# Haydn needs more love



## nefigah (Aug 23, 2008)

I find it interesting, considering his overall accepted fame, that little mention is made of Haydn on this forum compared to other composers.

Certainly if one were to write a history of Western art music, Haydn would get a bigger "centerfold" than the oft-discussed-here Mahler, Sibelius, etc. Nothing against the latter, certainly, but I found it interesting that in the past I had to explicitly inquire as to where to start with Haydn, whereas there is a veritable bounty of input on many other composers.

In my time away from the forum, I picked up a selection of Haydn's symphonies and string quartets, and (as silly as this may sound) was actually surprised at its quality. Beautiful, genius even.

Now, like most of you, I wouldn't say he is my favorite composer, but I felt like giving him some props. Feel free to join me in giving him a "thumbs-up"--or even some other finger (possibly in some other direction) if you desire.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

Unlike many of you he is one of my favorite composers, definitely genius.
Ignoring his importance in the development of music, his work is profoundly beautiful, especially his oratorios (the seasons, creation)


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Top 5 composer.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

I find his music far more palatable than Mozart's. It is gently humorous and as approachable as the man himself is said to have been. If he is not mentioned often I think it is because he is the benchmark against which Beethoven is measured. Haydn is the boundary that Beethoven pushed against and expanded, and so his music might unjustly be considered normal.

People tend to focus on his symphonies and string quartets, but I have heard some of his piano sonatas on period instruments. That is quite a nice experience.


----------



## nickgray (Sep 28, 2008)

To my shame I've only heard two or three symphonies by him, but he is definitely on my 'to hear' list.


----------



## Il Seraglio (Sep 14, 2009)

18th century classical composers don't get enough love in general if you ask me. While they never reached the same heights, Mozart owes a lot to the likes of Gluck, Vanhal and Bach's sons while Boccherini offered his own idiosyncratic take on classical music. If anything Haydn gets far more recognition than these people, while the rest are dismissed by a lot of people as wallpaper 'muzak'. Fair enough, music from the classical period might not have been as harmonically complex as romanticism or even the baroque music that preceded it, but sometimes simplicity can be a good thing.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

In my opinion required listening:
Symphonies 80-88, 94-104, 27, 12-17
String quartets - ALL
Oratorios - Seaons, Creation
Seven Last words
Piano sonatas - 11 and some others
Cello Concerto
Trumpet Concerto
Piano concerto - No 9

Dont forget to give his brother Michael Haydn a try.

And yes 18th century composers dont get enough recognition at all - Clementi, Boccherini, Salieri, Stamitz, Paisiello, Pichl, Cimarosa (beutiful oboe concerto). The entire Mannheim school which was hugely influential in their time (Stamitz, Cannabich).


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

And yes 18th century composers dont get enough recognition at all - Clementi, Boccherini, Salieri, Stamitz, Paisiello, Pichl, Cimarosa (beutiful oboe concerto). The entire Mannheim school which was hugely influential in their time (Stamitz, Cannabich).

Yes. I agree that the 18th century composers are somewhat underrated. While Bach might be the towering figure of the Baroque era, there are easily a half-dozen and more other composers of the era that are of the greatest merit and generally recognized (Handel, Vivaldi, Scarlatti, Telemann, Corelli, etc...). One finds a similar situation with the Romantic era. The field is in no way limited to Brahms and Wagner. We have Mahler, Strauss, Schumann, Chopin, Debussy, Mussorgsky, Tchaikovsky, etc... The 18th century, however, seems to be divided between Mozart and Haydn... with Haydn taking the second fiddle position. The reality is that Haydn is a truly towering figure who produced an incredible body of beautiful music. But there are others as well. Michael Haydn, Carl Stamitz, Gluck, Salieri, and a good many more. For whatever reason, it seems as if the Baroque and the Romantic era have there adherents who forever delve into the works of the 2nd tier and 3rd tier composers... while the classical period seems somewhat ignored.


----------



## TresPicos (Mar 21, 2009)

emiellucifuge said:


> In my opinion required listening:
> Symphonies 80-88, 94-104, 27, 12-17
> String quartets - ALL
> Oratorios - Seaons, Creation
> ...


Yes, Michael Haydn needs some love too. As prolific as his brother, but almost completely forgotten. Sometimes I wonder if he would have been more famous if he had had another last name, or if he would have been even more forgotten than he is now.

I agree that brother Joseph, despite his fame, is often relatively overlooked, while Bach, Mozart and Beethoven get so much more attention.

Cannabich and the Stamitzes are nice 18th century acquaintances, as are the Bach sons, I think.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

I think the classical period (which I see as going beyond 1800) was like a dramatic intellectual composition of music with it's development and conflict of ideas. Then by the mid 19th century and onwards there was a more emotional and atmospheric composition. Then the 20th century was a combination of both these different aspects.


----------



## Gangsta Tweety Bird (Jan 25, 2009)

everything that isnt romantic orchestral music needs more love...... the bias you see online (not just this forum) towards romantic orchestral music is staggering


----------



## MusicalOffering (Sep 11, 2009)

Oh yes, the Haydn's definatly need more love (especially from me). In generel, I tend to enjoy most of Mozarts work, so it's rather odd that I havn't started exploring more of Haydn's music. He was a rather intelligent person, something that is noticeable in his music, he included alot of jokes in his music (not only refering to the "surprise" in his 94:th symphony) which is indeed enjoyable if you know a thing or two about composition in general.

After having read this thread, I immediatly listened to Michael Haydn's 20:th symphony (Spotify is a God's gift if one is into classic music) and I must say that I'm rather impressed by what I've heard so far.


----------



## jhar26 (Jul 6, 2008)

Haydn is one of the most important composers of all time, but I think he's recognized as such. One might argue that he's less popular than Mozart or Beethoven, but who isn't? I agree though that the contemporaries of Mozart, Haydn and Beethoven deserve more attention than they are getting. I don't know why they don't. Maybe their music isn't quite up to the standard of the best music of the holy trinity of the classical era, but it's definitely worth checking out. I have recordings of most of the classical composers mentionned here and from some others besides them and I enjoy them very much. There's lots of recordings out there for those interested in music from this era.


----------



## jhar26 (Jul 6, 2008)

starry said:


> I think the classical period (which I see as going beyond 1800) was like a dramatic intellectual composition of music with it's development and conflict of ideas. Then by the mid 19th century and onwards there was a more emotional and atmospheric composition. Then the 20th century was a combination of both these different aspects.


