# Haydn: Just how highly do you estimate him?



## Littlephrase

No, Haydn is not underrated. Almost everyone likes his music, his symphonies and string quartets are staples of eternal ubiquity, his staggeringly fecund output and historical significance are never put into question. The legacy of Haydn is all but securely sealed in the upper Western Art Music pantheon. 

But, speaking personally, Haydn has never really been a personal favorite. I have always enjoyed and respected his music, but preferred the other titans of Austro-German music: Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, Brahms. However, I have discovered this has changed, almost imperceptibly. There was never a sudden revelation, it just slowly happened over years of listening. Haydn has slyly become a composer I love, in equal measure with the rest of the reverenced Germanic greats. 

So my question is rather comically simple: how much do you like Haydn? Where is he rated in your personal estimation?


----------



## Knorf

I rate Haydn extremely highly. That his music is much less popular in recent decades than Mozart and Beethoven speaks far more to the Zeitgeist than it does to the music's quality.


----------



## flamencosketches

Something like top 25 for me. He'd be higher, but I go through periods where his music doesn't do much for me and where I don't listen to him at all, and then periods where he's all I want to listen to. He's unquestionably a very, very good composer.


----------



## flamencosketches

Knorf said:


> I hate Haydn extremely highly. That his music is much less popular in recent decades than Mozart and Beethoven speaks far more to the Zeitgeist than it does to the music's quality.


I'm hoping this is a typo; how could you hate Haydn?


----------



## vtpoet

When I was younger I didn't like Haydn all that much, but I've come to deeply appreciate his more intellectual (as opposed to Mozart's sensual) compositional style. I know somebody's going to pipe up and tell me that Mozart is also intellectual, and he is, but I'm just trying to describe a somewhat subjective/objective difference in their music. Haydn's style is more sinuous, muscular and less influenced by the Italianate styles developed by JC Bach and internalized by a young Mozart. 

That said, when I listen to some of Haydn's Baryton trios, I think there couldn't be a more boring composer on. the. planet. That said, when I hear these trios performed on other instruments, they come to life. I could be something about the Baryton that just bores the hell out of me?


----------



## Eclectic Al

Knorf said:


> I hate Haydn extremely highly. That his music is much less popular in recent decades than Mozart and Beethoven speaks far more to the Zeitgeist than it does to the music's quality.


Yes. The Zeitgeist is that positive feelings are shallow, and angst-ridden emotions are deep.
Haydn is seen as too often cheerful to be taken seriously.
Well the Zeitgeist is wrong. It's too easy to wallow in self-indulgent wailing - shallow, you might say. What's more profound is the finding of a positive balance in life, and Haydn helps me to achieve that.


----------



## vtpoet

Oh, to answer your question: *a Genius*. Not on the level of Mozart (but Mozart was God's gift to music). But when you compare Haydn to his contemporaries he is, like Mozart, a giant striding among mere mortals, far ahead and in a musical world of his own.


----------



## Fabulin

5th ............


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

He's just a little bit under Mozart in my estimation. I prefer Mozart for chamber music (except for string quartets) and this alone is enough to elevate him, but I would take Haydn's two lovely cello concerti over all of Mozart's piano concerti. Conversely I would probably (very reluctantly) take Mozart's last three symphonies over Haydn's entire symphonic ouevre. For piano and choral music I find their contributions about equal. But ceasing the comparison, any composer who could write such "serious" masterpieces as The Creation and Nelson Mass while effortlessly churning out such delightful, pleasurable, life-enhancing music as the Paris and London Symphonies deserves estimation in my book.


----------



## mmsbls

Haydn is one of those composers who grew on me as I heard more music ands as I matured as a listener. I remember reading Gould's Book on the top 50 composers. Gould rated Haydn 5th, and at the time, I wondered why so high. I always enjoyed Haydn, but I just didn't think he was on the same level as Mendelssohn, Tchaikovsky, Mahler, Schubert, and others whose music I adored. Over time I heard more symphonies, quartets, trios, cello concertos, and his wonderful choral music. The more I heard, the greater esteem Haydn gained. Eventually I felt he is certainly in the same league, for me, as those others I mentioned. 

I would not place him quite as high as Gould does, but he is solidly in the group just below the 5-6 or so I hold in the highest esteem. I don't really know why he has grown on me, or rather I don't know why I did not love him at first as much as I do now. The only other composer who has grown in that way is Wagner who is in that group of 5-6 supreme composers.


----------



## Lisztian

30th.


So far my basic assessment to his works has been from 'decent' to 'like,' but rarely love. I need to listen to him more though.


----------



## mbhaub

Not very highly. I rarely, ever put anything of Haydn in the CD player. I don't even own much: the complete symphonies, The Creation - that's enough. It's just not to my taste - too early, but then I don't care for Mozart either. BUT - as a performer I enjoy playing some of the later (London) symphonies - Haydn wrote great bassoon parts. But I did pay tribute to him in Austria. The church where his tomb is and the tomb:


----------



## ORigel

Haydn is perhaps a top five composer to me due to the sheer amount of quality music he produced. However, the composers I always, always listen to are Bach, Beethoven, Brahms, and Dvorak (Dvorak is nowhere near as good as Haydn, but he is a master of melody).

I find Haydn better than Mozart with string quartets and piano sonatas. And an equal with regards to symphonies as Mozart composed most of his symphonies when he was young.

Haydn is underrated, in a way, because he seems to be listened to far less than he ought to be.


----------



## ORigel

mbhaub said:


> Not very highly. I rarely, ever put anything of Haydn in the CD player. I don't even own much: the complete symphonies, The Creation - that's enough. It's just not to my taste - too early, but then I don't care for Mozart either. BUT - as a performer I enjoy playing some of the later (London) symphonies - Haydn wrote great bassoon parts. But I did pay tribute to him in Austria. The church where his tomb is and the tomb:
> View attachment 144261
> View attachment 144262


IMO, the cello concertos and the op 76 and 77 quartets are must-haves.


----------



## ORigel

Allegro Con Brio said:


> He's just a little bit under Mozart in my estimation. I prefer Mozart for chamber music and this alone is enough to elevate him, but I would take Haydn's two lovely cello concerti over all of Mozart's piano concerti. Conversely I would probably (very reluctantly) take Mozart's last three symphonies over Haydn's entire symphonic ouevre. For piano and choral music I find their contributions about equal. But ceasing the comparison, any composer who could write such "serious" masterpieces as The Creation and Nelson Mass while effortlessly churning out such delightful, pleasurable, life-enhancing music as the Paris and London Symphonies deserves estimation in my book.


Mozart's late piano concertos and clarinet concerto are better even than Haydn's C Major Cello Concerto, my favorite cello concerto.


----------



## MarkW

Like most here, I rate him very highly (especially for his influence on the development of music) but don't listen to him much. (And as I've said before, temperamentally, I am much more in tune with enjoying his later minuet movements than almost anything else.)


----------



## SanAntone

Very high. About five years ago, Haydn was in high rotation in my listening, PI performances of his string quartets, piano trios, symphonies, the baryton works and keyboard sonatas. But I switched gears some point along the way and haven't been listening to Classical period stuff in a while.

I still play one of his SQ now and then, and most recently I began listening to his operas.


----------



## ORigel

MarkW said:


> Like most here, I rate him very highly (especially for his influence on the development of music) but don't listen to him much. (And as I've said before, temperamentally, I am much more in tune with enjoying his later minuet movements than almost anything else.)


Weird. I find his minuets the weakest parts of his symphonies.


----------



## Knorf

flamencosketches said:


> I'm hoping this is a typo; how could you hate Haydn?


Whoops. Should be "rate."


----------



## hammeredklavier

I find his liturgical works tiring to listen to over a long period, probably because of the "pomposity" of the comtemporary "Esterhazy style" (I don't know for sure) and his comparative lack of skill and sense in assimilating and manipulating 'stile antico' compared to his brother Michael (ie. Missa sancti nicolai Tolentini & Missa tempore Quadragesimae) and Mozart. The fragmented "Missa sunt bona mixta malis" is nothing remarkable compared to theirs. I think the late masses suffer from this problem (of being way too "generic" with "homogeneity" of feel). Gratias agimus tibi from Theresienmesse and parts of Missa in angustiis (Nelson mass) are GOOD though. But I think that his brother Michael surpassed him with stuff like Missa subtitulo sancti Francisci, and parts of his works that quote Mozart (after Mozart's death) strike me as worse versions of Mozart's.

I like to think that while his brother Michael, in his 30s, was writing a masterpiece, the C minor Requiem, (which I prefer over anything Joseph produced) -Joseph was struggling to produce student works, like the over-long Stabat mater, and the Cäcilienmesse (Hob. XXII:5), which is over 1-hour long and includes a movement that sounds like the 1st movement of his 1st cello concerto, rather pedantically. (I think one of Joseph's late works, 'Seven last words of Christ' also has this sort of issues.) I think that Michael, with works like Missa in honorem sanctae Ursulae in his late period, just wrote better stuff in this field, generally. (even Joseph admitted himself). I don't think Joseph tries to be inventive to the extent Michael and Mozart do each time. 




The main problem with Joseph for me is that he sounds like a guy who self-taught himself with Fux's book (with some help from Nicola Porpora) after getting kicked out of a choir. So his stuff often feels like "textbook counterpoint" to me. Way too "forgettable". (This is in fact a problem I have with the general output of Joseph, the staggering output of 100+ symphonies and 60+ string quartets). 
Here's an example of counterpoint I consider more interesting than anything of the kind in Joseph: Et vitam venturi from Mozart Missa longa K.262, 



 -dramatic with dissonant strettos. I've mentioned in other threads how Mozart achieves 'darkness' way more expressively than he does, with chromaticism.

Joseph is still a master of monothematicism in the sonata-form. A great, influential composer no doubt, -but I don't think there's any need to overhype him by saying things like "The likes of Mozart and Beethoven are over-appreciated compared to Joseph." (the sort of things I occasionally hear in this forum).


----------



## MatthewWeflen

My latest top 20 list has him at No. 7. It took me a while to warm to him, as I think my initial impression was that his symphonies all sounded kind of samey and were like lesser Beethoven or Mozart productions, without their melodic strengths. And that may be true, but like the OP, one day it just "clicked" and I was like "these are DELIGHTFUL." There is a lightness, beauty, and order to them that is just really soothing. I've since sought out his chamber stuff, and it's good as well. His sacred stuff is fine, though that's not really my bag.

Anyway, this was the last Top 20 list I collated for another thread. It's still pretty much indicative of my preferences:
1. Beethoven
2. Sibelius
3. Mozart
4. Brahms
5. R. Strauss
6. Tchaikovsky
7. Haydn
8. Bach
9. Schubert
10. Bruckner
11. Mendelssohn
12. Schumann
13. Handel
14. Rossini
15. Wagner
16. Dvorak
17. J Strauss II
18. Copland
19. Williams
20. Holst


----------



## Brahmsian Colors

For me, both Haydn and Mozart are among my top five favorite composers. I particularly enjoy approximately 30 of his 104 symphonies, and a good number of his piano trios, piano sonatas and string quartets.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

I like Haydn as much as Mozart, which is to say a lot. He is in my top 15 most frequently listened to composers.


----------



## Bulldog

Haydn's one of my top ten composers - fantastic string quartets, symphonies, sacred choral works, piano sonatas, and the best cello concerto (C major). His music is stability in a world of chaos.


----------



## vtpoet

hammeredklavier said:


> I find his liturgical works tiring to listen to over a long period, probably because of the "pomposity" of the comtemporary "Esterhazy style" (I don't know for sure) and his comparative lack of skill and sense in assimilating and manipulating 'stile antico' compared to his brother Michael (ie. Missa sancti nicolai Tolentini & Missa tempore Quadragesimae) and Mozart. The fragmented "Missa sunt bona mixta malis" is nothing remarkable compared to theirs...


I thought I was probably alone in considering Michael's liturgical works to be on a par with Joseph's and in some cases exceeding.


----------



## Heck148

Littlephrase1913 said:


> So my question is rather comically simple: how much do you like Haydn? Where is he rated in your personal estimation?


Very highly....he's one of my favorite composers.


----------



## Clairvoyance Enough

Haydn is my favorite composer, and my opinion of his works keeps rising with time. At first, I felt he didn't truly become great until the op. 76 and the Londons. Now I can pick even a middle period symphony of his at random and be pretty certain I'd rather listen to it than anything by Mozart. It's a frustrating case to make because of the thousand advantages you must yield to the latter at first, just to prove your sanity, but I think it's fair to say Haydn was better at some things, and too different at most things to really be eclipsed or overshadowed at them.

I find Haydn immeasurably superior at creating truly driving rhythms. Almost nothing Mozart wrote rollicks like the first movement of Clock, the finale of La Poule, or even the first movement of the piano concerto in D, even though plenty of things Mozart wrote are better. Stuff like the rondo of piano concerto 21, or even the vicious finale of concerto 20, that is supposed to gallop just never does for me. The phrasing remains too graceful and measured to give a galvanized, spontaneously careening effect.

Haydn also has a way of dressing up seeming generic ideas with these awkward but perfectly placed affectations, whether it's repeating part of a melody a few more times than you expect, or inserting a pause in a weird spot, that makes his material feel much more "alive" to me, like it contains the haphazard gestures and flaws of a casual conversation, whereas Mozart always feels premeditated and cleanly cut - in a good way for sure, but not in a way I prefer to listen to. Haydn's material always seems to stretch or trip over itself right when you think it's about to turn sewing machine, both on a micro, individual melody basis and an overall narrative basis. Mozart falls into that trip a little more often for me.

Much like in the Handel/Bach debate, this is an annoying point to push because the advantage is so intangible and stylistic, not concrete counterpoint or melody that you can point right at. I read Schumann's quote about him being "a welcome old friend with nothing new to say," and it pisses me off because it rings true on one hand, but on the other hand it only rings true because raw charismatic force is hard to put into words. It seems more appropriate for someone like Telemann (... or Schumann) who was greatly skilled but did seem to lack a distinctive voice. Schumann, Mendelssohn, Brahms, and Liszt would have had to voltron together to have any hope of writing an exposition with the immediacy of personality and charm in a London symphony. Haydn has that Handel-like Midas touch where the piece is often great first and foremost because of the idiosyncrasies that make it sound like him, deeper elements of craftsmanship notwithstanding, and I think it's in _that_ criteria that people try to cast Haydn as equal to someone like Mozart.


----------



## Axter

I admit I haven't listened to all his works. I mean who can? lol Too many symphonies...
I only listened to his London Symphonies, The Four Seasons, and The Creation.
Considering he was at one point both Mozart's and Beethoven's teacher/Mentor, I must rank him highly. Purely based on his compositions, he is not a composer I revisit often. So, all in all in top 15.


