When Beethoven’s famous Ninth Symphony premiered on May 7, 1824, it was met with resounding applause and quickly became a staple piece of classical music, with the theme “Ode to Joy” being recognizable even by those not familiar with classical music. When we look back at Beethoven’s life, we see this symphony as a culmination of his life’s work, a way to marvelously end his incredible career. When pieces of art have such a great reputation, it takes a brave person to say that they do not enjoy it, knowing that opinion will be unpopular. In a 1927 letter to the editor of The World newspaper, an anonymous person did exactly this, shocking and angering several other readers and raising an interesting question of which pieces we chose to be classics and whether these works are actually the best.
On July 21st, 1927, an anonymous person going under the name “J.M.C.” sent a scathing review of a recent performance of Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony by the New York Philharmonic into the newspaper The World. In this review, JMC begins by describing how bored the audience looked while the piece was being performed, with many members supposedly whispering, looking around, and reading through the programs. JMC’s claims don’t end here, as they then assert that the piece is simply one that “everybody praises and nobody likes” and that it is only famous because people see it as profound because of its religious themes, especially given that he did not believe that Beethoven was not particularly religious otherwise. They maintain that people only go to concerts because of a feeling of religious obligation and the idea that they must conform to those around them. They end, quite exaggeratedly and obviously satirically, with the statement “I move you that a law be passed making performances of the Ninth Symphony illegal. It is an affront to the memory of Beethoven to keep playing it over year after year”.
Unsurprisingly, two letters were published in response to this highly critical review a few days later. The first man, Hyman Sandow, begins by asserting that Beethoven was actually quite religious, so JMC’s claim of his piece becoming popular because of the idea of a non-religious man praising God was unsubstantiated. He then describes the absolutely thunderous applause that Beethoven received at the premiere of his piece, refuting the idea that most people actually hate the piece and pretend to love it. The second letter, written anonymously, goes even further than Sandow’s, claiming that JMC’s remark that the symphony should be illegal “makes himself a bigot and makes himself a candidate for perdition”. He then explains how it would be ridiculous for 14,000 people to go to a concert that they hate, though he does concede at the end that music is subjective. After reading these responses, it’s unsurprising that JMC wrote his letter anonymously.
In the grand scheme of things, JMC’s scathing review did little to change public opinion about Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony, as it still regarded as one of the greatest classical pieces of all time nearly 100 years later. However, his outspoken criticism of an unpopular opinion resonated with me while I was reading his letter. I started to wonder whether the classic works of art that we continue to teach year to year are actually the best, or if they have just gained such a reputation over time that people who disagree feel pressured to go along with the majority opinion. While I do enjoy Beethoven’s Symphony №9, I have other classical pieces that I prefer much more, and it is not necessarily a piece that I will voluntarily listen to over and over again. Additionally, I think that there are several other non-musical factors that have added to its incredible success. Most significantly, this piece was the last symphony that Beethoven ever published, as he died while working on his tenth. This can create an idea in the general public perception that this was the culmination of Beethoven's lifetime of work, even though he intended to write more, and it could be argued that any of his other symphonies could also be seen as his artistic peak. In addition, in almost every story about the premiere I’ve seen, his deafness is mentioned at least once to show how this piece was such a triumph for him, as he wrote such a spectacular piece without even hearing it. I think this is a significant factor in why see this symphony as so legendary, as we like the myth of the eccentric, deaf composer who wrote a masterpiece. However, it could also be argued that his deafness was not really something to be overcome, as he was a genius regardless, and that it shouldn’t be such a factor in which pieces of his we remember the most.
Much like any art form, music is subjective and what we deem as “classics” often is influenced as much by what the art actually contained as who the artist was and the context in which they created the art. While there is nothing wrong with liking something that is popular, I think it’s important to not let the historical prestige of art affect our personal enjoyment of it. In fact, I would argue that what makes art so enjoyable is its subjectivity, how a hundred different people can hear the same piece in a hundred different ways. A different newspaper published an article a few days after the original JMC letters praising the scathing review, stating “There are unquestionably a great number of people who share J.M.C’s views… but they lack the courage to express them”.