Well, the baroque was the era of polyphony, the classical period was the era of homophony and everything that followed was cacophony - so to speak.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

The Godfather of the Symphony. He is awesome in basically every category. Haydn wrote a large variety of pieces, directed effected the future of music (teaching Mozart, etc.), championed a form of music into popularity (the symphony of course), wrote some wonderful music, experimented with different effects you can get from music (thus he really kick started the classical period), and brought some humor to music.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

everything that isnt romantic orchestral music needs more love...... the bias you see online (not just this forum) towards romantic orchestral music is staggering

That is true. Romanticism was a marvelous period and produced some absolutely towering figures, but I agree that with the exception of the absolute giants (Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Stravinsky...) almost anything outside of the Romantic period gets short-changed. It is not uncommon to find the music lover who champions Bruckner, Strauss, Mahler, Vaughan-Williams... even Bax, or Delius. However it almost seems that only the baroque fanatic spends much time with Handel, Telemann, or Scarlatti and only a medievalist would even think to listen to Des Prez, Hildegard of Bingen, or some such music.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

> everything that isnt romantic orchestral music needs more love...... the bias you see online (not just this forum) towards romantic orchestral music is staggering


Woah there! Try not to put me in the category of biased music listeners (although I'm not saying you did). I don't think you're giving us enough credit...


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

everything that isnt romantic orchestral music needs more love...... the bias you see online (not just this forum) towards romantic orchestral music is staggering...

As I think about it, I'm struck with the fact that the situation is not too different in the visual arts. Impressionism, Post-Impressionism, and late 19th century academic painting (the Victorian painters and masters of the French Academy) virtually dominate the discussions of art and the choices of art favorites. Modernism is often seen as too thorny and Post-Modernism remains largely unfamiliar while older painters of the Baroque and Renaissance are imagined by many as being too far removed.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> everything that isnt romantic orchestral music needs more love...... the bias you see online (not just this forum) towards romantic orchestral music is staggering...
> 
> As I think about it, I'm struck with the fact that the situation is not too different in the visual arts. Impressionism, Post-Impressionism, and late 19th century academic painting (the Victorian painters and masters of the French Academy) virtually dominate the discussions of art and the choices of art favorites. Modernism is often seen as too thorny and Post-Modernism remains largely unfamiliar while older painters of the Baroque and Renaissance are imagined by many as being too far removed.


The Renaissance period had some magnificent paintings.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

The Renaissance period had some magnificent paintings.

"Some"? It was virtually unrivaled. Still outside of the major figures commonly known (Michelangelo, Leonardo, perhaps Raphael, and just maybe Titian or Durer) you'd be surprised just how little artists such as Giotto, Fra Angelico, Bellini, Cimabue, Tintoretto, Veronese, Botticelli, Van Eyck, Van der Weyden, Breughel, Bosch, etc... pop up in discussion (let alone are sited as influences) by artists or art lovers. Monet, Van Gogh, Degas, Manet are certainly brilliant artists, but their work in no way dwarfs that of the Renaissance masters. Yet I would venture to guess that there are more painters and art lovers today who admire the pre-Raphaelites than the artists (such as Fra Angelioco, Fra Philipo Lippi, Mantegna, and Massaccio after whom they were named. I would also venture to gues that there are more artists/art lovers who appreciate the work of the arch-academic, William Bouguereau than those who appreciate Giotto, Cimabue, the Lorenzetti Brothers, Giorgione, or any number of other far greater artists of the Renaissance.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

???? what did I do wrong? I just said the Renaissance period was great. You punish rather harshly, sir  But yes, I totally agree with you. There was a great amount of different perspectives going into painting during that time period.


----------



## jhar26 (Jul 6, 2008)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> That is true. Romanticism was a marvelous period and produced some absolutely towering figures, but I agree that with the exception of the absolute giants (Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Stravinsky...) almost anything outside of the Romantic period gets short-changed. It is not uncommon to find the music lover who champions Bruckner, Strauss, Mahler, Vaughan-Williams... even Bax, or Delius. However it almost seems that only the baroque fanatic spends much time with Handel, Telemann, or Scarlatti and only a medievalist would even think to listen to Des Prez, Hildegard of Bingen, or some such music.


The romantic era may be the most popular era, but I think that the interest in for example baroque music has been on the rise in recent decades. There was a time when only the works of Bach and a few things like the "Messiah" from Handel were regularly recorded. Now we have plenty of recordings from all the important baroque composers, from Monteverdi to the French baroque composers to multiple recordings of most of Handel's oratorios and operas, and so on - something that was nearly unthinkable 20 or 25 years ago.

Same with the classical era. There has always been lots of Mozart available, virtually everything from Beethoven, some Haydn and one or two Gluck operas, and that was basically it. Now there are many recordings of all the recognizable names of this era available. That in itself doesn't prove an increase in popularity of non-romantic music, but it certainly suggests it. If nobody was listening to all that stuff they wouldn't release it.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

???? what did I do wrong? I just said the Renaissance period was great. You punish rather harshly, sir But yes, I totally agree with you. There was a great amount of different perspectives going into painting during that time period.

You take me wrong. I am simply suggesting that you understate the facts by suggesting that there are "some" great Renaissance painters and I sought to point out just how this era... for all its merits... is underrated by many in favor of the more contemporary art that they imagine as not being so far removed from their experience.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

The romantic era may be the most popular era, but I think that the interest in for example baroque music has been on the rise in recent decades. There was a time when only the works of Bach and a few things like the "Messiah" from Handel were regularly recorded. Now we have plenty of recordings from all the important baroque composers, from Monteverdi to the French baroque composers to multiple recordings of most of Handel's oratorios and operas, and so on - something that was nearly unthinkable 20 or 25 years ago.

Same with the classical era. There has always been lots of Mozart available, virtually everything from Beethoven, some Haydn and one or two Gluck operas, and that was basically it. Now there are many recordings of all the recognizable names of this era available. That in itself doesn't prove an increase in popularity of non-romantic music, but it certainly suggests it. If nobody was listening to all that stuff they wouldn't release it.

I quite agree... especially with regard to the increased access to Baroque composers. I remember Handel being almost limited to the Messiah, the Royal Fireworks, and the Water Music, and his operas being largely ignored. Now, thankfully, there is far more access to a broad array of his works, as well as those of Corelli, Scarlatti, Rameau, Victoria... to say nothing of Vivaldi and the recent recordings of the vast cache of his works that have been known for decades but until recently left unrecorded. Indeed, I would suggest that the access to classical music has never been so great. I remember when I first started collecting that it was virtually impossible to find a recording of Schubert's lieder... forget Schumann, Wolf or the French songs of Hahn, Faure, Debussy, etc... Nevertheless... it seems that the classical era has been the slowest in benefiting from the new access.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

I've said this before & it's probably obvious to many of you, but I think Haydn was the master of contrast. Just listen to, for example, the first movement of _Symphony No. 101 'The Clock_.' It starts off quite seriously with a rather melancholy, vague theme, then WOOSH! in comes this very decisively upbeat theme, he floods the whole movement with light & energy. If we are talking of visual artists of the time, his music reminds me of the paintings of Canaletto - the marked contrasts in light, tone and texture - water, sky and land, natural and man-made things.

