miracle

reply

[–] lynn-brubaker 17 years ago

Oh come off it! If I were buying this movie for the music, I wouldn't buy it either. But that isn't what the movie is about. Nobody ever owned as much Karajan Beethoven as I did until ill health made it impossible for me to listen to it at any length. But I did indeed enjoy this movie (knowing full well it wasn't "history"). And after reading these reviews I also thank God I can now have some fun with what little music I can, from time to time, listen to.

llbrub

reply

[–] mokill00 17 years ago

This is the same feeling I had when I saw the trailer. At first I was hoping for some kind of a historically accurate insight into his life, but after seeing it again I feel as though someone is trying to throw a feminist perspective on his accomplishments while undermining his genius. As though he was so decrepit that he needed someone to show him how to compose at that stage in his career, "and oh by the way it was a woman, nah nahh na na naaahh"! Hollywood needs to stop putting out schlop and then labeling it as history.

reply

[–] northman742002 16 years ago

this movie has nothing to do whatsoever with beethovens love life.

reply

[–] barryriley-1 17 years ago

Wagner famously corrected Beethoven´s orchestration of the dissonant opening of the finale of the 9th. Until the Period Instrument people came long, Wagner´s changes were used by everyone.

Others have made changes from orchestrating string quartets (e.g. Bernstein) and piano sonatas (e.g. Weingartner) to inserting a repeat in the scherzo of the 5th to removing a repeat in the finale of the last string quartet.

Beethoven also corrected himself with revisions (op.18 quartets for example) and complete afterthoughts (finale of the B flat minor quartet, most famously). The finale of the 3rd is a rewrite of a piano piece which, itself, was based on a piece of theatre music.

I think the history of revision and correction in music justifies that fantasy scene. I just wish she had told him to make the slow movement of the 9th shorter!

reply

[–] regenet 17 years ago

Yes, some people has corrected Beethoven, and I really don't like their manners. - this is not about 'which is right, and which is wrong', but about the manners and attitude.

Okay, if one can correct Beethoven, one(he or she) can correct Mozart, Bach, the Beatles, Picaso, Yeats, Gogh, Da Vinci, - you can name everybody. There are full of mistakes in the Bible, then, it must be corrected, what about <For whom the bell tolls?>? Isn't it boring?

What about <Sunflower>? I don't like some of the colors. Please, please somebody correct it~! What about <Mona Lisa>? I really don't like the weird smile. Is there anyone who can correct it?

What about <A la Recherche du Temps Perdu> by Marcel Proust? 11 books! I do believe that someone must shrink it about the half of its original volume; Hm... still 5 and half books are too long. Barry, as you said, someone must have told him to make it shorter - much and much shorter!!!

If anybody creates anything - music, painting, novel, etc. - he(or she) is the ONLY person in this universe who has the right to correct it, because it is his(or her) own work. Even though the person is not the Beethoven, nobody has any right to correct it!

There might be one exception. If the composer - or author, or painter - finds somebody, and asks him(or her) to correct it. But, even this case, the person should carefully follow the original creator's will - idea, thought, inspiration, etc.

Barry, I wanna ask you this; If somebody 'correct' your comment as the way he(or she) likes - of course, without your permission - how do you feel? Do you like it? : I'm very sorry for my 'long' comment, but I don't feel like shrinking it. and I don't let others to correct it.

reply

[–] grandisdavid 17 years ago

You're great!

reply

[–] d_killa_b 14 years ago

that is utter nonsense.

and when other musicians "correct"ludwig van beethoven they are not correcting at all,they are intrepreting.there is a vast difference in the two.noone but beethoven could have corrected his work as it was his work.to create a fictional character to do such a thing suggests he needed correcting from time to time and thereby the writer of the film understands the concept of intrepretation less than you do.

and the 9th is perfect as is.

reply

[–] macgeek2004 17 years ago

"Honestly, this movie seems more like a mocking of the man's skill and passion for music than the tribute it should of been. Average joes just out of school don't just 'correct' Ludwig van Beethoven! The man was a genius! Pure genius, from the power of the 5th to the joy of the 9th, to the heroism of the 3rd, all his symphonies are imbued with his passion and temper. He was man that you didn't just correct all willy-nilly. Here was man that you did not correct. He knew music better than you! He knew what his symphonies should sound like, and you don't just change that!

