Especially 5:59

The Development section is usually where Beethoven really takes things to the next level. The development section in this was short, but you could definitely hear Beethoven's unique sound come through here

@@nloc1929 You’re quite right, though it has to be said as well that in Beethoven - like Haydn from where he got it, but not Mozart - there is actually development throughout, often almost from the first bars.

I feel like the first and 4th symphonies are bookends. Similar in shape

Yes, surely a counterproductive strategy.

I know right. It's so dumb.

Not only do I not endorse their products, but I specifically buy their competitors' products just for spite...yeh, that'll teach them to trample over my Beethoven!

@@thejils1669this is probably the algorithms agenda too lol

1:33 🤘🤘🤘🤘

@@indioduran4535 get a fucking brain

the both of you

@@vayhn 🙁

@@vayhn let people enjoy music how they wish

haha

Nothing is perfect.

What’s your favorite movement of “Symphony No. 1”? Since I first heard it, I’ve always taken a liking to movement three.

Beethoven’s Symphony 1 is an extraordinary first effort by any standards, but it is not perfect. As just one example, Beethoven’s scoring of the work is heavy and dense, perhaps too much so; it is arguably over-orchestrated and over-scored, and it is not a mistake he made again (this is something that never occurs in late-Mozart or Haydn). Sometimes we need to take the greatest of composers off their pedestals and examine them a little more closely before coming out with the hyperbole.

Perfect? Hardly, and Beethoven himself would not agree with you

@@Jeremiah_Rivers76 the second movement, it's perfect!

? what...? Of course it's live, I would have had a heart attack if I had realized it was samples. Do you really think you can get this sound with samples without WAY too much effort? And even then it won't sound perfect.

@@asukalangleysoryu6695 I am pretty sure, evoMusic didn't mean it like you understood it. ;) it was definatly not about samples or no samples, the comment is about that it is a live concert (recording), as you can hear at the end.. and not a studiorecording. :)

me too, the applause almost made me fall off my chair.

Only in the comments section of classical works do you find misunderstandings to this level of contempt and stupidity.

The applause started before it was finished, because they didn't know about that empty bar at the end.

Yo tambien, la orquesta tiene profundidad en la musica

Some good guidance points for listeners, though the date could be more precise - we know the first performance of this symphony was 2 April 1800. The idea of the opening chords you mention is clearly lifted from the opening chords of Haydn’s string quartet Opus 74 No 1, though Beethoven’s as you say are off-tonic (though that was another Haydnesque trick). Two other things I would note: i) The orchestration and use of the wind and brass instruments in particular here is very different from that of his two greatest predecessors Mozart and Haydn (it is in fact, arguably over-scored, something Beethoven noted himself and corrected in future works); ii) The third movement really is a brand new one-in-a-bar Scherzo, a very different thing from the Allegretto-type Minuets of Mozart (Symphonies 39, 40, 41), and even the Allegro molto of Haydn’s fastest Minuets (Symphonies 28, and 94). The only thing I might suggest is that often Haydn’s themes in particular do not return ‘verbatim’ (they are often varied, and sometimes re-scored), but in general, you make a good point about Beethoven’s endless development throughout a movement which is another very characteristic Haydnesque compositional technique that Beethoven noted, and then adopted in own way.

Louis Ferdinand of Prussia wrote music like Ludwig. Only 13 works though.

@@classicallpvault8251 Any youTube videos of his music? I think some Hummel piano stuff sounds like Ludwig but I haven't heard any orchestral stuff

Beethoven 1 is very new as you say, but it is not ‘revolutionary’ because it does not destroy its immediate predecessors Mozart and Haydn; it is however a significant radical evolution of the form. Just one example to illustrate: the opening chords are clearly modelled on the opening chords of Haydn’s string quartet Opus 74 No 1, but done slightly differently for example by being off-tonic (in other words, it’s an evolutionary step, exploring things in a different way, but it’s not ‘revolutionary’).

Beethoven didn’t compose this at 8 years old. It was composed between 1795-1800, so at the time of completion Beethoven was 29 years old. It was Mozart who wrote his first symphony at 8 years old in 1764.

@@ruslans2006 bloody hell, now I gotta go down another rabbit hole, I can't fathom how these brilliant minds work

@@WhyForWhatNow Well, Mozart was talented at an early age, because his father Leopold Mozart had been giving Mozart musical education since at least the age of 3.

@@ruslans2006 Leopold Mozart was responsible for teaching the very young Mozart the mechanics of music, the initial musical grammar if you like, how instruments worked, and such like. The early European grand tour of 1763-1766 by Wolfgang and his sister was more about Leopold exhibiting his two precocious children as performers than about teaching them anything; it was on the London leg of this tour from April 1764 to July 1765 that Wolfgang met JC Bach whose impact on the boy - after the rather staid and overbearing influence of his father - was so explosive it remained with him for the rest of his life. Put simply, not a note of Mozart’s music reflects any influence from his father, whilst JC Bach hovers over much of it.

