so, it was early on sunday morning that i was listening to schubert, and i'd like to pretend i spent all week at it, but i mostly spent the week staring at screens, figuring out what the best way to keep the police out of my computer is. the task i'm left to determine is whether this is beethoven lite, or it adds something worthwhile to the process.

i'm kind of left inconclusive, actually. while the piece could certainly be less dynamic, i'm still not convinced that it really does enough to grab me. it's this paradox in the instrumentation - with hundreds of instruments, they surely shouldn't be struggling to fill in the notes, but that's what i've always found so lacking in christian music in the first place, and why beethoven shines where mozart and much of the classical style falls so flat.

if i want to give this symphony high marks for anything, it's the melodicism, but that's a nod to it's simplicity rather than it's complexity, and doesn't help him get out of the beethoven-lite shadow.

i think the most blunt and honest reaction is to point out that, if this is the best thing he ever did (and i know better than to accept the standard opinion. i'll like the obscure one the best. i always do.), it would be something near the bottom of beethoven's output in just about every conceivable way. that's not to slam it, exactly - it's pleasant enough, even if it never gets over that hump. there are certainly moments. it's worth enjoying. but, it is what it is, and what it is is somebody trying very hard to emulate the greatest composer of all time without adding much of their own.