I also like Haydn's _Symphony No. 49 'La Passione_,' it's depth of drama and expressivness rivals even Beethoven's efforts. So I strongly disagree with anyone who says Haydn is a lightweight compared to his great student Beethoven...


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Why did we start comparing composers to painters all of a sudden????


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Lukecash12 said:


> Why did we start comparing composers to painters all of a sudden????


I think it's great if we take a holistic view of all the arts, not only music, but also literature and visual art as well. I'm not a big reader, but I enjoy a good book; & I really like the visual arts, I have some art books as well, I love going to art galleries. I think having diverse artistic interests just deepens your appreciation of art, whatever container it comes in. It makes you more perceptive & allows you to make the connections. I think that's great...


----------



## World Violist (May 31, 2007)

I love Haydn...


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

jhar26 said:


> The romantic era may be the most popular era, but I think that the interest in for example baroque music has been on the rise in recent decades. There was a time when only the works of Bach and a few things like the "Messiah" from Handel were regularly recorded. Now we have plenty of recordings from all the important baroque composers, from Monteverdi to the French baroque composers to multiple recordings of most of Handel's oratorios and operas, and so on - something that was nearly unthinkable 20 or 25 years ago.
> 
> Same with the classical era. There has always been lots of Mozart available, virtually everything from Beethoven, some Haydn and one or two Gluck operas, and that was basically it. Now there are many recordings of all the recognizable names of this era available. That in itself doesn't prove an increase in popularity of non-romantic music, but it certainly suggests it. If nobody was listening to all that stuff they wouldn't release it.


And yet contemporary classical music (let's say music of the last 50 years or so) is the least listened to of the lot perhaps. Only renaissance or medieval music might be less listened to.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Andre said:


> I think it's great if we take a holistic view of all the arts, not only music, but also literature and visual art as well. I'm not a big reader, but I enjoy a good book; & I really like the visual arts, I have some art books as well, I love going to art galleries. I think having diverse artistic interests just deepens your appreciation of art, whatever container it comes in. It makes you more perceptive & allows you to make the connections. I think that's great...


True, the same stands for me. i just find it humorous that we like to jump around so much on this site when it comes to topics.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

And yet contemporary classical music (let's say music of the last 50 years or so) is the least listened to of the lot perhaps. 

That's to be expected... at least since the evolution of Modernism and the esoteric notions of the _avant garde_... the increasing hermeticism of art and the rejection of any attempt to engage the audience (perish the thought!). The same can certainly be found to be true in the visual arts. How many leading contemporary painters can you name? How many under the age of 50? How many critically acclaimed contemporary poets do you know?


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> And yet contemporary classical music (let's say music of the last 50 years or so) is the least listened to of the lot perhaps.
> 
> That's to be expected... at least since the evolution of Modernism and the esoteric notions of the _avant garde_... the increasing hermeticism of art and the rejection of any attempt to engage the audience (perish the thought!). The same can certainly be found to be true in the visual arts. How many leading contemporary painters can you name? How many under the age of 50? How many critically acclaimed contemporary poets do you know?


I like modern poetry of the last 50 years or so quite alot. I may like less poetry from the 80s to 2000s than from the 50s to the 70s though but maybe there can be more of a creative output in some periods than others.

The point about modern classical music isn't that it doesn't appeal to most of the public, most listen to popular music that is the mainstream culture now. The main point is that those who listen to classical music don't listen much - generally - to stuff past 1950. This wasn't always the case with new music and I suppose there have been innovations before but people have listened. I think there has been some creativity in the last 50 years, for example in the 70s and 80s as well as other periods. Modern music should actually have more of a connection to people than older music as it's from their time.


----------



## World Violist (May 31, 2007)

starry said:


> I like modern poetry of the last 50 years or so quite alot. I may like less poetry from the 80s to 2000s than from the 50s to the 70s though but maybe there can be more of a creative output in some periods than others.
> 
> The point about modern classical music isn't that it doesn't appeal to most of the public, most listen to popular music that is the mainstream culture now. The main point is that those who listen to classical music don't listen much - generally - to stuff past 1950. This wasn't always the case with new music and I suppose there have been innovations before but people have listened. I think there has been some creativity in the last 50 years, for example in the 70s and 80s as well as other periods. Modern music should actually have more of a connection to people than older music as it's from their time.


That's funny; where I come from, people who listen to "classical music" don't listen to stuff past the first four notes of the Beethoven Fifth...

Something can be said for film music, though. Quite a lot of people listen to that and think it's classical music. All the power to them really (I'm sure I'm not the only one who thinks Anton Bruckner orchestrated the soundtrack to Star Trek...).

The only thing about more recent music is that it has a bad rap because of radical composers who wrote "ugly" music; people like Schoenberg and especially Webern who wrote was the masses could just not digest. It isn't about the masses being ignorant, it's about the masses not willing to listen to what is perceivedly not artistic.

This, I think, is why composers like Gorecki and Arvo Part are so successful these days (though of course not the only reason, since they are very masterful composers): they throw the public preconception of modern music out the window.

Anyway--Haydn needs more love. I think Mozart needs less love so we can all compensate. Or Beethoven. Or maybe even Brahms...though I suppose we've been talking way more about Shostakovich and opera composers on the whole lately. Or more recent music. So maybe they need less love... whatever.


----------



## Artemis (Dec 8, 2007)

I think that nefigah's main point is that Haydn seems to be under-rated on this Forum, not in general (see his first post). I am not sure that I agree. I did a quick search on Haydn using the "search facility" and quite a few threads came up that belie the suggestion that Haydn is not loved.

That Haydn is not under-rated generally seems obvious to me. He generally comes up well inside the top 10 on most polls that I have ever seen. For example in Phil Goulding's list he was placed at No 5. In T-C's recent poll on Top 20 Favourite Composers Haydn was also very highly placed indeed, around No 5 or 6. This is an incredibly high rank given the standard of competition.

Hence I don't think that Haydn needs any more love than he already gets. I should add that I have more material by Haydn than any other composer, and like him a great deal, but I still prefer Mozart who in my book had an extra something, call it stardust or something.