He wasn't pretending

@@jagp135 lmao

Neither Mozart nor Beethoven - Haydn either - would ever have had any such conversation. Beethoven fully appreciated the achievements of both his two greatest predecessors: Haydn predicted that Beethoven would take his place as one of the greatest of composers, and Mozart probably would have done so as well, though did not live long enough to ever meet Beethoven.

LOL, because Mozart IS. Beethoven is a romantic.

Vivaldi: PTF... Beginners.

This is before he adopted that style. This is still early Beethoven and is taking allot from classical form. (Namely Mozart)

@@usernotfound6475 In terms of general compositional technique, there is rather more of Haydn in Beethoven’s DNA than there is of Mozart. Additionally, Beethoven in general avoided the areas of Mozart’s greatest achievements such as opera, chamber music other than string quartets, piano concertos; instead, he concentrated on those areas where Haydn set the challenge - the symphony, string quartet and the sonata. Beethoven took much, but in totally different ways from both Mozart *and* Haydn - the two composers who defined the Classical period; it was Beethoven’s great achievement to find a new voice for the new century.

@@usernotfound6475 Bingo. Until we get to the Eroica, Beethoven sticks to that heavy classical influence. When we get to number V, all bets are off. The Romantic era was starting to bloom at that point.

@@elaineblackhurst1509 and he did it in a way Haydn would’ve never dreamed of. Haydn symphonies were fifteen minute strict form affairs. Wonderful nonetheless, but nothing compared to what the Symphony would become. Brahms, Beethoven and Mahler would craft entire worlds in their symphonies.

@@justincombs7433 I don’t agree with your comments on Haydn which are unfortunate, perhaps reflecting a lesser knowledge and understanding of the composer compared to what you know about Beethoven.* What I do think is that even from his very first published works - the piano trios Opus 1, the piano sonatas Opus 2, the Symphony 1, and string quartets Opus 18 for example, Beethoven is clearly moving all forms of music in a totally new direction from where it had been left by Mozart and Haydn. This is the true greatness of Beethoven, but it is not fair to criticise Haydn for not being like Beethoven, in the same way that it would be ridiculous to criticise Beethoven for lacking the intimacy of Schubert, or for not writing music like Rossini, Weber, or Berlioz. Beethoven could never have managed a Symphonie fantastique, music he ‘…would’ve never dreamed of’, but is he no lesser a composer because that is so. * I believe it’s extremely difficult for anyone to have a proper understanding of Beethoven, and to be able to speak meaningfully about his music, without a proper knowledge and understanding of Haydn and Mozart in particular, but other composers from the past whom he studied as well.

You can skip the ads if you skip to the end of the video and then press the restart button

@@isaacanwarwatts8844 que buen hack 😉

then go and buy this recording if you don't like having it for free

@@DaveDexterMusic yes, you can say that but still. Let the ads be in between of the movements, that is acceptable for me, but when you´re enjoying the movement, it completely ruins it. :/ Every musician feels it.

wassamatta you never heard of free ad blockers? (!!!)

THANK YOU GOD-

Timothy Simpson Bach toccata? It’s closer to Scott Joplin than to anything in Bach!

He really was

Beethoven evolved so much between 1-5 that we literally entered a new era of music. When the first four notes of the 5th sounded, the previous era of music shattered. His early symphonies (while still Beethoven) have heavy Mozart and Haydn influences. But yes, he’s in the top tier of composers with Bach and Mozart for sure. Whoever thinks Beethoven is overrated in music, has no clue. None. The Fifth and the Ninth alone cement his rightful place in music history as one of the fathers of western classical music. Land that’s not even counting his choral and string quartets (which are a cornerstone of string repertoire). Many musical scholars, including Bernstein, say he’s the best (I nod to Bach for that, but he’s in my Triumvirate). Simply put. Beethoven is often underrated.

@@justincombs7433 The shattering probably happened with the 3rd symphony which broke the mould of even the biggest Classical symphonies of Mozart and Haydn; the 5th was just another radical evolution of the symphony away from the Classical model.* Note: Haydn Symphony 95 in c minor (1791). 1st movement: c minor, 2nd movement: E flat major, 3rd movement: c minor/C major/c minor, 4th movement: C major. Beethoven Symphony 5 in c minor (1808). 1st movement: c minor, 2nd movement: A flat major, 3rd movement: c minor/C major/c minor, 4th movement: C major. The journey from darkness to light and from conflict to resolution, from c minor to C major, in 3rd-related keys is almost identical - the Beethoven is clearly modelled on the Haydn.** Additionally, the idea of returning the Minuet/Scherzo in the finale had also already been done in Haydn’s B major (sic) Symphony 46. That said, Beethoven 3 is a fantastic, new type of symphony that is a radical evolution of the form; just be careful with the hyperbole, the germ of a number of Beethoven’s ‘new’ ideas clearly came from Haydn, indeed the musicologist and scholar HC Robbins Landon suggests that Haydn’s c minor Symphony 52 is the grandfather of the 5th. * I actually believe Beethoven broke with the Mozart/Haydn model more than is usually credited as early as his 1st symphony, though this is not a particularly widely held view. ** There is also a powerful case to be made for Beethoven being very aware of Haydn’s highly experimental Symphony 45 in f# minor (‘Farewell’) written in 1772, which is the greatest work of through-composition and cyclic integration prior to Beethoven’s 5th in 1808.