----------



## Art Rock

Somewhere in the 30-50 range. Always pleasant to listen to, but nothing that I personally find essential. Closest are a couple of his late symphonies and string quartets.


----------



## Animal the Drummer

When I was a youngster just starting out on my journey into classical music, Haydn was one of my top favourites. I really took to his inventiveness, openness and good humour. A number of other composers have since overtaken him on my personal list and I listen to Haydn's music rather less often now, but I invariably enjoy it when I do. One of the greats without question IMO.


----------



## Eclectic Al

Clairvoyance Enough said:


> Haydn also has a way of dressing up seeming generic ideas with these awkward but perfectly placed affectations, whether it's repeating part of a melody a few more times than you expect, or inserting a pause in a weird spot, that makes his material feel much more "alive" to me, like it contains the haphazard gestures and flaws of a casual conversation, whereas Mozart always feels premeditated and cleanly cut - in a good way for sure, but not in a way I prefer to listen to. Haydn's material always seems to stretch or trip over itself right when you think it's about to turn sewing machine, both on a micro, individual melody basis and an overall narrative basis. Mozart falls into that trip a little more often for me.


This is my feeling too.

I cook a reasonable amount, and many times a recipe might suggest that you incorporate some ingredients and then you blend to a paste, or you sieve to get a flavoured liquid. I like to leave in the lumps. It seems to me that Mozart might make a beautiful black-pepper sauce, but Haydn leaves in the peppercorns, and it's a delight when you bite into one. As well as the rhythmic point that you raise, I find that his orchestration tickles my ears more mischievously than Mozart. However, I've just started ploughing through Mozart's earlier symphonies and piano concertos (with which I am not at all familiar), so I may find more piquancy there compared with his later style.


----------



## CnC Bartok

I rate Haydn very highly indeed, and I really don't think there is any doubt here that he is "one of the Greats", even if you are someone to whom his music doesn't appeal. I think there is also a little bit of suspicion aimed at any composer who could compose in such volume as he did - the exception to this being Mozart probably - with the subconscious feeling that if he did write so much music, then it can't be of consistently high quality. I think we need our composers to be proper martyrs, inwardly struggling for their Art, head in the clods and living in penury? Haydn was a normal chap, and apparently a nice bloke, that's just not right for a composer.....!

Or maybe Haydn is seen as the least remarkable of the Greats? Part of the furniture? Lots of wonderful music, but what's his greatest hit?

I'll be honest and say I much prefer Haydn to Mozart. Just a preference, but I would struggle to describe him as better than Mozart.......


----------



## waldhoerer

In my opinion, Joseph Haydn is one of the greatest. Just played (violin) his "Theresien Messe" and his "Te Deum hob. xxiiic/2", this is really excellent music... I like him more and more...


----------



## hammeredklavier

Axter said:


> Considering he was at one point both Mozart's and Beethoven's teacher/Mentor,


J. Haydn was never Mozart's teacher, he may have been a mentor to Mozart.


----------



## Coach G

When I first came to classical music as a teenager, and through my young adulthood, I more-or-less avoided the symphonies of Haydn and Mozart, and dismissed it as pretty wall-paper background music. But now I've come to enjoy Mozart just for the wonderful craftsmanship where every note, every choice of instrument, every line, seems to make perfect sense, as if the music is writing itself. Likewise, with Haydn, it's the sense of unbounded joy, fun, and happiness; Haydn's symphonies are somehow always in the moment and always have a forward thrust.

Haydn creates the symphony template. Mozart perfects it; making the symphony seamless, balanced, and beautiful. Then Beethoven pushes the symphony to the limits and beyond. And, in a way, Schubert, Schumann, Mendelssohn, Brahms, Tchaikovsky, Bruckner, Mahler, Nielsen, Sibelius, Shostakovich, Prokofiev, Vaughan Williams, Charles Ives, Walter Piston,Roy Harris, William Schumann, Roger Sessions, and Alan Hovhaness; composed symphonies that are more-or-less _after Beethoven_; save for Prokofiev's wonderful _Classical Symphony_ which is a tribute to Haydn.

The universal template, though, starts with Haydn who is so much the antithesis of what the symphony has come to represent. Where Schubert, Schumann, and Mendelssohn, are decorative; Haydn is clean and uncluttered. Where Nielsen, and Sibelius are powerful, lush and brassy; Haydn is crisp. Where Mahler, Tchaikovsky, and Shostakovich are brooding and long-winded; Haydn is concise and bouncy. Where Brahms is thick and layered, Haydn is clear as crystal. Where William Schumann and Roger Sessions are knotted and thorny; Haydn is untied and untangled. Where Hovhaness is mysterious and mystic; Haydn is friendly and open.

As they say in Chinese philosophy, Haydn just _is_.

I've become very fussy in choosing which recordings suite the Haydn symphonies best, as I think it's easy for conductors, even great conductors, and world class orchestras to weigh Haydn down. While Leonard Bernstein was completely into the angst and anxiety of Mahler (hence, Bernstein's own _Age of Anxiety_ symphony!); his Columbia/New York Philharmonic Orchestra recordings bring a sense of swing and complete exuberance to Haydn's symphonic oeuvre; even if it is limited to the _Paris_ and _London_ symphonies.


----------



## Ariasexta

If he did not use piano, I would register him as a baroque composer.


----------



## Fabulin

CnC Bartok said:


> Or maybe Haydn is seen as the least remarkable of the Greats? Part of the furniture? Lots of wonderful music, but what's his greatest hit?


how about the Kayser Lied?



> Joseph Haydn seems to have been particularly fond of his creation. During his frail and sickly old age (1802-1809), the composer often would struggle to the piano to play his song, often with great feeling, as a form of consolation; and as his servant Johann Elssler narrated, it was the last music Haydn ever played:
> 
> The Kayser Lied was still played three times a day, though, but on 26 May [1809] at half-past midday the Song was played for the last time and that 3 times over, with such expression and taste, well! that our good Papa was astonished about it himself and said he hadn't played the Song like that for a long time and was very pleased about it and felt well altogether till evening at 5 o'clock then our good Papa began to lament that he didn't feel well...


----------



## MarkW

ORigel said:


> Weird. I find his minuets the weakest parts of his symphonies.


I like them because of the humor he brings to what is normally a staid and somewhat stately dance -- uneven phrase lengths and a lot of unexpected rigamarole.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Clairvoyance Enough said:


> I think it's fair to say *Haydn was better at some things*, and too different at most things to really be eclipsed or overshadowed at them.


I've tried to think this way and tried to view Joseph positively for many years. I tried to think that Joseph was a supreme master of "monothematicism" and "economy of material" in a way Mozart wasn't, and that Joseph was a huge inspiration to Beethoven and the later composers in that respect, -but when I listened to stuff like Mozart K.464, it occurred to me "*maybe* this sort of thing (monothematicism) isn't Haydn's specialty either", "*maybe* this is what Joseph resorts to all the time, to cover up his comparative deficiencies in melodic invention". (Because when you have difficulties in coming up with good material, you just keep using the first theme to derive the second theme, etc - "playing with notes for notes' sake")










If his use of harmony was so inspiring, how come nobody in history commented on it. (In the case of Mozart, Rossini said that he "combined the charm of Italian melody and profundity of German harmony" in a way that was never done before, and Wagner also said something similar)
I think Joseph was a good craftsman, and people sometimes give him a bit too much credit for being one. (Sorry, Papa). For example, he's frequently called the Father of the Symphony, even though he certainly didn't "invent" the three-part "fast-slow-fast" form symphony. 
I think Joseph also tended to write trivial finales when inspiration was lacking.
I guess it's fair to think Joseph was better at certain things, but I also take a grain of salt whenever people in this forum talk as if other composers are overrated.


----------



## wkasimer

Top 6, along with Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Schubert, and Brahms. Not necessarily in that order.


----------



## Xisten267

He's in my top 30 for classical music. I don't think I dislike any piece by Haydn, but I miss in his oeuvre that one piece that would make me become obsessed to know more of his music. A fine composer indeed, with plenty of good pieces that I can listen to at any time, but that I didn't explore as much as I should yet.


----------



## Eclectic Al

He just makes me happy. Is that not greatness?

Symphony 93 Solti/LPO is one of my favourite recordings of all time.


----------



## Clairvoyance Enough

hammeredklavier said:


> I've tried to think this way and tried to view Joseph positively for many years. I tried to think that Joseph was a supreme master of "monothematicism" and "economy of material" in a way Mozart wasn't, and that Joseph was a huge inspiration to Beethoven and the later composers in that respect, -but when I listened to stuff like Mozart K.464, it occurred to me "*maybe* this sort of thing (monothematicism) isn't Haydn's specialty either", "*maybe* this is what Joseph resorts to all the time, to cover up his comparative deficiencies in melodic invention". (Because when you have difficulties in coming up with good material, you just keep using the first theme to derive the second theme, etc - "playing with notes for notes' sake")
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If his use of harmony was so inspiring, how come nobody in history commented on it. (In the case of Mozart, Rossini said that he "combined the charm of Italian melody and profundity of German harmony" in a way that was never done before, and Wagner also said something similar)
> I think Joseph was a good craftsman, and people sometimes give him a bit too much credit for being one. (Sorry, Papa). For example, he's frequently called the Father of the Symphony, even though he certainly didn't "invent" the three-part "fast-slow-fast" form symphony.
> I think Joseph also tended to write trivial finales when inspiration was lacking.
> I guess it's fair to think Joseph was better at certain things, but I also take a grain of salt whenever people in this forum talk as if other composers are overrated.


Well, when I go to bat for Haydn, a piano sonata and a mass are two of the last things I'd pick. In as much as I can understand harmony with a layman's ears, the "typical" quality of his sound compared to the other greats can get tiresome at times, and in addition to his often subpar finales, I don't think Haydn was consistently good at writing melodic first movements until the Paris set. For a very long time I felt the same way about him as you.

The thing is, none of what you listed gets under the reasons I like him in the first place. When I listen to the slow movements of Mozart's late symphonies, I hear pleasant melodies where everything fits in the right place, symmetry to the point sometimes of brilliance, but for me often blandness too.

A good example of what Haydn does differently that I like would be the slow movement of symphony 45. The first time I heard it I thought it was boring and awkward. Then all of the weird hiccups and random squeezes of tension slowly started to add character.

Another good example would be the slow movement of 60 (I really do think Haydn's genius shines the most in the slower pieces, if that's not obvious yet).






It sounds typical at first, but the more I listen the more I hear interesting little quirks and momentum shifts, like at 8:45 and 9:25.

Or listen to the way he deliberately evades symmetry in the slow theme of his Fire symphony.






Another one of his jukes at 21:15 of the Surprise, for a fast example.






I think what bothers me is the conception that Haydn was good, but sort of dry, the prototype that was given real personality by Beethoven later on. When I gave all of the stuff that struck me as boring an actual chance with repeated listens (in this very thread we have a post from someone who perused the Londons and a few other major works, and then wrote him off... like I once did too; how many of his detractors have actually given these symphonies any serious attention?), I found him to be very off-kilter and strange in a way I don't think he gets enough credit for. And the sudden surge of melodic ability in his Londons is astonishing to me - just listen to the slow movement of Drumroll. I don't hear any want of melodic invention there at all. Over time I've come to far prefer his melodies to Mozart's, even though I wouldn't say they're "better."


----------



## hammeredklavier

Clairvoyance Enough said:


> When I listen to the slow movements of Mozart's late symphonies, I hear pleasant melodies where everything fits in the right place, symmetry to the point sometimes of brilliance, but for me often blandness too.
> I really do think Haydn's genius shines the most in the slower pieces, if that's not obvious yet


I actually like the slow movement of the 80th. I guess we can all accept Haydn was better at making jokes than Mozart. That's not the only sort of things I look for in an artist though.


----------



## Clairvoyance Enough

Well, yes, Haydn's style is just "jokes" the way Mozart's is just "pretty." Haydn also has his decent handful of deep-because-it's-dark pieces. I wish that movement of Prague contained any melodies that hit me, but I just don't find it nearly as catchy as any of my favorites by Haydn, other superior qualities aside.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Clairvoyance Enough said:


> Well, yes, Haydn's style is just "jokes" the way Mozart's is just "pretty." Haydn also has his decent handful of deep-because-it's-dark pieces. I wish that movement of Prague contained any melodies that hit me, but I just don't find it nearly as catchy as any of my favorites by Haydn, other superior qualities aside.


I know all of Haydn's generic Gluckian-style "sturm und drang", the kind of stuff like the incidental music from Mozart's Thamos, king of Egypt, K.345, for example. I'll say again, his exploration into darkness using chromaticism pales in comparison to Mozart. Let me put it in simple terms now : the harmony is plain and lackluster, (like the Nelson mass which I posted previously). Haydn never really goes beyond stuff like Pavel Vranický's Grand symphony for the peace with French Republic Op.31. You sound like you're into that sort of stuff.






"The traditional Baroque idiom that is developed in this fugue for two pianos lays great stress on dissonant chromatic semitones and appoggiaturas. The intensity of the fugal writing is startling, foreshadowing the fugal textures in some of Beethoven's later works, such as the first movement of the Piano Sonata in C Minor, op.111, which exploits a variant of the same idiom. Beethoven was so taken by this piece, in fact, that he copied out the entire fugue in score." ( Mozart's Piano Music, By William Kinderman, Page 46 )


----------



## Clairvoyance Enough

I do prefer the harmony of Mozart's darker pieces, but, again, I find them rhythmically toothless. The finale of his 40th tries to be vicious without abandoning the same elegant phrasing Mozart always employs, which sounds neat in a way, but Haydn's 44th or La Passione actually drives forward with intensity when I listen to it. In any case, I don't base my high opinion of Haydn on the sturm und drang stuff much anyway. I just find the gestures of his material one minute to the next far more interesting. I'm supposed to end up whistling the slow movement of the 27th concerto, but I never do. Bland twinkle twinkle same old. I constantly have any number of Haydn's melodies stuck in my head. Each his own.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Clairvoyance Enough said:


> The finale of his 40th tries to be vicious without abandoning the same elegant phrasing Mozart always employs, which sounds neat in a way, but Haydn's 44th or La Passione actually drives forward with intensity when I listen to it.


To each his own.  I think there's way too much exaggeration (without substantive backing) about "Haydn's allegedly-ingenious use of phrasing and rhythm" by some people. I doubt if there's any real substance in their claims. To me, it's like the widespread "the-Father-of-the-Symphony" nonsense.