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

starry said:


> I like modern poetry of the last 50 years or so quite alot. I may like less poetry from the 80s to 2000s than from the 50s to the 70s though but maybe there can be more of a creative output in some periods than others.
> 
> The point about modern classical music isn't that it doesn't appeal to most of the public, most listen to popular music that is the mainstream culture now. The main point is that those who listen to classical music don't listen much - generally - to stuff past 1950. This wasn't always the case with new music and I suppose there have been innovations before but people have listened. I think there has been some creativity in the last 50 years, for example in the 70s and 80s as well as other periods. Modern music should actually have more of a connection to people than older music as it's from their time.


Modern music does have more of a connection to people it's just not classical in style. Pop, rock, hip-hop or whatever now fills that role. Before the turn of the 20th century there was less diversity in music and classical music was the only major international music style in the West, so it follows suit that more people would keep current with the new music. With the rise of jazz, country, rock and roll and now rap, classical music no longer needs to pander to the masses and will naturally become more experimental and less accessible.

Regarding the orginal topic I agree with Artemis, in I believe Haydn gets more than enough respect as an artist and innovative musician but Mozart seems on a different plane than him altogether. However, I wouldn't class either as one of my favourite composers but they are undeniably influential to some of my favourite composers.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

World Violist said:


> It isn't about the masses being ignorant, it's about the masses not willing to listen to what is perceivedly not artistic.


But it's also not put in the spotlight much either in the media. As you say people go to see a film, they hear strings, brass, woodwind...so to them that's classical music. They are exposed to it.



Argus said:


> Modern music does have more of a connection to people it's just not classical in style. Pop, rock, hip-hop or whatever now fills that role.


I'm really talking about people who actually listen to classical music.

Maybe it would be better if people just listened to music as music instead of worrying what period it was written in as well or what style it is supposed to be in. Good material in a structured form with consistent invention is good in any kind of music.

As for Haydn he himself considered Mozart to be greater as a composer. He gets his dues as an innovator but much of his music isn't that well known I think beyond a few pieces. It's difficult to get a full grasp of composers who are really prolific. Maybe someone should do a film of his life....get him more exposure.


----------



## Ignis Fatuus (Nov 25, 2008)

starry said:


> As for Haydn he himself considered Mozart to be greater as a composer.


I'm not so sure this is true! In opera maybe, but I doubt he thought this about symphonic composition.


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

> Maybe it would be better if people just listened to music as music instead of worrying what period it was written in as well or what style it is supposed to be in. Good material in a structured form with consistent invention is good in any kind of music.


Yes it would be better but its never going to happen. Most people are very prejudiced toward older styles like classical, jazz and blues, and seem content in listening to their favourite new style and wouldn't even think of putting the effort in to expand their musical horizons.


----------



## classidaho (May 5, 2009)

If I had to hear one composer only, for the rest of my life, it would certainly be Haydn.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Ignis Fatuus said:


> I'm not so sure this is true! In opera maybe, but I doubt he thought this about symphonic composition.


Apparently he was amazed by Mozart's last symphonies when he got hold of the scores. That he got hold of the music in the first place would suggest that he thought it was important that he looked at them as well.


----------



## Artemis (Dec 8, 2007)

starry said:


> Apparently he was amazed by Mozart's last symphonies when he got hold of the scores. That he got hold of the music in the first place would suggest that he thought it was important that he looked at them as well.


 In the Wikipedia article on Mozart it states:"He [Joseph Haydn] stood in awe of Mozart, whose sister recorded that in 1781 Haydn told the visiting Leopold: "_I tell you before God, and as an honest man, your son is the greatest composer known to me by person and repute, he has taste and what is more the greatest skill in composition_.""​There may be others but this is the only such reference I have seen, and is the one that's usually quoted.


----------



## Efraim (Jun 19, 2009)

Artemis said:


> In the Wikipedia article on Mozart it states:"He [Joseph Haydn] stood in awe of Mozart, whose sister recorded that in 1781 Haydn told the visiting Leopold: "_I tell you before God, and as an honest man, your son is the greatest composer known to me by person and repute, he has taste and what is more the greatest skill in composition_.""
> 
> So what? Brahms respected Johann Strauss' music more than his own. Hugo Wolff, Tchaikovski and others held that Brahms' music was worth nothing. Bach was hardly noticed not only by his contemporaries but by later composers as well, such as Haydn or Beethoven. Schumann wrote that there was nothing to learn from Haydn, and walked out when Liszt started to play especially for him his (Liszt's) famous Sonata in B Minor. There are plenty of similar examples. I never liked Mozart - his music (apart from two or three minor works) makes me rather nervous - and in my opinion Haydn is far greater, but I am sure all of you agree that my opinion counts even less - incomparably less - than what the aforementioned famous composers held of each other.
> 
> Apart from that you should not forget than Haydn, who was an extremely polite, amiable and good man, told the quoted eulogy to the father of his friend Wolfgang Amadeus. The same Haydn seems to have been far less fond of Beethoven, who was by no means less great than Mozart and whose music was far more akin to his own, but whom he personally did not like too much.​


----------



## TresPicos (Mar 21, 2009)

Efraim said:


> The same Haydn seems to have been far less fond of Beethoven, who was by no means less great than Mozart and whose music was far more akin to his own, but whom he personally did not like too much.


Haydn was an old amiable gentleman, Beethoven was a young punk. Of course they didn't get along.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Efraim said:


> So what? Brahms respected Johann Strauss' music more than his own. Hugo Wolff, Tchaikovski and others held that Brahms' music was worth nothing. Bach was hardly noticed not only by his contemporaries but by later composers as well, such as Haydn or Beethoven. Schumann wrote that there was nothing to learn from Haydn, and walked out when Liszt started to play especially for him his (Liszt's) famous Sonata in B Minor. There are plenty of similar examples. I never liked Mozart - his music (apart from two or three minor works) makes me rather nervous - and in my opinion Haydn is far greater, but I am sure all of you agree that my opinion counts even less - incomparably less - than what the aforementioned famous composers held of each other.
> 
> Apart from that you should not forget than Haydn, who was an extremely polite, amiable and good man, told the quoted eulogy to the father of his friend Wolfgang Amadeus. The same Haydn seems to have been far less fond of Beethoven, who was by no means less great than Mozart and whose music was far more akin to his own, but whom he personally did not like too much.


Things are always a bit more complicated than the simple ways they can be portrayed though. Tchaikovsky for instance did acknowledge at times that Brahms was a major composer.


----------



## Efraim (Jun 19, 2009)

classidaho said:


> If I had to hear one composer only, for the rest of my life, it would certainly be Haydn.