Really, this movie is more of a feminist-mocking of the glory that is Classical Music than any sort of tribute, or fair treatment."

You're one of those people that puts some guys up on pedestal's, where no matter what they did, you'd treat it like the word or the sound of god.

Beethoven was just a person, and yes, his music could be "corrected". He wasn't god.

reply

[–] moonbal 17 years ago

Beethoven wasn't just anybody. Everybody is not equal; some are way more talented than others. Beethoven was one of those people. To portray him as having flaws in music is quite insulting.

reply

[–] siphoning 14 years ago

I agree with the first part of your post, but not the second. Beethoven was a genius, but to portray him as having flaws in his music is not insulting. Unless a portrayal is meant to actually insult (and this movie certainly does not intend that!), portraying a flaw of any sort should be acceptable to both the person and his/her fans. Believing that someone is impervious to flaws makes them perfect, godlike, and frankly, inhuman, and though Beethoven may come extremely close to absolute perfection in music, he does not reach it, and no one ever can.

reply

[–] ross-noble-1 17 years ago

It has nothing to do with talent. In art, there is no right and wrong. If there is an aspect of another person's work that you feel can be improved, then they can be revised and changed, but it is not because they were wrong.

reply

[–] janny108 17 years ago

I would agree this is a feminist view of music in the 19th century. I think the part where she is actually conducting is sort of off, it would not have happened back then. I think a lot of women probably were frustrated musicians like that nun and did not the chance to express it so they became wives, nuns, maids or nurses.
Jan

reply

[–] rhymeflow 17 years ago

i think he sucks, who cares?

and who cares if you are offended sir?

isnt he like dead or something?

yeah, read thru it and loosen up a bit :)

reply

[–] rubbish100 17 years ago

Hee Hee...... beethoven who ? ....wat band is he in ? ;)

.:[Humans .... Ya Can't Trust 'Em !!!!!]:.

reply

[–] dalshaugeric 17 years ago

Rhymeflow, get some culture. And I AM offended and I DO care because it's that exact train of thought (old = suckage) that will lead to the irreversable loss of beautiful Classical pieces such as Beethoven's 9th, Mozart's Sonata, Tchakovsky's 1812 Overture. And we CANNOT even compare those to that utter *beep* of modern stuff like Rap music, and Country.

And learn how to actually spell English properly before even try to debate me.

P.S: If you're from a non-English speaking country, or only speak English as a Second Language, I do not mean to offend you.

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] bardowolf 17 years ago

You know, it's possible to like Beethoven and Mozart as well as country and rap, because there is good and bad in every genre. I'm a fan of music in general. It's also my belief that the previous two posters were just taking the piss. If they weren't, well...

reply

[–] fanaticita 17 years ago

This film was not an authorized or official biography in the same way that Shakespeare in Love was not either. It was meant to entertain, and that it did. The director, Agnieszka Holland, is hardly an "ordinary Joe. . . . ."

reply

[–] relaxed_sphincter 17 years ago

i think he sucks, who cares?

and who cares if you are offended sir?

isnt he like dead or something?

yeah, read thru it and loosen up a bit :)

The best post in the thread. Beethoven's just a bloke. Most things can be corrected.

reply

[–] duong_nm 15 years ago

hey, what are you? a troll?

reply

[–] TudorLady 15 years ago

He may be dead but his music will live forever in the hearts of those who recognise his unique genius and love listening to it. Whether you are musically trained or not there's something about Beethoven that appeals to many and as far as I'm concerned he is quite simply the Maestro and always will be.

The King's good servant but God's first

reply

[–] webber115 17 years ago

Relax with the histrionics people, here's my two non-insulting theories, based on the scene where Holtz makes that B minor key correction.