By all means, keep enjoying what you admire about Papa Haydn.
*bassoon farts*


----------



## Olias

I adore Haydn's music, and I love his life story. A genuinely nice guy who went from near poverty to world famous simply by working hard and remaining humble. Just read his letters and journal entries from his two London residences and the various accounts of others who met him. You can't not like the guy. His 12 London Symphonies (and some earlier ones) are desert island music for me.


----------



## tdc

I respect Haydn for his innovations and musical influence, but I would not rank him as a top ten composer, the only reason I rate him at all, is because of his inventiveness with form and because many others whose opinions I respect, do. I don't listen to his music, because I find it dull and with respect to dissonance, impotent. He uses dissonance, but not effectively in my view. It is like food without spice. His music strikes me as the kind of thing a man would write who has never himself experienced anything in life one could call 'deep' or 'profound'. It seems he resorts to humor, because there is nothing else of substance he has to say.


----------



## Rogerx

Very high, next question.


----------



## hammeredklavier

tdc said:


> the only reason I rate him at all, is because of his inventiveness with form and because many others whose opinions I respect, do. I don't listen to his music, because I find it dull and with respect to dissonance, impotent.


Exactly. He was "inventive" in swapping places of slow movements and fast movements, like in Farewell and La passione, both of which are, again, rather "tame" in comparison to Mozart's expressive dissonances.

*[ 8:48 ]*





"But the theorists told Mozart during his lifetime what a dissonance chaser he was, and how all too often he gave in to the passion to write something ugly, and how with his talent such writing really wasn't necessary." (Theory of Harmony, by Arnold Schoenberg)



GucciManeIsTheNewWebern said:


> I still find Haydn way more interesting.


I don't know why there's so much Haydn overhype going on these days in this forum. He has always been not any more significant than Carl Philipp Emanuel in my book.


----------



## larold

One of the top 5 -- responsible for the modern symphony and string quartet, wrote more high quality symphonies and sacred choral masses than anyone, wrote multiple masterpieces in all genre, still relevant and beloved more than two centuries after his death. He'll never be out of style and will always be ranked among the best composers. If only we had someone of his caliber and fecundity today.


----------



## Littlephrase

hammeredklavier said:


> I don't know why there's so much Haydn overhype going on these days in this forum. He has always been not any more significant than Carl Philipp Emanuel in my book.


I disagree anway, but perhaps this sentiment says more about how C.P.E. is underrated than it says about how Haydn is overrated.


----------



## Torkelburger

His use of harmony was so inspiring that many composers after him followed his lead. He was the first to do many of the innovative things with harmony in the Classical Period. I see a lot of spice in his music.

Quartet Op. 64 No. 2 Mvt. III shows one of his very innovative uses of augmented sixth chords, a chromatic chord. What’s especially unique about his use of these chords here is that the raised 4 and flat 6 do not follow their expected resolutions to 5. Quartet Op. 20 No. 5 Mvt. I bars 5 through 13 also has extensive use of several augmented sixth chords.

He often used chromatically raised non-chord tones that we associate so much with Mozart’s melodies. Quartet Op. 64, No. 3 Mvt. I is full of them, just for one example. Just in the first 4 bars alone in the key of Bb there’s an E natural, a C#, a B natural, and 2 F#’s in the melody.

He used secondary dominants a lot, which may not sound impressive, but some of their usage was quite unique. Take the Quartet Op. 20, No. 4, Mvt. 1 bars 23 through 30. It’s at the end of a phrase and there’s a V7 of I going to vi (a deceptive cadence) then all parts suddenly leap to C natural (in the key of D Major!) which is the flat 7, stating the three note motive that began the movement. Then it goes on to V7 of ii and continues on. Lots of spicy, innovative chromatism there.

Quartet Op. 3, Mvt. IV has a very unique modulation from B Major to C Major(!) in 10 bars from meas. 100 to 110.

Quartet Op. 9, No. 2, Mvt. I is very spicy and innovative. Bars 27-29 are not only very chromatic (in Bb there are E natural passing tones in bar 27), but bar 28 has an example of a very interesting chromatic chord called an “augmented dominant” (it’s a V +65 of IV), and in the next bar there is a vii half diminished seventh of V (so has both E natural and Db). Lots of spicy chromaticism there.

Symphony No. 73 Mvt. I has a very large number of “borrowed chords” throughout.

He also used the Neapolitan Chord as seen in Piano Sonata No. 36 Mvt. I bar 5 and Piano Sonata No. 37 Mvt. II bar 16.

Symphony No. 101 Mvt. IV bars 7 to 8 has an example of what is called a “dominant with a substituted sixth”. On beat 4, the A Major chord’s E natural is replaced by an F#, the E appearing the beat before. Very unique.


----------



## vtpoet

hammeredklavier said:


> I know all of Haydn's generic Gluckian-style "sturm und drang", the kind of stuff like the incidental music from Mozart's Thamos, king of Egypt, K.345, for example. I'll say again, his exploration into darkness using chromaticism pales in comparison to Mozart. Let me put it in simple terms now : the harmony is plain and lackluster...


Haydn's chromaticism doesn't compare to Mozart's, but the influence is there, especially in his Paris symphonies. These are the most chromatic of his symphonies and the most overtly Mozartean in that sense. And though his harmonic instincts fall short of Mozart's, they exceed that of any other contemporary.

I had an interesting experience once. I spent a day with my children at Disney Land CA which I soon realized was Dante's 23rd level of Hell because they were blaring generic (and you don't know what _generic_ means until you've been forced to listen to Disney show tunes all freakin' day long)-never veering from the tonic, determinedly root position melodies belted out with all the subtlety of air raid sirens. For a music lover like me it was like being in North Korea with speakers blaring non-stop (be happy damn-it) propaganda.

All I remember is returning to the car and turning on the classical station with trembling fingers. Suddenly I burst into the middle of Haydn's Op. 64 #4, I think, and I thought I was listening to a Schoenberg string quartet in the middle of a 12 tone row. I heard Haydn the way a contemporary must have heard him.

At that moment his music was the most dissonant/chromatic music I had ever heard. Ever.


----------



## tdc

vtpoet said:


> All I remember is returning to the car and turning on the classical station with trembling fingers. Suddenly I burst into the middle of Haydn's Op. 64 #4, I think, and I thought I was listening to a Schoenberg string quartet in the middle of a 12 tone row. I heard Haydn the way a contemporary must have heard him.
> 
> At that moment his music was the most dissonant/chromatic music I had ever heard. Ever.


Good story, but Haydn came after Bach in the musical timeline, so I'm not sure I agree his music could ever be viewed as 'edgy' at all it in terms of dissonance and chromaticism, whether listening to his music in his time or now. Haydn was brilliant with structures and musical narratives but his weakness was expressive use of vertical harmony. According to my tastes, anyway.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Torkelburger said:


> He was the *first to do many of the innovative things* with harmony in the Classical Period.


Since you wrote "Haydn was the first to do many of the innovative things", and listed all those things Haydn did - can I assume you're claiming Haydn _invented_ all of them? Are you sure he did?
For example, the practice of using Neapolitan chords didn't originate in Haydn. The practice was already popular with Neapolitan opera composers like Alessandro Scarlatti long before the time of Haydn. Secondary dominants were also used in the Baroque period. Use of "borrowed chords" didn't originate in Haydn either. There's one in bar 14 of Prelude in C major from Bach's WTC book1, - viio4/3 ( B , D , F, A♭ ), etc, etc..

In fact, I'm not that obsessed about "who-did-it-first" arguments. It seems like the sort of arguments people turn to, to elevate certain music when "the music can't speak for itself". (It's why I see the whole "the-Father-of-the-Symphony" image thing with certain skepticism). Are we supposed to care about the harmonic ingenuity of _Symphony for strings F. 67 "Dissonant"_, which Wilhelm Friedemann Bach wrote around the time of Haydn's birth as well?

I think your posts are often very thorough, but some of them often strike me as discussions about the "contents of the recipe", rather than the "competence of the chef". 
See for example, how Mozart, with his 24th concerto, "vastly improved on" Haydn's 78th symphony, but Haydn failed to do the same (with the opening of Die schopfung) on Mozart's dissonance quartet K.465, after Mozart's death? It's a simple matter of seeing the "quality" each produced. To me, all these things regarding "Haydn vs Mozart" are an "elephant in the room". You just can't fail to notice.















Torkelburger said:


> His use of harmony was so inspiring that many composers after him followed his lead.


Like whom?
Brahms and Wagner were known to be admirers of Mozart's harmony, not Haydn's.
Rossini: "The Germans have always been at every time the greatest harmonists and the Italians the greatest melodists. But from the moment that the North produced a Mozart, we of the South were beaten on our own ground, because this man rises above both nations, uniting in himself all the charms of Italian melody and all the profundity of German harmony".


----------



## hammeredklavier

Btw, the sort of "weirdness" in Haydn Clairvoyance has described doesn't really seem to be Haydn's strong point either:


----------



## Torkelburger

No I didn’t imply that he invented them. That’s why I said “in the Classical Period”. I’m saying he is a big reason the Classical Period really isn’t just boring and dull and diatonic and predictable and mundane and etc etc etc all the time like a lot of people think. He was a major figure in setting the groundwork for the style, including a lot of the inventiveness of the period we love.


----------



## hammeredklavier

^agreed. I still think Joseph has a distinctive style. I was impressed when I heard that sustained note in the brass in the development of the 78th symphony 1st movement. That "bam~~~~~~~~~~~~" the brass does while the strings do their own stuff. It sounded dramatic and distinctive from the styles of other classicists.
But then I became somewhat less enthusiastic about it when I learned that it's actually not Haydn's orignal orchestration, but H. C. Robbins Landon's reorchestration of the Haydn work.






I'm not sure if this bit from Il ritorno di Tobia is also Landon's reorchestration. But consider it one of few moments (including the gratias agimus tibi from the Theresienmesse and to a lesser extent, the earthquake finale from the Seven last words of Christ) Haydn actually achieves some memorable dramatic expressions


----------



## SeptimalTritone

I love Haydn's op 33 no 1 - the first movement is particularly emblematic of his contribution to music. Listen and follow along* with the sheet music here 



. The first four bars alone are a new kind of music, especially the _contrast_ between the first two bars and the second two bars. That contrast between those two units is everything. We have:

The overwhelming crescendo in the second two bars.

The whole ensemble playing in the second two bars, as opposed to solely the violins in the first two bars.

The main motif in the cello in the second two bars is played twice as frequently as the main motif in the first violin in the first two bars. The cello repeats literally and obsessively, getting more urgent each time while almost feeling stuck, ending with the deceptive cadence that feels simultaneously shocking and inevitable. Shocking because of the deceptive harmony, and inevitable because the cello that hovers around F sharp and peaks with the A natural appoggiatura desperately needs to go a step up to G, and not to B or any other note.

The oft-talked about ambiguity between D major/B minor in the first two bars due to the second violin melodically hovering around the note F sharp (which could either support a first inversion D major chord or a second inversion B minor chord). Thus the bassline in the entire first four bars hovers around F sharp - the second violin in bars 1-2 and the cello in bars 3-4. This makes the music even more intensified, and the cello even more desperate to go up a step from F sharp to G.

The upper strings in the second two bars initially feel like an upper accompaniment to the cello, but then subtly start to feel more like a melodic entity, ending on the above-mentioned deceptive cadence. Charles Rosen in his famous book The Classical Style has pointed this out. I would also add that because the first violin's apex E natural needs to go a step down, the cello's F sharp is finally pulled up.

These first four bars are unparalleled, but many other great things happen in this tour-de-force of a movement, among them:

In measure 5, the viola, second violin, first violin, and cello entering one-by-one, only one beat apart. This syntactically bridges the two repeated notes in the initial first violin figure with the two eighth notes of the accompaniment. This happens again in measure 9. This exact texture is later developed to a hair-raising climax in the corresponding spot in the recapitulation - and said climax is fueled by this syntactic bridge of the two repeated staccato notes. A climax like this has never before been achieved in music.

In measure 11, the muscular march dotted-rhythm theme after the first B minor perfect authentic cadence strongly establishes the tonic B minor. Our feet are now squarely marching, grounded with strength in the tonality after the wild destabilizing beginning. What a contrast in topic! Yet the march gradually becomes less certain of itself. There are pauses and piano dynamics. The dotted march motif also gradually becomes more lyrically/chorally backed. This lyrical backing together with the pauses/piano dynamics make this march feel almost ironic, as if the protagonist is having second thoughts about the genuineness of the march as it trails off.

The return to the first violin's opening theme in measure 18, this time with a deep D major bass in the cello, which begins the second subject (although textbook sonata-form terms like second subject are less clear in Haydn than in Mozart, I'll use the term anyway). That deep D major - what a ray of sunshine! Notice at measure 20 the motivitc combination of the main measure 1 motif (played here by the second violin and viola) and the march measure 11 motif (played here by the first violin). These are old motifs in a new context. Note also the tentative "lyrical/chorale backing" in the march wins out in the second violin and viola. There are also scrumptious parallel sixths/tenths voice leadings throughout, a solidity with strong beat accents, and a regular continuous texture rather than a fragmented and contrasting texture as in the opening of the movement. Sonata form second subjects of course usually more regular, solid, propulsive, and uniform in texture and harmonic rhythm than first subjects, but I think that in this case the solidity and propulsiveness is particularly narratively motivated. That sudden deep radiant D major in measure 18 makes me so energized and ready to take on the day! You must have music with a clear forward momentum to respond to that energy. This D major texture is the "real deal", so to speak, not the B minor march.

Haydn hit the mark particularly on this movement, and it's one of those brilliant and unrepeatable treasures where everything fits together in a way that can't be copied in another piece. Still, the kind of musical thinking I mentioned above is representative of Haydn's invention - contrasting textures and topics, stark distinction between tonal stability and instability, and a motivic unity that's more used for developing and relating surface-level contrasting music to fuel a topical narrative rather than for continuously elaborating an initial idea and initial affect through ongoing contrapuntal combinations as in Baroque music.

*The sheet music in this video is useful, albeit a slightly different edition from what is being played. In the first measure in the performance, the second violin doesn't play double stops, and in the second measure, the second violin doesn't play the B and A sharp. Nevertheless, this doesn't affect what I've written above because this is an inner voice in the counterpoint. Further, literally every performance I've found doesn't do the double stops or the B and A sharp. Finally, I would try to ignore the annotations in Spanish in the video as they are often misleading. It mistakenly calls the tonic B minor march theme a transition, a symptom of uncritically taking textbook sonata form too seriously and ignoring the music. I'd argue that there is no transition to the second theme group - a unique feature of this movement.

The video is nevertheless highly useful!


