Could it be that Beethoven, becoming increasingly deaf, knew Cherubini's work mainly from studying his scores rather than experiencing it in performance ? Could Beethoven's admiration for Cherubini be based on the latter's mastery of the nuts and bolts of a piece rather than for its value as a living, communicating piece of art ?
It's known that Brahms used to get together with fellow-composers (such as Ignaz Brull) and spend riotous evenings searching through the works of the masters in order to try to discover grammatical errors in them....things that pass completely unnoticed by 99.99% of music listeners in performance and also by the majority of performers. The complete lack of enthusiasm amongst audiences for most of the output of the Second Viennese School and its descendents must stem from the fact that its qualities reside principally on the printed page and don't translate into anything that listeners can really relate to; the majority of admirers of such work is to be found amongst composers and the academically-minded.
It's certain that Beethoven's enthusiasm for Cherubini...for whatever reason...isn't shared by the vast majority of Beethoven's admirers, probably because Beethoven's music contains an indefinable quality of "Spirit" that is lacking in the work of the other composer.
... On the other hand, as we all know, Beethoven thought Cherubini the greatest of his contemporaries. (And that wasn't just a momentary aberration. Both Fidelio and the Missa Solemnis plainly owe more to Cherubini than to any other composer then living.)
I don't mean that Beethoven is "right" and Berlioz is "wrong" (or the reverse). I can see both sides of this question. After all, isn't that one of the main pleasures we derive from reading and discussing music criticism (including on MWI): it opens the mind to a multiplicity of different viewpoints other than our own, and helps to prevent us from fossilizing?
Thank you for taking part in the MusicWeb International Forum.
Len Mullenger - Founder of MusicWeb