[Possible Spoilers]

1.) We know right from the start of the movie, the carriage ride, that Holtz is spellbound by Beethoven and his music, and even that's probably an understatement.
Her key signature 'correction' was really a subtle compliment, it was her devotion to his music, that lead her to believe that he genuinely made a mistake. She was the school's best "copyist", she probably studied his prior compositions in great detail.

2.) Its explicit throughout the movie that Holtz has a hard time understanding Beethoven's music because she's too one-dimensional in her writing. She could've mistaken some of his style for miscalcuations in music theory. Like that end scene for example, where Beethoven is dictating that hymn and he's like "there's no key," and she finally starts understanding his methods, albeit still with a struggle. So in the end, the whole correction thing scene didn't insult Beethoven, she humiliated herself instead.

How Original.

reply

[–] MorbidKittyProductions 17 years ago

i loved this movie.. but i honestly thought the *same* thing when that part came up. i raised my eyebrows and expected him to nearly slap her on the wrist, or the face, or simply throw her out.... b/c i muttered the same thing, only i said "you don't just traipse up to Beethoven, whose music you 'copied', and say *i corrected it*- i didn't *change it* i *corrected it*".....

sure he later on edged toward agreeing with her and not knowing why he didn't see that before, and how did *she* know that!?.... but i said that too lol...

you don't just "correct" someone who *knows* what they're doing

"I reject your reality and substitute my own"

reply

[–] Ana_Banana 17 years ago

I have serious doubts about the level of musical knowledge of those people who made "Copying Beethoven". Changing the mode from B major to minor in the extremely brief transition before the return of the theme in the finale of the Ninth (the alleged "correction") is not at all so much of a fuss! Just imagine the music. See?

And to say that the slow movement in Op. 132 was in "no key" would mean that Beethoven knew nothing about the ancient modes (the piece is, for the most part, in the Hypo-Lydian mode), or that he was some atonalist! Pretty ridiculous.

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] arabnight01 17 years ago

I don't even know where to start with this thread.

I think there are some latent insecurities in alot of posters in regards to Beethoven. Why does your love and admiration of his music have to extend to the man himself? Was Beethoven infallible? No. His music had flaws like any other great composer. That his scope of vision in his quartets and symphonies outshone all others before him (and some might say after him, as well) does not change the fact that the guy was a jerk. But who the hell cares? It doesn't diminish his art. So lfost, you take umbrage at the filmmaker having Beethoven apologizing to someone he slighted because it's inaccurate, yet you say you admire the man. So do you admire him as a man (even though by all accounts he wasn't that nice of a dude), or do you admire his music? Does the fact that Strauss was a Nazi mean that his music is less beautiful? And why can't you alter another's art? Mozart's Requiem was finished by a student and is considered one of his finer late period pieces. Ives' Universe Symphony was as recently as 2005 recorded from initial unfinished sketches very successfully. And much new music intentionally subverts compositional norms to allow for reworking of sections and performance choices. Even in the common practice period and thru the modern era conductors make choices about performing the pieces they play.

And to the poster concerned about "changing" art... This shows a truly heavy-handed understanding of art and aesthetics. Art is a living and breathing thing. It does not "belong" to anyone. A good portion of the art of the last century confronts a reaction to the academy and an attempt to bring art back to the people. Forget, say, about Dada and Fluxus and even post-expressionism, what about pop art by Lichtenstein or commercial art by Warhol, who, in fact, DID change the Mona Lisa to deconstruct our preconceived notions of what art truly is (like Johns did with the Amer. flag)? This continues to an even greater extent to this day (Barney, Mori, Hirst). The art exists without/beyond the artist. If you maintain an intellectual superiority and sense of ownership, then you reject the advances in art of the last century. And that ain't nice.

As for the contempt towards "rap" and "country" music, I'm sorry, you're just speaking out of your own ignorance and egotism. And guess what? You're wrong. This comment speaks more than anything to the validity of your other positions which, frankly, have enough problems of their own to deal with. Feel free to call me out on anything you'd like, I'd love to have an impassioned discussion about it, that's what these boards are good for.