----------



## Terrapin

I don't know if there's anything by Haydn that I would rank among my top 100 works. However, he's No. 4 for me (after Beethoven, Brahms, and Tchaikovsky). While he doesn't reach the heights of some of the other greats, he has remarkable breadth. I've listened to all his symphonies, string quartets, and piano trios many times and I'm amazed at the sustained level of inspiration from the earliest to the last works. Such high quality for someone so prolific. I'm especially impressed by his Sturm and Drang works.


----------



## janxharris

Terrapin said:


> I don't know if there's anything by Haydn that I would rank among my top 100 works. However, he's No. 4 for me (after Beethoven, Brahms, and Tchaikovsky). While he doesn't reach the heights of some of the other greats, he has remarkable breadth. I've listened to all his symphonies, string quartets, and piano trios many times and I'm amazed at the sustained level of inspiration from the earliest to the last works. Such high quality for someone so prolific. I'm especially impressed by his Sturm and Drang works.


Curious to read that he has nothing that you'd put in your top 100 yet is your no. 4 composer; I would be interested to know the rationale behind that.


----------



## Torkelburger

hammeredklavier, thank you for bringing that to my attention. I was not aware of the reorchestration by Landon.


----------



## Terrapin

janxharris said:


> Curious to read that he has nothing that you'd put in your top 100 yet is your no. 4 composer; I would be interested to know the rationale behind that.


On a scale of 1 to 10, I would rate very few of his works above 8 but would assign 8 to a large fraction of his vast output. For Beethoven, on the other hand, I would rate about 25 works 9 or 10. Hence, my top 100 is occupied by those works rated 9 and 10 but nobody has as many 8's as Haydn. Having said that, I was likely exaggerating in saying nothing of his would make the list. Some of his stuff (Symphony No. 44, 45, 92, 103, 104; Quartets Op 20, 76) would sneak into my top 100.


----------



## hammeredklavier

*[ 4:38 ]*





It made a big impression on me when I heard it for the first time. It seemed to me as if it was Haydn's unique way of "making a dramatic effect through simple means". 
similar to what I felt when I listened to these for the first time: 












(expressions of which I don't find in the styles of other Classicists)


----------



## janxharris

Terrapin said:


> On a scale of 1 to 10, I would rate very few of his works above 8 but would assign 8 to a large fraction of his vast output. For Beethoven, on the other hand, I would rate about 25 works 9 or 10. Hence, my top 100 is occupied by those works rated 9 and 10 but nobody has as many 8's as Haydn. Having said that, I was likely exaggerating in saying nothing of his would make the list. Some of his stuff (Symphony No. 44, 45, 92, 103, 104; Quartets Op 20, 76) would sneak into my top 100.


Of course - I made the silly mistake of assuming your top 100 was made of lots of different composers - obviously it's filled with Beethoven, Brahms, Tchaikovsky and maybe some others (but without too many entries).

Thanks - it makes perfect sense.


----------



## hammeredklavier

hammeredklavier said:


> Btw, the sort of "weirdness" in Haydn Clairvoyance has described doesn't really seem to be Haydn's strong point either:


https://www.henle.de/blog/en/2016/0...he-finale-of-the-f-major-string-quartet-k-590
"Mozart connoisseurs and admirers know of course about what is bizarre in the finale of his very last string quartet, K. 590. In its development the harshness of the tone language is particularly unparalleled in the Mozart oeuvre. But the unsettling already starts shortly before the end of the first section: The otherwise so airily sparkling sixteenth notes stall all of a sudden in an almost stranded-like repetitive three-note kink. It is just this spot that Mozart vehemently corrected in his manuscript. The investigation of this correction offers us at hand an analytical key to the understanding of this absolutely special movement."


----------



## chu42

Haydn wrote 2 of the greatest cello concerti ever written. Some very good quartets and some very good symphonies.


----------



## vtpoet

tdc said:


> Good story, but Haydn came after Bach in the musical timeline, so I'm not sure I agree his music could ever be viewed as 'edgy' at all it in terms of dissonance and chromaticism, whether listening to his music in his time or now. Haydn was brilliant with structures and musical narratives but his weakness was expressive use of vertical harmony. According to my tastes, anyway.


Right, but your comment seems to suggest that after Bach the rococo and pre-classical composers picked up where Bach left off. They most definitely did not and deliberately so. The dissonance and chromaticism of the baroque was jettisoned in no uncertain terms. What Haydn did was absolutely edgy on those grounds.


----------



## Kreisler jr

#62 shows a glimpse into what is so great about Haydn. Unfortunately, I can understand such comments with the score and music at hand but I am not sufficiently versed in music theory to attempt such analyses myself. But I think I understand enough that I do not have to blindly follow such expert analyses. Similarly, I trust that it is exactly such details, as Septimal Tritone puts it: "contrasting textures and topics, stark distinction between tonal stability and instability, and a motivic unity that’s more used for developing and relating surface-level contrasting music to fuel a topical narrative" are what makes Haydn's music so attractive to listener and made it influential to Mozart and Beethoven, although these features are not as easy to spot as obvious melodic or formal similarities.

Some of the usual suspects (symphonies 94, 101, 103, Trumpet concerto, highlights from Creation) were among the first classical music I encountered as a teenager. I liked it well enough but soon Mozart and then Beethoven and others eclipsed Haydn's music. Of course, as a beginner there is simply too much music, one cannot listen to everything (even at the much slower pace I had to take in the late 1980s and 1990s before youtube and similar free resources).
It took another ~10 years until Haydn became one of my top 3-5 favorite composers where he remains until today. I recall that ca. 1996 I got Rattle's disc with symphonies 60, 70, 90 and realized that even beyond the famous pieces Haydn had a lot to offer. I had probably heard the Emperor or Rider quartet before but two more striking experiences were a disc with the Lindsay quartet containing the strange and beautiful op.76#5 with its incredible slow movement and a concert I attended where I was stunned by op.20#2, what I had thought was "early" Haydn, both the radiant beginning and the "operatic" slow movement had me on the edge of my chair (the other pieces on the program were an early Mozart divertimento and his c minor quintet and even the latter (although I had known this piece before and it was supposedly thought of as "main dish") could not hold a candle to the Haydn quartet on that evening).

I completely reject that Haydn's music is "less deep" than Mozart's or even Beethoven's. I once put an excerpt from the slow mvmt of op.76#4 in a musical quiz and people were puzzled because it sounded like late Beethoven to them. While it is true that Haydn has a lot of folksy, "light" slow movements, often with variation, he also has quite a few solemn, "ethereal" or whatever one wants to call them that have a very unique character, e.g. in op.76,4-6, the symphonies 88 and 102 etc. Others are unique in a different way, such as the canonic double variations in symphony #70 or the Capriccio of #86. What I'd generally grant is that Haydn only rarely endows works with a "poetic unity" that is already found in some late Mozart (e.g. his last 3 symphonies or the c minor piano concerto) and usually very strong already in early Beethoven. He can put a "transcendent" slow movement besides rather light folksy music (as in 76#5), give up any pretentions of g minor drama after the first movement of #83 etc. Even if there is a musical unity by related themes/motives (such as already in symphonies #31 and #46) this seems mostly formal/technical.

Of course, as someone who composed a tremendous amount of music, there are quite a few less remarkable pieces. However, most of the time, I am positively surprised even by minor works. I consider at least around 40 each of the symphonies and quartets as masterpieces worth knowing for everyone. The most underappreciated works are probably still the piano trios with around 20 mature trios that get a bad rep because the cello is mostly doubling the piano bass. 

I have to admit that I still do not care much about the choral music except for the two great oratorios, even the late masses don't really grab me (but neither does most of Mozart's choral music...), I also don't care very much for the concertos, they are nice (and the early C major cello concerto is maybe his most accomplished piece in the early 1760s) but not even the cello concertos or the famous D major piano concerto are really favorites of mine.


----------



## Brahmsian Colors

I was not always a big fan of Haydn's music until about a half dozen years ago when I encountered the charm of his piano trios and piano sonatas. Soon thereafter I became attracted to a fair portion of his string quartets. As to his symphonies, currently about two dozen of them receive check marks as favorites. For a while, both Haydn and Mozart had been tied in my rankings behind Brahms only. A recent re-evaluation now has Haydn several notches lower at eighth, but obviously still very well liked.


----------



## SanAntone

Among the Classical period composers I rate Haydn very high. As far as the one I listen to the most, he is it. Mozart's operas are better but in all other categories, I prefer Haydn.


----------



## Phil loves classical

I'm not sure if it's overexposure to Mozart in the past, or that Mozart is more grounded on melodies (that I've sort of memorized all the turns in in a lot of works), but I listen to Haydn more than to Mozart now. And is the composer I listen to the most works before the 20th century. I honestly don't care where he ranks in the critical consensus, or if he's even better than Mikey Haydn.

For those who only know the extroverted side of Haydn (or Bangydn as someone likes to call him) there's this:


----------



## hammeredklavier

Kreisler jr said:


> I completely reject that Haydn's music is "less deep" than Mozart's or even Beethoven's.


"Depth" or "profundity" is a vague/subjective concept. But if I were to discuss the kind of impressions one can get from his music;

1. Unlike Mozart (and even his own brother), J. Haydn rarely has sections of "eerily dark sounds with contrapuntal dissonance for contrast", but instead a lot of "happy bangs". And at the same time he rarely has dramatic ideas such as "triumph over tragedy", unlike Beethoven.

2. He has a certain tendency for "deviation" from our reasonable conception of dramatic coherence. Sturm und drang symphonies such as 45th and 83th contain movements completely irrelevant to the "stormy drama". (compare with Mozart's K.183, K.345, for example);









So, if I were to make an analogy to foods, his music often feels like eating 1. carbohydrates only, or 2. mint-chocolate.


----------



## Enthusiast

^ Do you equate darkness and dissonance with gravity and depth? Aren't there many true ways to be deep? Also, I guess his occasional deviation and use of asides may have been a crime - as much as dissonance - in terms of a Classical ideal but do we think that now? Isn't it poetic? Personally, Haydn's uniqueness and distinctive personality are part of his greatness. There are many pieces as great as any in the repertoire in his later works, when he was a free man.


----------



## Kreisler jr

#83 is usually not classified as a Sturm&Drang symphony. Neither are #95 or #80. They are stylistically quite different from the ones around 1770 like 44 or 45. 
Probably, most 18th century composers did not have a (post)Beethoven conception of unity for a work. They would sometimes even replace movements although overall their notion of unity was probably stronger than in many baroque suites. Even Mozart who was younger and a bit more modern than Haydn in this respect, turned serenades into symphonies by cutting out movements, replaced finals in concerti etc. I was actually exaggerating this "fault" of Haydn's. He does have many "unified", dramatically tight pieces, like e.g. #44 or the "Fifth" quartet or many others. It's just that some others do not follow the more romantic "narrative" or have some other twist. 

And why should everyone do this: "eerily dark sounds with contrapuntal dissonance for contrast"? 
There are other options for interesting sounds and contrast. 

Many of the pieces around 1770 like symphony 49 or the quartet op.20#3 have an "edginess" and also an austere quality that we hardly ever find in Mozart (who is always "smooth", even when he is dramatic). Mozart also rarely does the dramatic resolution turn minor to major, the most famous example is the d minor concerto, whereas Haydn does this within the first movements of e.g. #83 and 95, not in the last movement. Late Haydn also has some almost Schubert-like minor-major-alternations, e.g. in the trio of the Emperor quartet. And this and op.76#1 have the very rare feature in classicism of a finale mostly in the minor within a work in major. (The most famous examples use this for picturesque effect with no dramatic connection to the rest of the piece, namely Mozart's "alla turca" K 331 and Mendelssohn's "Italian". It's rare even in the later 19th century (but of course there are some examples e.g. Brahms' trio op.8, 3rd symphony and G major violin sonata, the two later examples turning to and closing in the major.)

And Haydn retained some of this quirky style although the later works are usually not as edgy. Haydn's sound with sometimes exposed woodwinds (like in #100 or the grotesque tic-tocking in #101 changing between flute and bassoon) is often just different. The trios in symphonies #88 and #91 have stranger sounds than anything I can think of in Mozart.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Kreisler jr said:


> #62 shows a glimpse into what is so great about Haydn.


It reminds me of Beethoven's 1st, btw;







Enthusiast said:


> ^ Do you equate darkness and dissonance with gravity and depth? Aren't there many true ways to be deep? Also, I guess his occasional deviation and use of asides may have been a crime - as much as dissonance - in terms of a Classical ideal but do we think that now? Isn't it poetic? Personally, Haydn's uniqueness and distinctive personality are part of his greatness. There are many pieces as great as any in the repertoire in his later works, when he was a free man.


I wouldn't say you're necessarily wrong in any of your points. People are free to appreciate or find value in whatever they want and I don't think there's any need to be "pretentious" about it. It's just that I think, with J. Haydn, this sort of thinking:

(https://www.talkclassical.com/65796-haydn-problem-quantity-favourite-5.html#post2088880 or)


hammeredklavier said:


> "Joseph's style is just how a Classical period composer is supposed to sound. It was a period that emphasized simplicity over all other things."
> "Not being as good as Mozart is understandable; Mozart was just extraordinary for his time."
> "But Joseph _invented everything in Classicism_ before Mozart came along; he was essentially Mozart before Mozart."


in people in general seems a bit extreme, and it sometimes does "harm" to his contemporaries.


----------



## Bulldog

I rate Haydn quite high. He's not in my top five, maybe top ten, definitely top fifteen.


----------



## Mandryka

Kreisler jr said:


> #83 is usually not classified as a Sturm&Drang symphony. Neither are #95 or #80. They are stylistically quite different from the ones around 1770 like 44 or 45.
> Probably, most 18th century composers did not have a (post)Beethoven conception of unity for a work. They would sometimes even replace movements although overall their notion of unity was probably stronger than in many baroque suites. Even Mozart who was younger and a bit more modern than Haydn in this respect, turned serenades into symphonies by cutting out movements, replaced finals in concerti etc. I was actually exaggerating this "fault" of Haydn's. He does have many "unified", dramatically tight pieces, like e.g. #44 or the "Fifth" quartet or many others. It's just that some others do not follow the more romantic "narrative" or have some other twist.
> 
> And why should everyone do this: "eerily dark sounds with contrapuntal dissonance for contrast"?
> There are other options for interesting sounds and contrast.
> 
> Many of the pieces around 1770 like symphony 49 or the quartet op.20#3 have an "edginess" and also an austere quality that we hardly ever find in Mozart (who is always "smooth", even when he is dramatic). Mozart also rarely does the dramatic resolution turn minor to major, the most famous example is the d minor concerto, whereas Haydn does this within the first movements of e.g. #83 and 95, not in the last movement. Late Haydn also has some almost Schubert-like minor-major-alternations, e.g. in the trio of the Emperor quartet. And this and op.76#1 have the very rare feature in classicism of a finale mostly in the minor within a work in major. (The most famous examples use this for picturesque effect with no dramatic connection to the rest of the piece, namely Mozart's "alla turca" K 331 and Mendelssohn's "Italian". It's rare even in the later 19th century (but of course there are some examples e.g. Brahms' trio op.8, 3rd symphony and G major violin sonata, the two later examples turning to and closing in the major.)
> 
> And Haydn retained some of this quirky style although the later works are usually not as edgy. Haydn's sound with sometimes exposed woodwinds (like in #100 or the grotesque tic-tocking in #101 changing between flute and bassoon) is often just different. The trios in symphonies #88 and #91 have stranger sounds than anything I can think of in Mozart.