For me too. I'll tell you why. Bach, Beethoven, Schubert, Schumann, Brahms are also of tremendous magnitude, but each of them with 15 or 20 works, which are the core of their output. Without this score of masterpieces Beethoven, Schubert etc. would still be great composers but they wouldn't be what they are. Not so Haydn. If you take away from Haydn 20 piano sonatas, or 20 string quartets, or 20 symphonies, he would not only remain the same giant but would still remain the father of symphony, or of string quartet, or of piano sonata… His music is enough to fill up a listener's whole life.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Beethoven did more than 20 good works, the same can most likely be said of JS Bach and Schubert.


----------



## Efraim (Jun 19, 2009)

starry said:


> Things are always a bit more complicated than the simple ways they can be portrayed though. Tchaikovsky for instance did acknowledge at times that Brahms was a major composer.


Sorry, I didn't know that. I read only that he said Brahms was a czardas-writing ******* or something of this kind.


----------



## Efraim (Jun 19, 2009)

starry said:


> Beethoven did more than 20 good works, the same can most likely be said of JS Bach and Schubert.


O.K., I agree. I wrote than they would still be great composers without those 20 or so. But those 20 make of each of them the giant he is. (Try to imagine Beethoven not without 20 works but only without the sonatas op. 53, 57, 106, 110, 111, the quartets 59/1, 131, 132, 133, Kreuzer Sonata, 9th Symphony ! This is a quite different Beethoven, isn't it? But Haydn without, say, the greatest of his quartets, which I feel are the Op. 20, 50 and 76? So what? Still the same Haydn. I intended to say that in such proportions quantity becomes qualitatif, so to speak.)


----------



## Artemis (Dec 8, 2007)

Efraim said:


> Sorry, I didn't know that. I read only that he said Brahms was a czardas-writing ******* or something of this kind.


My recollection from what I once read about this is that Tchaikovsky and Brahms didn't like each other's music, and I'm not aware of any concessions one may have made about the other. This dislike may have had something to do with the fact that they admired different heros: Mozart in the case of Tchaikovsky and Beethoven in the case of Brahms.

It was possibly the disagreements between Brahms and Wagner where the intensity of disliking of each other's music was probably less severe than the public squabbles might have suggested.

It was suggested earlier that Schumann didn't care for Listz's music especially the latter's Piano Sonata in B minor, which was written in dedication of Schumann. As far as I'm aware no-one liked Liszt's Piano Sonata and it took many years for it to become popular. It was Clara Schumann who didn't like Liszt, not so much Robert Schumann.

I'm also not sure that it's correct to say that Schumann didn't like Haydn's music. On the contrary, as far as I recall Schumann studied Haydn in great detail and was an admirer of his work. I seem to recall that a particular aspect that impressed Schumann was Haydn's efficient style.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Efraim said:


> O.K., I agree. I wrote than they would still be great composers without those 20 or so. But those 20 make of each of them the giant he is. (Try to imagine Beethoven not without 20 works but only without the sonatas op. 53, 57, 106, 110, 111, the quartets 59/1, 131, 132, 133, Kreuzer Sonata, 9th Symphony ! This is a quite different Beethoven, isn't it? But Haydn without, say, the greatest of his quartets, which I feel are the Op. 20, 50 and 76? So what? Still the same Haydn. I intended to say that in such proportions quantity becomes qualitatif, so to speak.)


Take away his London symphonies and his reputation as a symphonist would be far less.

To be fair to Schubert he died when he was very young. He concentrated more on longer forms perhaps at the end of his life and he developed very rapidly.

And as for Beethoven...the 9th isn't even my favourite symphony by him. Two of my favourite quartets are op130 and op127. and I like many of his piano sonatas. A couple of other violin sonatas I think are excellent. What about the Archduke Trio, the last three piano concertos, maybe the violin concerto. Ok not all his pieces are on the same kind of scale, but does that really matter? Beethoven's style changed over time, but he started doing great music in the 1790s I believe.

Haydn produced alot of music, but not all of it is at the same kind of quality.


----------



## Efraim (Jun 19, 2009)

starry said:


> Take away his London symphonies and his reputation as a symphonist would be far less.


This was true some time ago but this is not true any more in our days. Once famous conductors put sometimes - very rarely - on their programme one or two symphonies of Haydn, and they chose them almost exclusively from the London symphonies; I suspect they simply didn't know the other 94 and did not bother to know them. Personally I am far from thinking that the London dozen are the acme of Haydn's art of symphony. They display the greatest virtuosity of writing but not the greatest originality of thinking. To my taste the true culmination are the Paris Symphonies plus Nos 53, 54, 64 and 67, while a lot other are still more exciting, though less ambitious, less brilliant, less grandiose, than those last 12. I dare say that the second movement of No 67 alone is worth more than the whole set of the London symphonies.



starry said:


> To be fair to Schubert he died when he was very young. He concentrated more on longer forms perhaps at the end of his life and he developed very rapidly.


I totally agree with you. I didn't want to minimize Schubert's and the others' greatness, by the way I am madly fond of a good dozen of Schubert's works; I simply stated the fact that Haydn wrote a lot more. Of course he was given more lifetime to do so. At the age when Schubert died (31) Haydn was only starting to produce not only good but great music. (He was 39 when he wrote his first great string quartet.)



starry said:


> And as for Beethoven...the 9th isn't even my favourite symphony by him. Two of my favourite quartets are op130 and op127. and I like many of his piano sonatas. A couple of other violin sonatas I think are excellent. *AGREED! * What about the Archduke Trio *NOT BAD, NOT BAD...*, the last three piano concertos, maybe the violin concerto. Ok not all his pieces are on the same kind of scale, but does that really matter? Beethoven's style changed over time, but he started doing great music in the 1790s I believe.


I also like a number of his other opuses (or rather "_opera_"), not exactly the same as you but it doesn't matter. I simply wanted to point out a quantitative difference, in addition to my pervasive and comparatively recent love-story with Haydn, in order to explain one of the reasons why I feel like Classidaho ("_*If I had to hear one composer only, for the rest of my life, it would certainly be Haydn*_").



starry said:


> Haydn produced alot of music, but not all of it is at the same kind of quality.


Correct. This is as true of Haydn as of everybody else. He produced about three or four times more works than Beethoven or Brahms, among them about three or four times more huge masterpieces.


----------



## Efraim (Jun 19, 2009)

Artemis said:


> It was possibly the disagreements between Brahms and Wagner where the intensity of disliking of each other's music was probably less severe than the public squabbles might have suggested.