It's just a coincidence you can tell apart section durations from the rest, given that they look like timecodes for the video (they're not meant to be represented as such).

Do you know something called "director" and his work as a living metronome? I mean the musicians have a score, but the director have de direction and the artistic sense so...

@@diesirae9223 I don't know what that means. This comment was just comparing the sheet music vs recording tempi, recognising personal opinions and the like.

Yo I'm in Aziz's class thanks for the tip my dude helped a bunch

Probably doesn't matter, but I think it actually starts at exactly 5 minutes in.

wow, magine should be a word. it looks like it should be an emotion, like the word 'magine' just means nonchalant or something.

Dislike

​@@alexprado5112 Ok

Yes !

I believe Beethoven’s Symphony 1 is more of a radical evolutionary step than it’s normally credited to be, and these change do not have to wait for the fourth movement. In spite of its disingenuous label (Menuetto), the third movement* is clearly a brand new one-in-a-bar Scherzo; Beethoven ‘…starts to be his own composer’ here, and actually in several other places as well, beginning with the innovative off-tonic opening chords (even though the essential idea was borrowed from Haydn’s string quartet Opus 74 No 1). The key to understanding Beethoven 1 is the *context.* When placed next to his other symphonies, it appears the most ‘Classical’ and conservative of the nine; placed next to Mozart and Haydn then these adjectives simply won’t do - it’s clearly a radical update of the form. Put another way, rather than being tagged on the end of Mozart and Haydn at the dusk of one age, Beethoven’s first symphony is better viewed as being something new at the dawn of a new post-Classical age, at the start of a new century. * This genuine one-in-a-bar Scherzo movement is a radical new innovation by Beethoven. Haydn’s fastest Minuets got up to Allegro molto in Symphony 28 (1765) and Symphony 94 (1792) but they remain essentially three in a bar Minuets. None of the Minuets in Mozart’s symphonies -including the last three in 1788 - get even beyond the Allegretto-type.

I get your point, but be wary about accepting and propagating the generalised received wisdom about this symphony regarding it being ‘…the most conservative’, which it is compared perhaps to the eight that followed, but not in the context of what went before. I’m not sure it’s as Classical - ie in the Mozart/Haydn mould - as many suggest; Beethoven 1 is clearly at the dawn of a new post-Classical world, not something tagged on to the end of that of Mozart and Haydn. To take just three examples: i) The opening off-tonic chords never occur in Mozart or Haydn* (even though the idea is clearly lifted from Haydn’s string quartet Opus 74 No 1) ii) Really not sure how you can describe the third movement of Beethoven 1 as ‘…conservative’. Though disingenuously labelled ‘Menuetto’, it is clearly a fast, brand new one-in-a-bar Beethovenian scherzo and it is a radical evolution of the symphony as important as any found in the other symphonies. Haydn had got the Minuet up to Allegro molto in Symphonies 28 and 94, but they they were fast Minuets, not Scherzi; Mozart never got any of his Minuets any quicker than the Allegretto-type. iii) With reference to the scoring of the first symphony, it is indeed new again, being neither Mozartian nor Haydnesque, but it is slightly clumsy, gauche even. However, once you get past the novelty, listen again; the first reviewers in Vienna referred to it as novel; they complained about some of the scoring. The important and influential music journal Allgemeine Musikalische Zeitung reviewer is quoted on p243 of Jan Swafford’s** biography of Beethoven (2014): ‘In the symphony he finds ‘very much art, novelty, and a wealth of ideas. However, the wind instruments were used far too much’. That means he found the symphony overscored - which, on the whole it is’. In short, the first symphony actually demonstrates a lack of expertise in writing for woodwinds - the opposite of what you suggest in your comment; Beethoven fixed the problem in all subsequent symphonies. Hope yourself - and anyone else passing by - finds something of interest in there perhaps slightly alternative thoughts. * Though tonal ambiguity as in the opening of the b minor string quartet Opus 33 No 1 or second movement of Opus 76 No 6 is a Haydnesque trait picked up by Beethoven. ** Swafford is a composer himself, and knows what he is talking about.

?