I'm just curious about what you make of op 50.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Kreisler jr said:


> Many of the pieces around 1770 like symphony 49 or the quartet op.20#3 have an "edginess" and also an austere quality that we hardly ever find in Mozart (who is always "smooth", even when he is dramatic). Mozart also rarely does the dramatic resolution turn minor to major, the most famous example is the d minor concerto, whereas Haydn does this within the first movements of e.g. #83 and 95, not in the last movement. Late Haydn also has some almost Schubert-like minor-major-alternations, e.g. in the trio of the Emperor quartet.


I wasn't specifically talking about the idea of "dramatic resolution turn minor to major" in all these composers though (His brother's 29th and the ballet music of Mozart's K.345 are other good examples for this, btw).

In the 83rd, the idea " dum dum dum dum dum dum (in pianissimo) DADADADADADADADADADADADADADA!!!!! (in fortissimo) " occurs like 4 times throughout the slow movement and it is essentially the "essence" of the movement. I'm not saying it's objectively a bad thing, but how does this add/contribute to the overall "sense of sturm-und-drang" of the symphony and its expressivity in a meaningful way?
If the 83rd is not a sturm-und-drang symphony, then what is it? Another "surprise symphony"?

What kind of "edginess" in the 49th are you talking about? Of course J. Haydn writes stuff in minor keys and chromaticism, as does every common-practice composer. I didn't say he doesn't. It's just that his use of minor keys or chromaticism doesn't quite make as huge an impression as Mozart's or even his own brother's, and that might be the reason why he avoids really using it to create emotional contrast, but other effects he better at. 












Also, if I were to look for Schubertian modulations I would say Mozart's Fantasie K.475 (such as the enharmonic modulation or chromatic mediant in the intro) is a better example.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Kreisler jr said:


> Probably, most 18th century composers did not have a (post)Beethoven conception of unity for a work.


I'm curious how carefully you go through the stuff I write:
https://www.talkclassical.com/71115-who-ten-most-important-4.html#post2095250
https://www.talkclassical.com/71012-haydns-joseph-vs-michael-10.html#post2091313
Also, look at the Lutheran hymn motif 'D-C#-D-E-F' in the Introitus, Dies Irae, Recordare (inverted horizontally and transformed), Lacrimosa, Amen (inverted vertically), Domine jesu (inverted horizontally and transformed), Agnus dei (inverted horizonally) Communio of Mozart's Requiem. 
I can give you a dozen more examples if you want.
One-movement Sonata Cycle







Kreisler jr said:


> And Haydn retained some of this quirky style although the later works are usually not as edgy. Haydn's sound with sometimes exposed woodwinds (like in #100 or the grotesque tic-tocking in #101 changing between flute and bassoon) is often just different.


Early Haydn isn't particularly edgy either. I'm starting to wonder if you're too overly a dedicated fan of J. Haydn, to the point of being unable to see things objectively.
https://www.talkclassical.com/71012-haydns-joseph-vs-michael-14.html#post2094344
https://www.talkclassical.com/71012-haydns-joseph-vs-michael-10.html#post2091375
https://www.talkclassical.com/71012-haydns-joseph-vs-michael-10.html#post2091317

I still don't understand what's so quirky, grotesque or edgy about the examples you've mentioned. 
It's sort of hard to describe, I hate to say but too much of J. Haydn is about plain "yelling at the top of his lungs" or "being happy for the sake of being happy". Whereas the other masters I've praised seem to have a "sense for angularities" in their blood. (At the same time, more "natural modesty", rather than "artificial pomposity", and willingness go about things with expressivity of contrapuntal dissonance)

























"G! B! C#! D! G! B! C#! C! F! A! B! C! F! A! C! B!" and the similarly-alternating underlying harmonies are plain chatty-sounding, lacking "weight" of expressive dissonance. It just unfolds in a way that strikes me as too "obvious". 




I would say if you have other options in the Classical period (even including J.A. Benda, C.W. Gluck, C.P.E. Bach), he doesn't seem very "essential". 




Again, Fabulin is right: "His rhythmic-melodic prowess resemble to me the likes of Franz Lachner or self-taught composers on Youtube more than composers seen in a typical top 25. His counterpoint is yet to impress me as well."



Kreisler jr said:


> The trios in symphonies #88 and #91 have stranger sounds than anything I can think of in Mozart.


There's nothing in J. Haydn as edgy as this:



hammeredklavier said:


> "the fact remains that the "Great Fugue" is "a controlled violence without parallel in music before the twentieth century and anticipated only by Mozart in the C minor fugue for two pianos (K.426)"
> < Opera's Second Death / Slavoj Žižek, Mladen Dolar / P.128 >
> "Mozart later arranged this fugue for strings as well, adding the introductory Adagio, K. 546. The traditional Baroque idiom that is developed in this fugue for two pianos lays great stress on dissonant chromatic semitones and appoggiaturas. The intensity of the fugal writing is startling, foreshadowing the fugal textures in some of Beethoven's later works, such as the first movement of the Piano Sonata in C Minor, op.111, which exploits a variant of the same idiom. Beethoven was so taken by this piece, in fact, that he copied out the entire fugue in score."
> < Mozart's Piano Music / William Kinderman / P.46 >


----------



## Oldhoosierdude

Haydn: Just how highly do you estimate him?

_____

He's way up there with Elvis.


----------



## Kreisler jr

hammeredklavier said:


> It reminds me of Beethoven's 1st, btw;


Sorry, this was a total misunderstanding; I didn't refer to symphony #62 (which I do not regard as very special) but to POST #62 above with an analysis of the first page or so of the b minor quartet op.33#1. The techniques shown there are what made Haydn important for later composers, especially Mozart and Beethoven.


----------



## Kreisler jr

hammeredklavier said:


> I wasn't specifically talking about the idea of "dramatic resolution turn minor to major" in all these composers though (His brother's 29th and the ballet music of Mozart's K.345 are other good examples for this, btw).


No, but I was. You are not the master of this conversation, in case you missed this fact.
I mentioned it because the dramatic resolution of a minor key movement or piece is quite typical for Beethoven and the Romantics. And it is present in Haydn, moreso than in Mozart, despite Haydn often having this already in the first movement not "reserving" it for the end of the whole piece. As usual, you choose to misread this into what nobody said, namely that Haydn was the only or first one who did this.


----------



## Eclectic Al

My enjoyment of music is deliberately non-analytic. I positively do not want to investigate technical reasons why I may respond to a piece of music in a particular way. I reserve such investigations for things relating to my field of work, or where I need that understanding in order to obtain a good outcome - such as how to perform a DIY task.

So, in terms of how do I rate a composer I suppose it's a blend of how much I find myself listening to them, and how much pleasure I gain when I do. I have very little interest in why those things may be.

Turning to Haydn, I listen to him a lot and gain a lot of enjoyment. That's all.
Taking another example, Mozart: I listen to him far less and gain less enjoyment.

If I am asked why, I could speculate, but that's all. The brute fact is that I like Haydn's music a lot, and another brute fact is that many others do too. The correct approach for analysis of this situation is to observe that many like Haydn's music, and explore why that might be; the wrong approach is to look at his music for reasons why you should not like it, and tell people that they are wrong to do so. That's not analysis; it's propaganda.

If that puzzles other people then they should take seriously the reasons people who like Haydn's music give. The question isn't whether Haydn's technique is better or worse than that of Mozart or Michael Haydn; the question is why Haydn is so popular with a good number of people. (I don't think many accept some sort of assertion that it is because we have all been brain-washed by a Haydn propaganda machine. The argument "I don't like something but you do, so you must have been brain-washed" is not a strong one.)

If I was forced to speculate about the why of these matters in my own case, I think it would relate to a sense I get that this is someone who wants to engage with and entertain the listener: he doesn't forget that there is an audience out there, and that we matter. Some other composers seem concerned with putting their feelings out there; others want to commune with some idea of musical perfection; yet others want to celebrate their God. All those things can be fine, and in different moods I might listen to their music.

Haydn is more frequently a self-aware entertainer, and very good at it. Some of his little jokes and effects may annoy some, but he knows what he's doing, and doesn't overdo the cheese (- the more slapstick effects are only sparsely scattered in his works). When I want to be emotionally refreshed by a voice who is seeking to do just that, I will often turn to Haydn. In order to give me that refreshment he needs great skill (and he may also employ emotional contrast very effectively - one-dimensional cheeriness is unlikely to provide that refreshment). How is that achieved technically? I don't care. However, ultimately music can be judged by its ability to have an effect on the listener, and Haydn's music is undeniably effective with many. That's the fact: deal with it.


----------



## Kreisler jr

Mandryka said:


> I'm just curious about what you make of op 50.


We need to take care not to get carried away by speculation. Haydn was not always the master of his time and projects, and it seems we do not know exactly why he wrote no less than 18 quartets aroun 1770, than took a break of almost 10 years, wrote the rather different op.33, took again 6 years break, wrote op.50 and from then on published another collection roughly every two years.
The important bunch of works between op.33 and 50 was of course the "Paris" symphonies. 
I have the vague hypothesis that Haydn was a bit stunned by Mozart's quartets dedicated to him. He couldn't equal, much less beat Mozart at the dramatic, sometimes operatic expansion of the genre (to be fair, even Mozart could not improve on himself when he wrote his last 4 quartets ). So he focussed on his strengths, monothematic (even "minimalist", like in the first movement of op.50#1) sonata movements and (double) variations (another point somewhat in common with the Paris symphonies). Nevertheless, the op.50 are expanded in dimensions over most of op.33 and also at least sometime more "emotional", not "comic". I found them less accessible than e.g. opp.54 or 64 but mostly very rewarding

Interestingly, with some of op.54/55 only about one year later, Haydn turned again in a different direction, namely virtuoso brilliance (esp. 54#1), picturesque (54#2 with "gypsy" adagio) and unconventional forms (54#2 with the slow finale and 55#2 with the double variation first movement).


----------



## Kreisler jr

Eclectic Al said:


> Turning to Haydn, I listen to him a lot and gain a lot of enjoyment. That's all.
> Taking another example, Mozart: I listen to him far less and gain less enjoyment.


I like Mozart about as much as Haydn; as I sketched further above, I also got to know far more important works by Mozart before I expanded to more than a handful of Haydn symphonies, so I certainly was "primed" more by Mozart (and of course Beethoven). I also had for a while a comparably strong interest in other composers of that era. I have in my collection symphonies and/or concertos of the Bach sons, Sammartini, Richter, Boyce, both Joh. and Carl Stamitz, Wagenseil, Monn, M. Haydn, Dittersdorf, Salieri, Cannabich, Kozeluch, Filz, Vanhal, Eberl, Rossetti, Kraus, Boccherini, Clementi, Krommer, Pleyel and probably a few more. 
None of this has ever led to "putting Haydn into place", I think he very clearly deserves his rank (with the possible exception of some concertos that might not be as well known unless for the famous author but his fame clearly does not rest on the violin concertos...)



> The correct approach for analysis of this situation is to observe that many like Haydn's music, and explore why that might be; the wrong approach is to look at his music for reasons why you should not like it, and tell people that they are wrong to do so. That's not analysis; it's propaganda.
> 
> If that puzzles other people then they should take seriously the reasons people who like Haydn's music give.


Very well put, I completely agree with this.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Kreisler jr said:


> Sorry, this was a total misunderstanding; I didn't refer to symphony #62 (which I do not regard as very special) but to POST #62 above with an analysis of the first page or so of the b minor quartet op.33#1. The techniques shown there are what made Haydn important for later composers, especially Mozart and Beethoven.


I've always thought and agreed with Tdc's view that that Op.33 No.1 demonstrates J. Haydn's limitations rather than his potentials and possibilities with expressive dissonance. Even if Joseph Haydn's music never existed, I doubt Mozart would have been significantly affected. Mozart had other great "models" to look up to and follow aside from Joseph Haydn. While Joseph Haydn had his own style of dissonance, it tended to be somewhat "alien" from the kind Mozart explored.
Both of these were composed in Salzburg, 1773 (Mozart's in the December of that year), before the publication of Joseph's Op.20 (1774):

4:28 








11:14 








this fugue (K.173/iv) was also written in 1773: 






tdc said:


> Clearly people perceive the use of dissonance in different ways, this is why to some Haydn seems often dark and expressive, and to others he seems generally jolly and rather tame. I came across this quote by Charles Rosen today:
> 
> "The Classical style immeasurably increased the power of dissonance, raising it from an unresolved interval to an unresolved chord and then to an unresolved key."
> 
> This quote seems to my ears completely wrong. What I hear in the Classical style is rather a dispersion of dissonance, which generally weakens its effects on a local level. I hear much more powerful use of dissonance in Bach, (and also in the Romantic era) the only Classical composer that approaches this kind of expressive dissonance on occasion is Mozart, but at present I lack the technical jargon to explain why.
> 
> One example Rosen cites is this Haydn piece, _String Quartet Op. 33 no. 1_ which features recurring clashing minor seconds (A, A#). After listening to it, I noticed the dissonances, but they would not have stuck out to me very much had Rosen not pointed it out. On reflection it seems partially hidden behind the phrasing of the melodic material. The over all feel of the Classical style tends to the comical much more than the Baroque and this is perhaps why. Even with the dissonances the music does not seem to be expressing anything really serious or truly heart wrenching (to me).





tdc said:


> I don't listen to his music, because I find it dull and with respect to dissonance, impotent. He uses dissonance, but not effectively in my view. It is like food without spice. His music strikes me as the kind of thing a man would write who has never himself experienced anything in life one could call 'deep' or 'profound'. It seems he resorts to humor, because there is nothing else of substance he has to say.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Kreisler jr said:


> The techniques shown there are what made Haydn important for later composers, especially Mozart and Beethoven.