Brahms was conducting his choir when he learned of Wagner's death. He put down the baton and said: "A great musician passed away. We don't sing any more today." (I personally don't like Wagner at all. I am perhaps the last narrow-minded "Brahmin"... something that Brahms was not.)


----------



## Artemis (Dec 8, 2007)

Efraim said:


> I didn't want to minimize Schubert's and the others' greatness, by the way I am madly fond of a good dozen of Schubert's works; I simply stated the fact that Haydn wrote a lot more. Of course he was given more lifetime to do so. At the age when Schubert died (31) Haydn was only starting to produce not only good but great music. (He was 39 when he wrote his first great string quartet.)


 Although I admire Haydn, and rank him well inside my top 10 composers, I do not believe that he had he same extraordinary musical genius possessed by Schubert. I base this estimation on Schubert's stupendous achievements in a very short lifetime. No other composer worth mentioning got anywhere near the quantity and overall quality of Schubert's output by the age of 31.

Bach had written very little by the age of 31. Handel also had written only a small fraction of what was to become a huge eventual output. As you say, Haydn had produced hardly anything by age 31. If Mozart had died at age 31, not 35, we would not have had a number of major works including the last 3 symphonies, the Clarinet concerto, Requiem, several piano sonatas, several important chamber works, and at least three operas: The Magic Flute, Cosi fan Tutte, La Clemenza di Tito, with Don Giovanni being doubtful. 

Beethoven had written some good material by 31 but if all we had were his works up to that age then his reputation would be very much than it is. Brahms had reached about Op 38 by the time he was 31. Apart from a few piano sonatas and a couple of piano quartets there's nothing else of any great value. Brahms' didn't write his first symphony until he was 43. Wagner by the age of 31 had written a couple of notable operas, Rienzi, and The Flying Dutchman and precious little else worth talking about.

Against this, by the time of his death, Schubert had written a vast repertoire comprising: 600 songs and 3 song cycles that revolutionised the genre; 15 string quartets; 21 piano sonatas; 2 piano trios; several string trios; a string quintet; a piano quintet; an octet; arpeggioni sonata, 6 masses, various other sacred works; many violin works, some 9 symphonies; a great deal of piano solo; many piano duets, several theatre works. Taking into account that he was suffered bouts of illness, on and off, for the last nine years of his short life, and a considerable advancement of that illness in his last year, it is even more astonishing what resulted.

Comparing the quality of Schubert's best with Haydn's best, Schubert wins. There is a lot of Haydn which is mediocre and lack-lustre. Many of his symphonies seem quite pedestrian to me. Even among his London Symphonies, they're quite patchy in quality, and none is as good as any of Mozart's last three, and nowhere near the quality of Schubert's Unfinished or No 9.


----------



## Il Seraglio (Sep 14, 2009)

Artemis said:


> Comparing the quality of Schubert's best with Haydn's best, Schubert wins. There is a lot of Haydn which is mediocre and lack-lustre. Many of his symphonies seem quite pedestrian to me. Even among his London Symphonies, they're quite patchy in quality, and none is as good as any of Mozart's last three, and nowhere near the quality of Schubert's Unfinished or No 9.


Haydn's sturm und drang (ie middle period) symphonies are considered the pinnacle of his symphonic output. I really must give them a listen some time and see what the fuss is about (not saying it isn't justified). I know a lot of people love his London symphonies, but I would say they pale in comparison to Mozart's symphonies from no. 25 onwards. Obviously Haydn deserves credit for inventing the modern symphony in the first place, along with the string quartet.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Il Seraglio said:


> Haydn's sturm und drang (ie middle period) symphonies are considered the pinnacle of his symphonic output. I really must give them a listen some time and see what the fuss is about (not saying it isn't justified). I know a lot of people love his London symphonies, but I would say they pale in comparison to Mozart's symphonies from no. 25 onwards. Obviously Haydn deserves credit for inventing the modern symphony in the first place, along with the string quartet.


Well 49 is obviously a great one, but the other sturm und drang symphonies I've found less consistently good. Mozart for me was the greater symphonist (meaning he did a larger quantity of good symphonic music) until Haydn did the London Symphonies, and Mozart couldn't reply to them of course having died young.


----------



## David58117 (Nov 5, 2009)

The Brilliant Classics "Haydn Edition" box set just arrived from Germany (which is much cheaper than the US Amazon price for these sets), so I'm slowly going through it. I'm surprised at how good some of his early symphonies are (I'm on disk 2, what do you want from me), and then when I read the wikipedia entry regarding the series of the 6,7,8 symphonies, it highlights what an incredibly generous guy he was:

"All three symphonies (nos. 6, 7 and 8) feature extensive solo passages for the wind, horn and strings, including rare solo writing for the double bass and bassoon in the third movement....it has been commonly suggested that Haydn's motivation was to curry favour both with his new employer (by making reference to a familiar and popular tradition) and, perhaps more importantly, with the players upon whose goodwill he depended.[3] Typically during this period, players who performed challenging solo passages or displayed unusual virtuosity received financial reward. By highlighting virtually all of the players in this regard, Haydn was, literally, spreading the wealth."


----------



## jhar26 (Jul 6, 2008)

Artemis said:


> Comparing the quality of Schubert's best with Haydn's best, Schubert wins. There is a lot of Haydn which is mediocre and lack-lustre. Many of his symphonies seem quite pedestrian to me. Even among his London Symphonies, they're quite patchy in quality, and none is as good as any of Mozart's last three, and nowhere near the quality of Schubert's Unfinished or No 9.


Not all of Schubert's symphonies are of the same high quality either. No.5, No.9 and (especially) the Unfinished are head and shoulders above his others in my opinion.


----------



## Artemis (Dec 8, 2007)

jhar26 said:


> Not all of Schubert's symphonies are of the same high quality either. No.5, No.9 and (especially) the Unfinished are head and shoulders above his others in my opinion.


That may be so but I am not sure what point you are making. It would be consistent with the comment I made that Schubert's best efforts exceed Haydn's, although I suspect that's not quite what you intended.

I cited Schubert's _8th & 9th symphonies_ as examples of works which I believe outshine any of Haydn's many efforts in this area. Another example I could have given is Schubert's _String Quintet_. This is not only Schubert's greatest chamber music, but the greatest piece of chamber music ever in my view. It's better than any of the Mozart quintets, the Beethoven quartets, the Haydn quarters; in fact better than anything remotely comparable written by anyone.