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] arabnight01 17 years ago

Beethoven is most certainly a dude, unless there's something you know about him that I don't.

So you admire Beethoven's work, but not the man personally, is that right? Does this film in any way diminish the quality or value of his work? What about the multifarious interpretations of his symphonies? Those alter the works themselves. Do you criticize Leonard Bernstein for conducting Luddy's symphonies with a decidedly pronounced rhythmic bent? I wouldn't think so, because many consider those performances to be among the finest recorded, yet in terms of the historical performance style that Beethoven likely considered, the muscular rhythms of the Bernstein interpretations are somewhat out of place.

However, you find this film, which is clearly a fictional account whose focus isn't even Beethoven (hence the title, "Copying Beethoven," not "Beethoven") more threatening to the undisputed legacy of the composer than artistic interpretations of his actual pieces? There's a reason only Beethoven's name appears in gold at Symphony Hall in Boston - he's possibly the most famous and well respected composer to have ever lived, and has had the benefit of being both popular (who isn't on the man's jock?) and relevant from his time to the present day, something that not even J.S. Bach can attest to. So why is this film such a threat to you? I guess that's my beef here. That, and the fact that for people who are supposedly such arbiters of fine musical taste there is so much disdain among other posters for other opinions and genres. If the best music you've ever heard was premiered 2 centuries ago, then you obviously aren't listening closely enough.

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] arabnight01 17 years ago

I hate to make ad hominen attacks on people that I don't know, but it must be said that you must be the stupidest poster on imdb, and that means quite alot because there are a ton of idiots floating around this place. Oh, those must be your droogs. If the best you can come up with is calling me pretentious and a woman (as if that's supposed to be some sort of diss), then I don't even have to bother with arguing with you. Twelve year olds with limited intellects and world-views don't often irk me to this extent, so be proud - this post and whatever other turds you manage to squeeze out should be the highlights of your day.

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Ana_Banana 17 years ago

If you read my previous post you'll know why this movie is way, way exaggerated, simplified, and not documented. The lack of musical knowledge (as showed in my post) coming from the part of the writers of a movie about Beethoven is a good proof that their movie was not serious stuff.

And Beethoven was no "jerk", but impulsive (read a good biography), and his good works have no "flaws". Do you know them and listen to them? Please do not over-simplify things and do not make everything relative. Fair is fair, foul is foul.

reply

[–] arabnight01 17 years ago

I think you hit the nail right on the head with you comment that this movie was not "serious stuff." It was a fictional dramatization primarily focused not solely on Beethoven, but his copyist. I think a good example of how effective this technique can be is "Amadeus," which is absolutely historically inaccurate in many ways but is also a tremendous and critically acclaimed film. Now this in no way tarnishes the legacy of Mozart or his music, does it? I think the point I'm trying to make is that this film wasn't intended to be of documentary-level accuracy, but was instead just a skeleton for the fleshing out of the director's/writer's ideas, just like much historical fiction. And for that, I can't fault the filmmakers any more than I can fault others who have done the same and created fantastic pieces.

I'm not arguing with your analysis of the Beethoven pieces mentioned in the film, because they're as correct as they need to be (although check out Schenker's analysis to the 9th if you haven't yet, it's really interesting and a good read, especially if you, as you clearly seem to be, are capable of intuiting it from a theoretical level). However, I don't think their importance to the movie is as stated; they seem to be plot devices in each case you mentioned and should be taken as such and not on their accuracy.

Beethoven was impulsive, but to sweep that aside and excuse his behavior as simply being impulsive is not something that I can agree with. He was a complicated man, but I don't think you will disagree with the fact that he often treated people harshly and with disdain, and I call people who act that way jerks. I have read bits of good biographies (most notably "The Man and the Artist, As Revealed in His Own Words"), and they do nothing but reinforce my opinion.