I can see how this was important for Beethoven though:



hammeredklavier said:


> the C minor slow movement (2nd movement) of Op.54 no.2 in C major. The ending where , after a deceptive cadence, the first violin doesn't resolve with the rest of the ensemble and continues to hammer on the leading tone, until the whole thing finally ends in the dominant major (!) (I'm not sure whether to interpret this as a movemental end, or a transition to the next movement) the "transition" is marked "attacca", - something Beethoven would later have written.


----------



## larold

Haydn came in No. 5 in my survey behind the Big Three and Brahms and ahead of everyone else. The reasons for this are not hard to find:

-- He wrote 104 symphonies at least 20 of which that are masterpieces, perhaps 30. This is two or three times as many as anyone else and from 5 to 30 times as many as the average great composer.

-- He perfected (some say invented) the string quartet and symphony.

-- He wrote one of the only orations, The Creation, that ranks with Handel's Messiah.

-- He wrote six scared Masses of the highest quality, three or four times as many as whomever is second.

-- His body of string quartets rates with anyone in history.

-- He wrote one or two of the best cello concertos in history.

-- His songs and specifically his 12 Canzonettas rank with any group of songs aside from possibly Schubert.

-- He incorporated humor into his music better than any other great composer. Try the Symphony 60 or his Battle of the Nile for humor in classical music.

-- Today, some two and one-half centuries after he started all this, he is still relevant, recorded and played in concert all the time.

-- He wrote 60 piano sonatas and as many masterpieces in the solo piano literature as Beethoven.

-- Of his body of work -- one of the greatest for any composer -- it is only his operas that are not in the standard repertoire.

I don't question there are people that don't like Haydn. However, see how many other composers there are about whom you can say all the above.


----------



## hammeredklavier

larold said:


> I don't question there are people that don't like Haydn. However, see how many other composers there are about whom you can say all the above.


Maybe those works of J. Haydn are popular for a reason similar to why you think Mahler's 6th and 8th are popular?

"The fact that it has been shuttered for the likes of Mahler's 6th and 8th symphonies is popularity more than artistry. Classical music concert scheduling is a copycat industry -- when something becomes popular everyone does it." -Larold



larold said:


> He wrote six scared Masses of the highest quality, three or four times as many as whomever is second.


I'm sorry but this is just laughable. There are no other works from that period as overblown as those masses.

"I rather find that Joseph's late masses are "cookie-cutter" by comparison (always using the melodic phrase "F-D-B(b)" and then bland chords to make his argument):








 " (#131)
"tell me what's so great about:




I just can't feel any "emotion" from the use of harmony and part-writing. Can you?" (#165)
"^compare them with F.X. Brixi's, J.G. Naumann's, E. Angerer's. You'll know those works are not the works of a first-rate composer. Joseph just does banging better than them. 



" (#166)
"Missa in B flat, "theresienmesse", for example, the melodies are pretty "mundane" for the most part (except for the Gratias agimus tibi - Qui tollis , possibly my favorite part in all of Joseph's Catholic music).
But towards the end of credo, Joseph finds a good tune (FINALLY!). 




 ( 6:32 ~ 7:45 )
But maybe he is too delighted for having achieved it; he just runs it into the ground by repeating it with poor sense of variation and generic use of harmony, ending with an awkward transition to the concluding fugue, which is itself not remarkable.
I think things just don't come naturally for Joseph. The way he handles things often strikes me as "clunky".
I wouldn't presume to discuss "musical depth", but I can say at least that there's a bit of certain "shallowness of craftsmanship" in Joseph; making things sound bangy or chatty." (#163)
" 



At around 4:44, I'm yelling in my mind:
_"Joe, stop BANGING and write some expressive harmony for goodness' sake!"_" (#129)


----------



## Bruckner Anton

For me, he is among the greatest composers of all time. He contributed a lot to some of the most important genres, such as symphony, string quartet and piano trio. Above all, he re-invented "obbligato accompaniment", which became a core feature of the music in Viennese Classical Style and which had huge influence on Mozart, Beethoven and other successors. His mature works are of great technique value and aesthetic beauty.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Bruckner Anton said:


> he re-invented "obbligato accompaniment", which became a core feature of the music in Viennese Classical Style and which had huge influence on Mozart, Beethoven and other successors.


What do you mean "he RE-invented"? I find plenty of "obbligato accompaniments" in Mozart's Salzburg-period music. (ie. K.195, K.243, etc).


----------



## hammeredklavier

been listening to Wranitzky's string quartets lately; his harmonic style is a lot like Joseph Haydn's.

0:40 








2:40


----------



## larold

_He wrote six scared Masses of the highest quality, three or four times as many as whomever is second...I'm sorry but this is just laughable. There are no other works from that period as overblown as those masses._

Perhaps you can name a composer that wrote 6 masses of equal magnificence?


----------



## Bwv 1080

larold said:


> Perhaps you can name a composer that wrote 6 masses of equal magnificence?


Josquin?

Was Haydn the last composer to write 6 or more masses?


----------



## Mandryka

larold said:


> _He wrote six scared Masses of the highest quality, three or four times as many as whomever is second...I'm sorry but this is just laughable. There are no other works from that period as overblown as those masses._
> 
> Perhaps you can name a composer that wrote 6 masses of equal magnificence?


Well according to wiki he wrote 14 masses and Mozart wrote 18.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_(music)


----------



## hammeredklavier

larold said:


> I'm sorry but this is just laughable. There are no other works from that period as overblown as those masses.
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you can name a composer that wrote 6 masses of equal magnificence?Perhaps you can name a composer that wrote 6 masses of equal magnificence?
Click to expand...

(since you ask) Of course, from Joseph's own contemporaries.
Have you been following along my posts in <Haydns: Joseph vs Michael>?



hammeredklavier said:


> "Michael's influence on Romanticism is also reflected in the writings of E. T. A. Hoffmann, who praised Michael's sacred music above that of older brother Joseph's. Franz Schubert is known to have visited the grave of Michael Haydn in order to gain inspiration for writing sacred music. After one of these visits, Schubert wrote in a letter to his brother the following epitaph:
> "I thought to myself, 'May thy pure and peaceful spirit hover around me, dear Haydn! If I can ever become like thee, peaceful and guileless, in all matters none on earth has such deep reverence for thee as I have.' (Sad tears fell from my eyes. . . .)""
> 
> "Joseph regarded his brother's music highly, to the point of feeling Michael's religious works were superior to his own"





hammeredklavier said:


> Requiem in C Minor, MH155 (1771)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listen at the way to set the text "Lacrimosa dies illa" to music at 11:40.
> And the subsequent passages of chromaticism from the rest of the movement.
> Joseph never had the guts to do something this "disturbing" psychologically.
> "In just two weeks Michael Haydn composed his work in December 1771, on the occasion of the death of his employer, Prince Bishop Sigismund Count Schrattenbach, who was beloved among the people and was a great patron of the arts. The work was written under the impression of personal tragedy: Haydn's only child, Aloisia Josepha, died in January 1771, before completing her first year of life."





hammeredklavier said:


> the sheer variety and quantity he has in Catholic music (a cappella and orchestral) in in terms of varying degrees of stile antico, for instance, is unmatched by both Joseph and Mozart. In Michael's music, I often get a feel unique from both Joseph's and Mozart's. For example, the exotic style of "contrapuntal Rococo" in:
> "Missa in C, sancti Hieronymi (1777), aka. "Oboenmesse", sounds like a "continuous" line of Neapolitan mass music with oboe obbligato/ritornello. In addition to the late 18th-century style "through-composition" in the movements, notice there is a "tendency" for a "continuity" of melody (themes from one movement get used in the subsequent movements in altered forms).
> Quoniam tu salus (the end of Gloria):
> 
> 
> 
> Patrem omnipotentem (the beginning of Credo):
> 
> 
> 
> Preparation/build-up leading to the concluding fugue of Credo:
> 
> 
> 
> (19:05)."





















hammeredklavier said:


> I also know you regard Joseph's late masses highly. But even those jubilant glorias Joseph is famous for - Michael outdoes them.
> Rupertimesse C-Dur "Jubiläumsmesse" (1782)
> 
> 
> 
> the concluding fugue (Cum sancto spiritu, @ 8:24) of this; I like the harmonies at 8:54:
> Missa sanctae Ursulae, MH 546 (1793)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I find Michael's melodies fuller, more fluid, natural.
> Joseph tends to base/structure his melodies around bangings.
> If you remove the bangings (which are pretty much the "hooks") in his, the melodies themselves aren't that special.





hammeredklavier said:


> Missa sancti Gotthardi (1792): listen to the harmonies of the "Crucifixus" [ 2:27 ~ 3:09 ] and "Amen" [ 6:03 ~ 6:15 ] (It's interesting the peculiar style of rhythm is referenced at the very start, the Kyrie, and the very end, the Dona nobis pacem).





hammeredklavier said:


> Missa sancti Nicolai Tolentini (1772)
> -Qui tollis:
> 
> 
> 
> -Et incarnatus est:
> 
> 
> 
> Missa sancti Joannis Nepomuceni (1772)
> -Gloria:
> 
> 
> 
> -Credo:


In fact, Joseph's harmonies are rather half-assed (frankly), I can find 6 from Mozart's early works (including vespers, litanies) that are superior; K.321, K.339, K.243, K.257, K.337, K.275, K.195, etc.




















None of the works listed above suffer from the issues I raised in the quotes in [Post #93].





_"Suscipe! Suscipe! Suscipe!"_ This is essentially a second-rate kapellmeister trying to be first-rate, and failing. I say this again; the "Father of the symphony" proves himself to be a bit of a one-trick pony in this, "boxed-in" his own symphonic techniques.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Clairvoyance Enough said:


> Haydn's style is just "jokes" the way Mozart's is just "pretty."


Btw, I still find the above to be amusing (now that I've revisited it, thanks to the revival of this thread by Kreisler jr). Why can't we find anything like this




 in Joseph Haydn? I really want to know why.
"Most revealing in this respect are the passages in Berlioz's criticism that compare Mozart to Haydn. For Berlioz, Haydn is manifestly beneath the level of the 'Great Masters'. He is treated as 'outdated' and someone whose 'boring … phrases … have tired rather than interested the public'. In his earlier critiques he takes care to stress the difference between the two: after commenting on Haydn's obsolete style he speaks of Mozart as 'full of passion and gloominess'. But later he tends to amalgamate the two into one entity, embodying all those features of scholarly Classicism that the Romantic spirit of Berlioz had sworn to overcome and to surpass." 
<Berlioz and Debussy: Sources, Contexts and Legacies : Essays in Honour of François Lesure. Front Cover. Barbara L. Kelly, Kerry Murphy. P. 23>


----------



## Kreisler jr

Some renaissance composers and catholic baroque composer wrote lots of masses (we tend to have a somewhat skewed view because nowadays late baroque seems dominated by Bach and Handel who wrote little Latin church music)

I am not sure I ever heard any of the canzonettas; they do not seem to be well known, I doubt that they are comparable to 19th century romantic lieder. (I have two volumes of the arrangements of Scottish songs, they are nice, but I prefer Beethoven's) 
Despite having seen one of his opera on stage ("Orlando paladino", a totally crazy piece), I never really looked further into them. They are not quite forgotten; even the 1950s opera guide by Kloiber covered "Lo speziale" (The apothecary) and "Il mondo della luna" (The world on the moon), so apparently they were staged at least with some frequency in Austria and Germany. (Nevertheless it is amazing how many he wrote and that operas were a relatively important part of his work.)

I also find his concertos mostly minor works; they are good but not exceptional and profit from covering niches like cello, horn and trumpet. Even his best and last piano concerto I'd rate about like a minor Mozart concerto like K 413. 
"He wrote 60 piano sonatas and as many masterpieces in the solo piano literature as Beethoven" I find quite exaggerated. The piano sonatas might be underrated (although the piano trios even more so) and there are about a dozen or more very good ones but most of Beethoven's solo piano music is quite superior and more important within the oeuvre of the composer.

Nevertheless, Haydn fully deserves his status for his great symphonies, quartets, trios, some sonatas and choral works.


----------



## Kreisler jr

hammeredklavier said:


> Btw, I still find the above to be amusing (now that I've revisited it, thanks to the revival of this thread by Kreisler jr). Why can't we find anything like this
> 
> 
> 
> 
> in Joseph Haydn? I really want to know why.
> "Most revealing in this respect are the passages in Berlioz's criticism that compare Mozart to Haydn. For Berlioz, Haydn is manifestly beneath the level of the 'Great Masters'. He is treated as 'outdated' and someone whose 'boring … phrases … have tired rather than interested the public'. In his earlier critiques he takes care to stress the difference between the two: after commenting on Haydn's obsolete style he speaks of Mozart as 'full of passion and gloominess'. But later he tends to amalgamate the two into one entity, embodying all those features of scholarly Classicism that the Romantic spirit of Berlioz had sworn to overcome and to surpass."
> <Berlioz and Debussy: Sources, Contexts and Legacies : Essays in Honour of François Lesure. Front Cover. Barbara L. Kelly, Kerry Murphy. P. 23>


Berlioz was a romantic, he liked what he could find in protoromantic drama in Gluck and Mozart. This is the only thing that is "revealing" here. He was not interested in Bach either and not in the nuts and bolts of sonata form etc. where Haydn remained important and interesting for composers like Beethoven, Mendelssohn, even Brahms. And most of Mozart was 1830 similarly "obsolete" (actually for most commentators "Idomeneo" was obsolete until the mid-20th century...)

And what should it "prove" that Haydn has not written something like Idomeno? It is an exceptional piece and I don't think many people claimed that Haydn wrote a serious opera on that level (but then neither did anybody else, even Mozart's other mature Seria is rather lame compared to it). Did Mozart write something like the chaos at the beginning of "The Creation", the thunderstorm in the "Seasons", the symphony #49, the "razor" quartet op.55/2, the largo of op.76/5, the andante from symphony 70 etc.? He didn't but this doesn't prove that he is lacking in anything.


----------



## Eclectic Al

Yeah. I liked Berlioz when I was young and naive. I like Haydn now I'm more experienced and knowledgeable.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Kreisler jr said:


> Berlioz was a romantic, he liked what he could find in protoromantic drama in Gluck and Mozart. This is the only thing that is "revealing" here. ... He didn't but this doesn't prove that he is lacking in anything. Haydn remained important and interesting for composers like Beethoven, Mendelssohn, even Brahms.


Geez.. I was only expressing in a few lines what I felt about a conversation I had with another member on the topic of Joseph Haydn vs Mozart an year ago (since you revived it). Maybe you're getting over-reactive a little. Yes, Beethoven was a pupil of Joseph Haydn, [ "But it's interesting to note that J. Haydn was never one of Beethoven's "heroes" to the extent Handel, Mozart, Bach were." -hammeredklavier (#42) ] *"I never learned anything from Haydn." -Beethoven*
Heck, it can be argued Joseph's brother also "remained interesting" for Beethoven (Op.123).