Another example is _Winterreise_ which is the supreme song cycle that has no serious challenger, except possibly the other two of Schubert's song cycles. His _piano miniatures_ such the Impromptus are an absolute delight, the like of which Haydn never composed. Schubert's _piano sonatas_ are smaller in number than Haydn's but the best of Schubert's (Nos 18-21) surpass the quality of any of Haydn's. Schubert is also unrivalled in _piano duets_, an area that seems to get scant attention on this Forum. Haydn wrote nothing with anything like the power and expression of Schubert's _Wanderer Fantasy_. Haydn's comparable efforts are mainly limp affairs in comparison. In the area of sacred works I reckon that Schubert's _Mass 6_ beats all of Haydn's efforts.

I'm not claiming that everything Schubert wrote is fantastic. It isn't. The reality is that, had he lived a lot longer, some of the less satisfactory works would have been weeded out possibly by himself, some may have been edited, plus of course many more superb quality works would have flowed.

Comparing Haydn with Schubert is not an issue I started. I am merely adding my two cents of opinion on the matter raised by _starry._ I'm not rubbishing Haydn, like so many people do in comparison with Mozart. Haydn is well within my top 10 composers. I simply happen to believe that Schubert is greater than Haydn, and would have been the greatest composer of the whole lot had he lived to a decent age. I'm convinced that he wrote great music almost effortlessly in comparison with the likes of Beethoven and Brahms, both of whom struggled to find good melody. The only composer I hold in equal regard to Schubert (in terms of sheer brilliance and high achievement/age ratio) was Mozart.


----------



## jhar26 (Jul 6, 2008)

Artemis said:


> That may be so but I am not sure what point you are making. It would be consistent with the comment I made that Schubert's best efforts exceed Haydn's, although I suspect that's not quite what you intended.
> 
> I cited Schubert's _8th & 9th symphonies_ as examples of works which I believe outshine any of Haydn's many efforts in this area. Another example I could have given is Schubert's _String Quintet_. This is not only Schubert's greatest chamber music, but the greatest piece of chamber music ever in my view. It's better than any of the Mozart quintets, the Beethoven quartets, the Haydn quarters; in fact better than anything remotely comparable written by anyone.
> 
> ...


Well, I'm not disagreeing with you. Both Haydn and Schubert are among my top ten composers as well. I would just like to add that by the time Schubert started composing symphonies and string quartets they were already established genres whereas Haydn had to start from scratch. Him writing "mature" symphonies or string quartets at a young age was virtually impossible because at that time Haydn was so to speak still writing the rule book on exactly what a mature symphony or string quartet would be. That doesn't mean that Schubert was any less of a genius, but I think that Haydn's journey from his early symphonies which were in essence just overtures or divertimentos to his later works is just as impressive an achievement as the otherworldly quality of Schubert's best works.

None of my remarks here are meant as a criticism of your your opinion about Schubert - let alone Schubert himself.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly (Apr 21, 2007)

There seem to be two points, similar but not necessarily identical in nature, made in the opening post: 
*1)*


nefigah said:


> *Haydn needs more love(!)*


 and *2)*


nefigah said:


> I find it interesting, considering his overall accepted fame, that little mention is made of Haydn on this forum compared to other composers.


Our consensus view seems to be that we're all rating Haydn highly. When surveyed, we acknowledge his greatness. Sure, rare is the person who would exclude him from the top 10 all-time greats of music composition. We admire him, repsect him, even make our occasional obeisance to him- _but is this love??_

So, put another way, is there another composer that carries such a great gap between how much we say we admire him, and how little we discuss him?! Four pages of posts on _this_ thread would seem to be a promising sign. However, those four pages also include musings on comparative aesthetics, as well as the contrasts between Haydn and other composers, with some unfavorable ones thrown in. The contributions have been interesting- but some of them seem to prove the assertion made by *nefigah* that there remains this "enthusiam gap" with respect to Haydn.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

jhar26 said:


> Well, I'm not disagreeing with you. Both Haydn and Schubert are among my top ten composers as well. I would just like to add that by the time Schubert started composing symphonies and string quartets they were already established genres whereas Haydn had to start from scratch. Him writing "mature" symphonies or string quartets at a young age was virtually impossible because at that time Haydn was so to speak still writing the rule book on exactly what a mature symphony or string quartet would be.


Well you can always say this...that a composer who follows an earlier one has the advantage of being able to build on what they did. However they still have to write the music, they still have to aim for some kind of consistency of quality/invention.

I think it's worth judging music on its own terms rather than the styles of later. For instance it's pointless judging Mozart's or Haydn's early symphonies as being poor because they aren't as complex as later ones. They aren't aiming to be as complex. What matters more is whether they are consistently inventive in what they are trying to do. At present I feel Mozart was more consistent than Haydn up until his death in 1791. Schubert's symphonies weren't really as central to his output as they were with Haydn and Mozart so it's hard to compare in that particular area. Of these three composers Haydn was obviously far more involved in string quartet writing than the others.


----------



## jhar26 (Jul 6, 2008)

starry said:


> Well you can always say this...that a composer who follows an earlier one has the advantage of being able to build on what they did. However they still have to write the music, they still have to aim for some kind of consistency of quality/invention.


I don't think that I've said anything that is at odds with that.


----------



## Artemis (Dec 8, 2007)

starry said:


> Schubert's symphonies weren't really as central to his output as they were with Haydn and Mozart so it's hard to compare in that particular area.


 A fair point but I happen to like all of Schubert's symphonies, not just the Unfinished and Great. The fact that there were only (about) nine symphonies gives each one added value to me.

Schubert's First Symphony was written when he was 16 and the next 4 were written before the age of 20. The 6th was written at the age of 21, the _Unfinished_ at age 25 and the _Great_ sometime during his last 3 years. With the exception of the _Unfinished_, for which there was a specific purpose in mind, all the others were written with no commission, presumably for his own amusement and his friends in order simply to show what he could do in this genre. It's all the more amazing given that probably none of these works had any proper testing with the use of an orchestra.

I was listening recently to No 4, _The Tragic_, performed by Norrington/London Classical Players. It's a very nice work indeed, and this particular rendition is very good. I gather this symphony was only discovered in 1868 (40 years after the composer's death).


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

*Bach*, Beethoven, Schubert, Schumann, Brahms are also of tremendous magnitude, but each of them with 15 or 20 works, which are the core of their output.

Bach!? BACH!!??? What 20 pieces could you take away and reduce him to a second rate composer? He has 200+ cantatas (with probably half as many lost)... and a damn good many of them among his greatest works ever. I suppose we could eliminate the _Well Tempered Clavier_ and the _Cello Suites_ or the _Brandenburg Concertos_ as a single work... but that would be rather like wiping out the whole of the _London Symphonies_ or the Op. 76 Quartets in one fell swoop as a single compositional effort.