I know Beethoven's works, listen to them, and love them all (for various reasons). However, I must stand by my opinion that his work does have its flaws and shortcomings just as every composer's works do. We are all only human. Was Beethoven as good of a melodicist as Schubert? Probably not, hence his reliance on melodic fragmentation throughout his works (Beethoven himself was quoted as saying one day Schubert would surpass him as a composer). Does that diminish his value and place in the music world? No way in hell. But I think it's naive to think of the man as this infallible entity that lorded over the music world and who is untouchable as a composer. I think, if anything you are over-simplifying things and I'm saying they're more complex issues at play here than just, "Oh my god, Beethoven is the man!" Things, in this case, are relative because art is relative in many ways. I'm not saying we can't objectively judge art, because that's bunk, but I think the ways in which we do so are very complicated and subtle. Fair IS fair, and we must be open to the whole story and its interpretations/permutations.

I'm coming off as long-winded, but this is definitely something I'm passionate about, so I hope you'll forgive me for going on and on.

reply

[–] Ana_Banana 17 years ago

Thanks for your reply, arabnight01. I generally agree with your comment, with a few exceptions. "Amadeus" is a good film (and not too inaccurate about Mozart's personality), but "Copying Beethoven" is not at all at that level. I don't expect biopics to be documentaries, but artistically strong, believable and consistent insights of the man in question and of his context.

I might agree that the musical pieces mentioned so superficially in this film were meant just as plot devices, although it's about Beethoven, one of the greatest composers, and one would expect a higher level of musical understanding. It would have been nicer to deal more with the Great Fugue, arguably his most "modern" work. But in order to do that, they probably needed to be better musicians...

You surely know that the same harsh Beethoven was also deeply apologizing to the people he has offended. A true jerk never apologizes, he's always right and entitled to anything. Beethoven had life-long friends, he was a passionate man and his moods were quickly shifting, through melancholy, drollness, disdain, exaltation, and so on. That's one of the clues to his personality.

Of course, his output has some weak pieces, but the real great ones are (should I say the big word?) perfect in that style: several symphonies, the Fourth Piano Concerto, several quartets and piano sonatas, etc. I'm astonished each time by such compositions. I don't idolize Beethoven in his entirety, and when I think of him it's about his truly great works, not that he was "the man". And I'm sure you know music was not all about beautiful tunes. If we need such comparisons, Beethoven was usually not as good a melodicist as Schubert, but he was a greater COMPOSER, with a wider range of emotions. You know what I mean. And he never said that Schubert would surpass him (come on), but that the lad "surely had a divine spark in himself". Too bad Schubert died so young, soon after he has just became a really great composer (but that's another story).

Excuse my long comment, you see I'm at least as passionate about as you. :-)

reply

[–] arabnight01 17 years ago

Sorry for the long lapse in replies, I was on vacation!

It seems we've reached a relative middle ground in our discussion, which is great. Although I still disagree with some of your sentiments, I can understand where you are coming from in your opinions and respect what you have to say (though Beethoven DID in fact say that Schubert would surpass him; and I quote, "This one will surpass me." Check out Deutsch's "Schubert: A Documentary Biography").

However, just as a general aside, I wonder how important the hierarchical distinctions we make about the greatness of composers/artists/etc really are. I think especially in terms of art from the modern period and on forward, objective categories fall aside to the subjective experiences of the listener. Maybe we can apply that to music like Beethoven's and other music of that period and others, too. Why do we find the need to say Beethoven is "better" than another composer? Isn't it enough to just like his music? What is it about music and art in general that we think we can co-opt it as our own? I can offer some possible explanations, but I don't think that's really necessary. Just some food for thought. I guess if we started thinking that way, imdb boards would cease to be so polemic. But maybe they would start to be more meaningful and insightful, too, and less full of invective and spite. And maybe that would be a good thing.

reply

[–] manco82 16 years ago

Yes I reject your so-called advances of the 20th century except for Rachmaninov, Prokofiev and The Beatles. The rest was garbage.

reply