And I had already said that Brahms was a "peculiar Romantic" (and quoted this comment of mine many times in response to you);
[ "It's true the Romantic Viennese master Brahms was somewhat interested in J. Haydn, but then he was rather a "peculiar Romantic" for being obsessed with Neoclassicism. In an era where "artist individuality" was upheld more than any other values, Brahms made Neoclassicism the most fundamental aspect of his individuality. And J. Haydn was still relatively "over-popular" compared to his contemporaries (except Mozart) during Brahms' time due to the reasons I described in Posts [ #30, #33 ] in <How do important composers get flatlined?>." -hammeredklavier (#42) ]
and even with all that popularity of Joseph Haydn at the time; Brahms' interest in J. Haydn was pretty limited. He praised Bach and Mozart's use of harmony but not J. Haydn's.



Kreisler jr said:


> Did Mozart write something like the chaos at the beginning of "The Creation", the thunderstorm in the "Seasons", the symphony #49, the "razor" quartet op.55/2, the largo of op.76/5, the andante from symphony 70 etc.?


I acknowledge that the chaos intro to The Creation is one of his better symphonic intros (and the most expansive one), supposedly inspired by Mozart's dissonance quartet, (but doesn't quite reach that level). The 70th symphony and the other chamber stuff, especially in their fast movements, feel like listening to "women sitting at a table, chatting away", lacking depth of expressive dissonance. 
Everytime I listen to the Creation, I stop at some point around the middle, since the colorless plain "bangy pomposity" is too much to bear, just like the harmoniemesse, (I'm not even sure it's better than his brother's only recorded oratorio "Der Kampf der Busse und Bekehrung" and opera "Andromeda e Perseo"). I still maintain that Joseph is a bit of a one-trick pony, mostly stuck in his own symphonic techniques in those major works of his. 
And nope; I'll never change my position about Joseph Haydn; I'm not aware of another composer who is so lacking in many respects in terms of expressive color and still has "idolatry" around him that's detrimental to his contemporaries.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Eclectic Al said:


> I like Haydn now I'm more experienced and knowledgeable.


So you are like:
[ "I don't want music to be complex, innovative, representative of excellent counterpoint, spiced with dissonance, or any of those things." -Eclectic Al (#339) ]
(Kreisler jr also expressed similar views, on Bach, on many occasions.)
I'm not saying you're not entitled to these views, but we shouldn't distort history based on our own "unpopular opinions". I find a lot of claims people make on J. Haydn on regular basis pretty ridiculous.


----------



## Phil loves classical

"we shouldn't distort history based on our own "unpopular opinions""

Hammeredklavier


----------



## hammeredklavier

Phil loves classical said:


> "we shouldn't distort history based on our own "unpopular opinions""
> Hammeredklavier


So, where and when have I distorted history? I've given solid evidence to support my argument every time. Kreisler jr, on the other hand, likes to claim all the music I cite (in Post #100 of this thread, for instance) was "hopelessly outdated", but did anyone in that period think that way? Where's your proof, other than your own modern-day perception of the works?


----------



## Phil loves classical

hammeredklavier said:


> So, where and when have I distorted history? I've given solid evidence to support my argument every time. Kreisler jr, on the other hand, likes to claim all the music I cite (in Post #100 of this thread, for instance) was "hopelessly outdated", but did anyone in that period think that way? Where's your proof, other than your own modern-day perception of the works?


Not going to get into this. But just in the last page this stuck out. This to me is distorting history.

"In fact, Joseph's harmonies are rather half-assed (frankly)..."


----------



## hammeredklavier

Kreisler jr said:


> No, but I was. You are not the master of this conversation, in case you missed this fact.
> I mentioned it because the *dramatic resolution of a minor key movement* or piece is quite typical for Beethoven and the Romantics.


Why are you harping on that anyway? I don't even find Joseph's use of that really convincing anyway, compared to https://www.talkclassical.com/54405-haydn-muscular-mozart-24.html#post2037575.



Kreisler jr said:


> And it is present in Haydn, moreso than in Mozart, despite Haydn often having this already in the first movement not "reserving" it for the end of the whole piece.


I don't care how many more symphonies he could churn out without ever achieving anything like Mozart K.477, K.540.
And obviously you're setting up a "red herring" cause you're not able to answer:
"In the 83rd, the idea " dum dum dum dum dum dum (in pianissimo) DADADADADADADADADADADADADADA!!!!! (in fortissimo) " occurs like 4 times throughout the slow movement and it is essentially the "essence" of the movement. I'm not saying it's objectively a bad thing, but how does this add/contribute to the overall "sense of sturm-und-drang" of the symphony and its expressivity in a meaningful way?
If the 83rd is not a sturm-und-drang symphony, then what is it? Another "surprise symphony"?" -hammeredklavier (#82)



Kreisler jr said:


> Did Mozart write something like the chaos at the beginning of "The Creation", the thunderstorm in the "Seasons", the symphony #49, the "razor" quartet op.55/2, the largo of op.76/5, the andante from symphony 70 etc.? He didn't but this doesn't prove that he is lacking in anything.


There seems to be have been some misunderstanding; I was talking about why Joseph never really moves away from this sort of writing: https://www.talkclassical.com/71012-haydns-joseph-vs-michael-14.html#post2094344 (in the thunderstorm in the Seasons, and the Earthquake in the SLWOC)
Yes, I know all the "endless happiness" of the slow movement of Op.76/5. But comparing him to his more competent contemporaries, is like comparing Pachelbel to Bach, I'm afraid.


----------



## Eclectic Al

hammeredklavier said:


> So you are like:
> [ "I don't want music to be complex, innovative, representative of excellent counterpoint, spiced with dissonance, or any of those things." -Eclectic Al (#339) ]


Reading my remarks, I'm afraid I find that I agree with myself.

To be clear, I don't mind it if music is or has all those things: it's just that it's not what I want from music. Those things are possible means to an end, and the end is enjoyable music.

Haydn (J) produced a lot of music which I enjoy. That's what matters to me. Good old Joseph: I'm grateful for his existence.

The idea that I'm supposed to listen to a piece of music and then think "Oh, I must investigate it for the presence of innovative features or the excellence of counterpoint, and then I will be able to work out whether I like it" comes across as a bit sad; indeed it comes across as representative of an anti-musical sensibility.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Eclectic Al said:


> I will be able to work out whether I like it" comes across as a bit sad; indeed it comes across as representative of an anti-musical sensibility.


I've told you many times already that's not how I appreciate stuff either. Stop calling other people pedants just cause you think they are.


----------



## Eclectic Al

hammeredklavier said:


> I've told you many times already that's not how I appreciate stuff either. Stop calling other people pedants just cause you think they are.


So why do you keep telling people the reasons they should not like a piece by examining its supposed technical deficiencies?


----------



## hammeredklavier

Eclectic Al said:


> So why do you keep telling people the reasons they should not like a piece by examining its supposed technical deficiencies?


They aren't "technical deficiencies"; they are simply "characteristics". (You seem to denigrate any elements you find uninteresting as "technical", but setting text to part-writing, for example, also requires "imagination", "talent", "inspiration", not just "technicality"). 
Look through this thread, I'm not even the only one talking about them about composers. 
Joseph Haydn fans have justifications for anything; "That's just how a Classical period composer is supposed to sound" is a big one, like how Kreisler jr twists Berlioz's words to suit his view- "Berlioz was a romantic, he liked what he could find in protoromantic drama in Gluck and Mozart. This is the only thing that is "revealing" here." -even though Gluck (who was even ridiculed by Handel) never had the harmonic/contrapuntal expressivity to have the traits of Mozart Berlioz found admirable.

I've already described the "dogmatism" in another thread:
"I think people are entitled to appreciate whatever they want, and it's never a bad thing that many people appreciate the music of Joseph Haydn. But a problem arises when someone like him is "over-popular"; people build certain "stereotypes" in their minds based on his style and start judging other composers of the period by those standards, and even distort history:

Classical period composers are supposed to write mostly symphonies and string quartets.
Classical period composers should sound "pompously happy" all the time; anyone who does things differently is a "freak", going for "proto-Romanticism", not "real Classicism".
Classical period composers do not need to be great at counterpoint.
Classical period composers are not supposed to focus on liturgical music or derive from archaism.
" -hammeredklavier (post2088880)

And, isn't something like this "propaganda to elevate" Joseph Haydn by discussing "technical stuff"?:


Bruckner Anton said:


> he re-invented "obbligato accompaniment", which became a core feature of the music in Viennese Classical Style and which had huge influence on Mozart, Beethoven and other successors.


I mean, who can even dare to level charges against the "infallible" Franz Joseph Haydn; the guy who invented (and even "RE-invented") all things Classical; the guy who represents the absolute standard for all things Classical; the guy from whom all true musical wisdom of Classicism proceeded.


Coach G said:


> Haydn creates the symphony template. ...The universal template, though, starts with Haydn who is so much the antithesis of what the symphony has come to represent.


----------



## larold

I'd like to know the six masses from either Josquin or Mozart that match Haydn's Nelson, Kettledrum, Maria Theresa, Helig, Harmonie and Nicolai masses.


----------



## hammeredklavier

larold said:


> I'd like to know the six masses from either Josquin or Mozart that match Haydn's Nelson, Kettledrum, Maria Theresa, Helig, Harmonie and Nicolai masses.


I've already given you; have you gone through my post [#100]? Or are you one of those Joseph Haydn fans who believe those "humongous exercises in bangy pomposity" passed off as "masses" are actually "unsurpassed masterpieces"?
"Haydn's chief biographer, H. C. Robbins Landon, has written that this mass (Missa in Angustiis) "is arguably Haydn's greatest single composition"." (wikipedia)
I've always thought that, if any composer had the Nelson mass or the harmoniemesse as his final "greatest masterpieces", I would feel sorry for him.




Compared to the "real masters" -he's good at BANGING, but not much else, I'm afraid.


----------



## Mandryka

larold said:


> I'd like to know the six masses from either Josquin or Mozart that match Haydn's Nelson, Kettledrum, Maria Theresa, Helig, Harmonie and Nicolai masses.


Missae sine nomine, pange lingue, mater patris, l'homme armé svp, Hercules dux ferriae, gaudeamus, fortuna desperata, di dadi, beata vergine, ave maris stella, ad fugam.

I know nothing about Mozart.


----------



## Littlephrase

Mandryka said:


> Missae sine nomine, pange lingue, mater patris, l'homme armé svp, Hercules dux ferriae, gaudeamus, fortuna desperata, di dadi, beata vergine, ave maris stella, ad fugam.
> 
> I know nothing about Mozart.


Take that for musical conservatism, Hammeredklavier.

I myself don't listen to music from after 1520. By the time of the Classical period, music was lost to the dogs.


----------



## HenryPenfold

Littlephrase said:


> So my question is rather comically simple: how much do you like Haydn? Where is he rated in your personal estimation?


High.

Just below Mozart and Beethoven.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Littlephrase said:


> Take that for musical conservatism, Hammeredklavier.
> 
> I myself don't listen to music from after 1520. By the time of the Classical period, music was lost to the dogs.


Do you live in a monastery with a pageboy haircut?



hammeredklavier said:


> Compared to the "real masters" -he's good at BANGING, but not much else, I'm afraid.


That's a good one. I'm wondering if anyone takes that seriously.


----------



## RogerWaters

Phil loves classical said:


> Do you live in a monastery with a pageboy haircut?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compared to the "real masters" -he's good at BANGING, but not much else, I'm afraid.
> 
> 
> 
> That's a good one. I'm wondering if anyone takes that seriously.
Click to expand...

I love a good banging.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Littlephrase said:


> Take that for musical conservatism, Hammeredklavier.


What do you mean? I don't see how the examples I gave in [Post#100] are really more "conservative" than stuff like Mozart K.551, K.626. Is Mozart "conservative"? 



Requiem_(Mozart)#I._Introitus
"A soprano solo is sung to the Te decet hymnus text in the tonus peregrinus. The choir continues, repeating the psalmtone while singing the Exaudi orationem meam section."
Are these more conservative than K.551?:




 (1786)




 (1785)




 (1784)
They're only about as "conservative" as Bach was in his time.
Are we calling the stuff "conservative" just cause it was way above the pay-grade of guys like Joseph Haydn?



Phil loves classical said:


> That's a good one. I'm wondering if anyone takes that seriously.


Why, because it's too "inconvenient" a truth? I know Joseph Haydn fans' other favorite arguments; "Joseph is inventive and skillful with developments and rhythms", but do look at these highly-acclaimed "Sturm-und-drang" symphonies, namely the 83rd (1785) and 95th (1791):

83rd/i: 



95th/i: 




He follows them up with accompaniments (trivial-sounding in terms of harmony) "fitting squarely" into (1), (2) and also alternate in the same way (1), (2) do.
"G B C# D" (1) "G B D C" (2)
"C G Ab E F" (1) "Db A Bb B C" (2)









Then he has some rustic gestures for contrast:









Likewise, among the famous symphonists, he's the most prolific (most of the works being full-length, with no "overtures"), but at the same time, (arguably) the most "cookie-cutter".

45th/i: 



60th/i: 



85th/i: 




60th/i: 



83rd/ii: 




85th/ii: 



100th/ii: 




44th/iv: 



60th/iv:


----------



## Bruckner Anton

hammeredklavier said:


> What do you mean "he RE-invented"? I find plenty of "obbligato accompaniments" in Mozart's Salzburg-period music. (ie. K.195, K.243, etc).


Here, the "obbligato accompaniment" means "the accompaniments that are conceived thematically" (source: Professor Robert Greenberg's lectures 'the String Quartets of Beethove') or "secondary voices contribute material essential to the musical fabric of a work" (easy-to-find online course by some others). In Greenberg's courses, he refer Haydn's op.33 as a ground-breaking work that uses a new approach (Haydn himself wrote a letter about his "latest invention") which, according to the Professor, marks the real beggining of the Viennese Classical Style.

As for your examples of Mozart's Salzburg Works, I am not familiar with the works and don't know whether it uses the same compositional techniques as Haydn's op.33. Maybe thoses are some hidden treasures that have not yet been studied by scholars.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Bruckner Anton said:


> Here, the "obbligato accompaniment" means "the accompaniments that are conceived thematically" (source: Professor Robert Greenberg's lectures 'the String Quartets of Beethove') or "secondary voices contribute material essential to the musical fabric of a work" (easy-to-find online course by some others). In Greenberg's courses, he refer Haydn's op.33 as a ground-breaking work that uses a new approach (Haydn himself wrote a letter about his "latest invention") which, according to the Professor, marks the real beggining of the Viennese Classical Style.