Seriously, I place Haydn among my top 10 (perhaps even in my top 5) like most here. However, I wouldn't place him above Mozart who does have a certain added "magic"... Nor would I place him above Bach or suggest that he can surpass Bach in sheer volume of great music. Bach, in my book is unrivaled... and Handel is quite formidable in the category of sheer output of genius as well. One need only look at his wealth of operas and oratorios. Haydn is, however, certainly the third among these towering prolific masters.

With all the talk of his symphonies and sonatas and quartets I'm surprised less mention has been made of his vocal works... especially his masterful _Creation_... to say nothing of his operas which are just now beginning to earn the respect they are due.

As for what might have been... that is neither her nor there... but always a fun game to play. My initial thought is that it is Mozart from whom we might have most benefited had he but had an added 20 years. Might he not have surpassed even Bach had he lived as long? But then I turn to Schubert and I agree that no one achieved as much in as little time... and with as little resources. Those marvelous symphonies and masses without ever having access to an actual orchestra or choir?! Those towering quartets. The beauty of those piano sonatas and Impromptus... without anything approaching Beethoven's or Mozart's training and facility on the instrument. And the songs!!! It boggles the mind to imagine what he might have achieved with another 20 years... and with the added advantage of having access to hearing his work performed.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

I wonder if it's better to compare Haydn with JS Bach in some ways, as Haydn only became freelance at the end of his life. Most of his life (with the odd exception) he was probably writing music on demand for his employer. So you have a huge amount of symphonies, quartets and baryton trios in his output, like with Bach there are a huge amount of cantatas and organ pieces dominating his output.


----------



## Artemis (Dec 8, 2007)

starry said:


> I wonder if it's better to compare Haydn with JS Bach in some ways, as Haydn only became freelance at the end of his life. Most of his life (with the odd exception) he was probably writing music on demand for his employer. So you have a huge amount of symphonies, quartets and baryton trios in his output, like with Bach there are a huge amount of cantatas and organ pieces dominating his output.


How can Haydn be compared with Bach? They had similar occupational status to each other for most of their careers, both of which were long, but apart from that have hardly anything in common musically. The obvious candidate musically is Mozart but this is unlikely to achieve anything positive for Haydn since Mozart is one of the three "Gods". The most common comparison I have seen is between Haydn and Schubert. These two are poles apart from each in personality and occupational status, but they're commonly ranked close together about mid way in the top 10, which fact at least gives people something to talk about. To tell the truth, I could just as easily have argued that I believe Haydn to be the greater of the two, but I felt a bit mischievous today to test the waters. I'm waiting for the Haydn "mafia" to hit back.


----------



## Efraim (Jun 19, 2009)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> *Bach*, Beethoven, Schubert, Schumann, Brahms are also of tremendous magnitude, but each of them with 15 or 20 works, which are the core of their output.
> 
> Bach!? BACH!!??? What 20 pieces could you take away and reduce him to a second rate composer?


Well, I admit that it was a bit hasty to include Bach; but I didn't say "second rate composer", heaven forbid. Of course he always displays an astonishing invention. I meant that those handful of works are such towering achievements that without them Bach would not be the same as he is, after all. (You see, with this qualification my contention is getting close to becoming a truism… A bit of exaggeration is sometimes better.) In my opinion those "towers" are: The Art of Fugue (first of all!!), the Well-Tempered Clavier (two works), the Musical Offering, the Overture in French Style in B Minor, Goldberg Variations, Fantasy in c for harpsichord, three or four of the Violin Sonatas with accompaniment, two of the 'Cello suites (I am sure you will guess which two), the French suite in c, the Italian Concerto…

With all that, if I would be aloud to hear one composer only, for the rest of my life (heaven forbid), as wrote Classidaho, it would not be Bach. Haydn's music is far more diversified, more interesting, more exciting, and this is true of a lot of his works that are otherwise less great than Bach's. Bach is alwas in the heavens; it is tiring to be always so high, isn't it?


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

But how diversified was Haydn's style? There are the same bustling allegros (with expressive slow movements) in his early pieces (such as symphonies) as his late ones. He just added a greater degree of sophistication. In this way again I would compare him with JS Bach in the general consistency of his style. With Beethoven, Mozart and Schubert I think this is less the case. Beethoven's style obviously changes greatly. Schubert changed, compare his 5th symphony to his 8th. Mozart changed to an extent as well, writing pieces of greater dramatic power and at times much darker or expressive tones. Haydn over a long lifespan arguably saw less change in his style.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

...if I would be allowed (sp.) to hear one composer only, for the rest of my life (heaven forbid)... it would not be Bach. Haydn's music is far more diversified, more interesting, more exciting, and this is true of a lot of his works that are otherwise less great than Bach's. 

And as much as I love Haydn... and I have no problem placing him well within the top 10... perhaps even top 5 of all time... he would not be my first choice if limited to listening to a single composer for the rest of my life. My first and only choice would be Bach. I would beg to differ with the notion that Haydn is more diversified let alone more exciting than Bach. The breadth of his work is astounding: works for solo keyboard, solo lute, chamber orchestra with violin, the same with keyboard, works for solo violin, organ works, and turning only to the cantatas we find an absolute wealth of various orchestrations: small orchestras, large orchestras, works which stress the violins, others in which the cello or the oboe is central. Large and small choirs or groups of vocal soloists, works which employ bass, baritone, soprano, etc... And the clincher would be the fact that in any number of instances his achievements within a given genre or form is among the very greatest if not THE best.

Bach is always in the heavens; it is tiring to be always so high, isn't it?

Limited to reading one writer for the rest of my life it would be Shakespeare. I don't turn the the Bard or Bach because they are good for me or because I recognize their merits in some abstract sense. I turn to them because they give me the greatest aesthetic pleasure that their respective art forms might afford.


----------



## TresPicos (Mar 21, 2009)

Artemis said:


> Hence I don't think that Haydn needs any more love than he already gets. I should add that I have more material by Haydn than any other composer, and like him a great deal, but I still prefer Mozart who in my book had an extra something, call it stardust or something.


No stardust? No love! 

Tough luck, "Joey Amiable"! (Haydn needs a mob name...)

"Stardust" is a good name for what's missing, though.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Franz Joseph Haydn; yes, one of my personal top 5 favourites. His music is entirely accessible, which is perhaps not surprising, as he wrote majority of them to be performed in front of his employers and or public audiences.


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

I like Haydn. Not _crazy_ about him, but I believe him to be the best composer of the Classical period.


----------