Then why use the term "RE-invented"? It wasn't even really Joseph Haydn's "invention" in the first place. Isn't that why? A lot of bizarre claims have been made by the 20th century "experts" such as Tovey, Landon, Rosen, even with Op.20 to overrate Joseph Haydn's importance. 
Take a look at: post2036127 , post2085953.
There are ones who even believe to this day that Joseph invented everything including the minuet movement, the sonata form: 




Yes, Joseph (being a bit of a "self-inflated" innovator) said that he wrote Op.33 in an "entirely new way". But he himself never mentioned anything like "obbligato accompaniments"; he may have meant this sort of expression:





Melodic accompaniments with motifs in them can be found in abundance in early Mozart. 
(Ex. The dotted-rhythmic motif in this 



 )
The idea that "someone who taught himself with Fux's book late in life and never really had profound grasp in contrapuntal expressivity all his life" came up with something entirely ingenious in the history of counterpoint is just absurd.

I searched "Robert Greenberg" and found this: 
https://robertgreenbergmusic.com/download/great-masters-haydn-life-music/
"The music of Franz Joseph Haydn (1732-1809) is so technically superb, so widely imitated, and so rich in quality and quantity that almost since the moment of its creation it has exemplified the Classical style. More than any other single composer, *it was Haydn who created the Classical-era symphony.* And his 68 string quartets? They are the standard by which all other Classical string quartets were and are judged. No less an expert than Mozart wrote that it was from Haydn that he had learned how to write quartets."

I closed the page after reading the first paragraph. A typical Joseph Haydn cultist.
Please go through what I wrote in post2096182 , post2098467
You'll know how much Joseph Haydn cultists have "stolen credit" other composers deserve in their endless agenda to glorify their idol.


----------



## Bruckner Anton

hammeredklavier said:


> Then why use the term "RE-invented"? It wasn't even really Joseph Haydn's "invention" in the first place. Isn't that why? A lot of bizarre claims have been made by the 20th century "experts" such as Tovey, Landon, Rosen, even with Op.20 to overrate Joseph Haydn's importance.
> https://www.talkclassical.com/54405-haydn-muscular-mozart-23.html#post2036127
> https://www.talkclassical.com/27585-haydn-s-true-place-3.html#post2085953
> There are ones who even believe to this day that Joseph invented everything including the minuet movement, the sonata form:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, Joseph (being a bit of a "self-inflated" innovator) said that he wrote Op.33 in an "entirely new way". But he himself never mentioned anything like "obbligato accompaniments"; he may have meant this sort of expression:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Melodic accompaniments with motifs in them can be found in abundance in early Mozart.
> (Ex. The dotted-rhythmic motif in this
> 
> 
> 
> )
> The idea that "someone who taught himself with Fux's book late in life and never really had profound grasp in contrapuntal expressivity all his life" came up with something entirely ingenious in the history of counterpoint is just absurd.
> 
> I searched "Robert Greenberg" and found this:
> https://robertgreenbergmusic.com/download/great-masters-haydn-life-music/
> "The music of Franz Joseph Haydn (1732-1809) is so technically superb, so widely imitated, and so rich in quality and quantity that almost since the moment of its creation it has exemplified the Classical style. More than any other single composer, *it was Haydn who created the Classical-era symphony.* And his 68 string quartets? They are the standard by which all other Classical string quartets were and are judged. No less an expert than Mozart wrote that it was from Haydn that he had learned how to write quartets."
> I closed the page after reading the first paragraph. A typical Joseph Haydn cultist.
> Please go through what I wrote in
> https://www.talkclassical.com/68169-haydn-just-how-highly-6.html#post2096182
> https://www.talkclassical.com/71012-haydns-joseph-vs-michael-16.html#post2098467
> You'll know how much Joseph Haydn cultists have "stolen credit" other composers deserve in their endless agenda to glorify their idol.


Re-invent is a wrong wording, it should be "invent". Sorry for the confusion. The following is a screen shot of the lecture by Professor Greenberg just for your reference of the source. Also, in the lecture, he refers to Charles Rosen's book "the classical style" that (I quote the Professor): "Charles Rosen argues persuasively that the classical style did not truly come into its own, until the 1770s with the advent of obbligato accompaniment."

Anyway, I am no professional musician. So you could argue in whatever way you like. Just take your time.


----------



## Phil loves classical

hammeredklavier said:


> Why, because it's too "inconvenient" a truth? I know Joseph Haydn fans' other favorite arguments; "Joseph is inventive and skillful with developments and rhythms", but do look at these highly-acclaimed "Sturm-und-drang" symphonies, namely the 83rd (1785) and 95th (1791):
> 
> 83rd/i:
> 
> 
> 
> 95th/i:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He follows them up with accompaniments (trivial-sounding in terms of harmony) "fitting squarely" into (1), (2) and also alternate in the same way (1), (2) do.
> "G B C# D" (1) "G B D C" (2)
> "C G Ab E F" (1) "Db A Bb B C" (2)


Your arguments will always be nitpicking something of Joseph's that doesn't deserve criticism; and then saying something of Michael's that's so great, that Joseph can't match, which is actually not really that notable. And then claim those arguments as proving your case, and proclaim your view as the "truth".

You didn't even analyse the harmony in the above. In the Hen you only stated the progression of the flutes and first violins are doing. How about the violas and oboes, bassoons, and the 2nd violins? How did the harmony go with the melody, and how it all relates to what key it is in, as in what happened before? In the Hen, he doesn't just alternate between (1) and (2), he transposed the lines. Plus the way he harmonized with the melody was brilliant. With the oboes and violas sustaining the notes, the harmony changes with the movement of the first violins and flutes, and also with the 2nd violins.

Sorry, but your analysis is deficient. And you wonder why people don't read all the stuff you write?


----------



## larold

_I'd like to know the six masses from either Josquin or Mozart that match Haydn's Nelson, Kettledrum, Maria Theresa, Helig, Harmonie and Nicolai masses...Missae sine nomine, pange lingue, mater patris, l'homme armé svp, Hercules dux ferriae, gaudeamus, fortuna desperata, di dadi, beata vergine, ave maris stella, ad fugam._

Some of these listings are not considered masses by musicologists. I reviewed them (and Haydn and Mozart) is six musicological guides published between 1946 and 2010. Here are the combined mass listings for the three composers:

Haydn 33 (14 masses listed twice)

Josquin 19 (6 listed thrice)

Mozart 24 including the Requiem mass (10 listed twice)

Josquin is/was considered the greatest composer before Bach. There is occasional counterpoint and austere beauty in his homophonic creations though not the drama we expect from Haydn and similar composers writing a couple hundred years later.

Alex Ross wrote an item about Josquin in the June 21 New Yorker

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/06/21/the-musical-mysteries-of-josquin


----------



## hammeredklavier

Phil loves classical said:


> Your arguments will always be nitpicking something of Joseph's that doesn't deserve criticism; and then saying something of Michael's that's so great, that Joseph can't match, which is actually not really that notable. And then claim those arguments as proving your case, and proclaim your view as the "truth".
> You didn't even analyse the harmony in the above. In the Hen you only stated the progression of the flutes and first violins are doing. How about the violas and oboes, bassoons, and the 2nd violins?
> Sorry, but your analysis is deficient. And you wonder why people don't read all the stuff you write?


Where in that post did I "nitpick something of Joseph's that doesn't deserve criticism; and then saying something of Michael's that's so great, that Joseph can't match"? You seem to have misinterpreted what I told Littlephrase regarding conservatism. (By the "stuff" in "Are we calling the stuff "conservative" just cause it was way above the pay-grade of guys like Joseph Haydn?", I meant the stuff I posted in [Post#100])
With the Joseph Haydn symphonies, I wasn't analyzing stuff. I was only describing my impression of their characteristics. Why would I want to give Eclectic Al any impression that I'm a pedant? There's indeed stuff like the dissonance in bar 77 of the 83rd symphony first movement in the parts, but overall it's not really something to make a fuss about. What other things should I say to explain my view that Joseph's style is too much about plainly "yelling at the top of his lungs" and it comes off as more "cookie-cutter" than any other famous symphonists'?


----------



## hammeredklavier

Bruckner Anton said:


> Re-invent is a wrong wording, it should be "invent". Sorry for the confusion. The following is a screen shot of the lecture by Professor Greenberg just for your reference of the source. Also, in the lecture, he refers to Charles Rosen's book "the classical style" that (I quote the Professor): "Charles Rosen argues persuasively that the classical style did not truly come into its own, until the 1770s with the advent of obbligato accompaniment."
> Anyway, I am no professional musician. So you could argue in whatever way you like. Just take your time.


So Greenberg thinks the "great milestone of music history and the Classical period", the "obbligato accompaniment" came into being with the composition of Joseph Haydn's Op.33 (1781). Rosen, on the other hand, _argues persuasively_ that the practice started in the 1770s. These guys don't even agree on when something supposedly that important started. 
My impression is that there's no clearly-established "criteria" for the practice, just like the "cyclic form".
In fact, counterpoint never really disappeared, as you see in the work of many composers of the period. As long as counterpoint existed during the common practice, obbligato accompaniments and their various forms also existed. Look at Bach; he doesn't have motifs in multiple voices? 
It's the problem with these so-called "experts"; they use technical jargon when they attempt to sound convincing to the public. Lying about a "composer inventing specific things" by using "specific terms" is more effective as "propaganda" than doing vague ones.
That Joseph Haydn-centric cultist guy lost all credibility just by saying this one statement anyway; "He (Joseph Haydn) was the only musical contemporary whom Mozart admired."
Also this is how I think of Charles Rosen regarding this topic, btw:


hammeredklavier said:


> How can we even rely on him as an "authority" on these topics?
> _"I'll only focus on J. Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven in this book because I think all the others were charlatans"_ is pretty much what he said in "The Classical Style", I believe (I just worded it differently).
> Among the late 18th century composers, J. Haydn was the one benefited the most from the revival of early music during the 20th-century Neoclassical era. Finding about other, obscure composers (whose music weren't even being recorded back then) took far more personal time/money/effort. It was easy for these critics of the 20th century to make an excuse to justify their "laziness"; not wanting to spend personal time/money/effort to do research about composers they personally didn't care about.


Apparently Rosen thought stuff like this was obbligato accompaniment and its earliest use:


----------



## EdwardBast

hammeredklavier said:


> So Greenberg thinks the "great milestone of music history and the Classical period", the "obbligato accompaniment" came into being with the composition of Joseph Haydn's Op.33 (1781). Rosen, on the other hand, argues the practice started in the 1770s. These guys don't even agree on when something supposedly that important started.
> My impression is that there's no clearly-established "criteria" for the practice, just like the "cyclic form".
> In fact, counterpoint never really disappeared, as you see in the work of many composers of the period. As long as counterpoint existed during the common practice, obbligato accompaniments and their various forms also existed. Look at Bach; he doesn't have motifs in multiple voices?
> It's the problem with these so-called "experts"; they use technical jargon when they attempt to sound convincing to the public. Lying about a "composer inventing specific things" by using "specific terms" is more effective as "propaganda" than doing vague ones.
> That Joseph Haydn-centric cultist guy lost all credibility just by saying this


The problem isn't the experts and their terms, it's that you don't understand the terms well enough to discuss them with any nuance. Over a quarter of the posts in this thread are by you, and you've written about ten times as many words as anyone else, include quoting your own comments from former threads. We all understood your opinion pages ago. Do you have anything to contribute to this thread other than negativity and the abundant evidence of your inability to appreciate or understand the music of one of the great masters in the history of music? Apparently the answer is: no, you don't. So why not look for some constructive use of your time and save some bile for the next composer you're incapable of appreciating?


----------



## hammeredklavier

EdwardBast said:


> Do you have anything to contribute to this thread other than negativity and the abundant evidence of your inability to appreciate or understand the music of one of the great masters in the history of music? Apparently the answer is: no, you don't.


Sorry about the constant negativity. Of course, I'm able to appreciate "the music of one of the great masters in the history of music" (albeit with some reservations). I find the slow movement from Op.76/5 to be decent, don't get me wrong. It's just that there's so much surrounding the composer that I perceive or associate with ideas such as "history distortions", "injustice", "propaganda", "cultism". I have to ask "why?" everytime.


----------



## Sid James

Littlephrase said:


> No, Haydn is not underrated. Almost everyone likes his music, his symphonies and string quartets are staples of eternal ubiquity, his staggeringly fecund output and historical significance are never put into question. The legacy of Haydn is all but securely sealed in the upper Western Art Music pantheon.


His reputation is indeed secure today, but up until the mid 20th century, it wasn't always the case. Antal Dorati, who made the first complete recordings of the symphonies and operas, said that only a few of his works tended to be played and his legacy wasn't fully understood. Haydn was stereotyped by some as being little more than the midwife who bought forth Beethoven. A lot of his scores had been poorly edited or not even seen the light. Dorati credited the musicologist Robbins Landon with having a crucial role in the rediscovery of Haydn.

Having said that, Haydn has always been part of the bedrock of Western classical music. All musicians have profited in some way from his legacy. Dorati, for example, said that he grew up playing all of Haydn's string quartets. They were part of his formative experiences as a musician, but until the recording project his familiarity with the symphonies was comparatively minimal.

Dorati said that "Haydn began as a talent but ended up as a genius." He said that it was an exhilarating experience to be able to study and perform all of the symphonies, composed over a period of forty years. It was like "watching a great mind, as it developed over time."



> But, speaking personally, Haydn has never really been a personal favorite. I have always enjoyed and respected his music, but preferred the other titans of Austro-German music: Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, Brahms. However, I have discovered this has changed, almost imperceptibly. There was never a sudden revelation, it just slowly happened over years of listening. Haydn has slyly become a composer I love, in equal measure with the rest of the reverenced Germanic greats.
> 
> So my question is rather comically simple: how much do you like Haydn? Where is he rated in your personal estimation?


I rate him highly. I probably play his music more often than those you listed. In terms of listening, he's very much like my bread and butter. I find his music easygoing, subtle and warm. His optimism really shines through the music. I remember hearing The Creation live in concert and it didn't just brighten my day but that whole week. Later, I contacted the conductor to express my gratitude.

I've only scratched the surface of his vast output, but these are my favourites: Piano Concerto in D; Cello Concertos in C and D; Symphonies 31, 49, 94, 99, 101, 103, 104; "Emperor" and "Seven Last Words" quartets; Quartet for guitar, violin, viola and cello (arrangement of Op. 2 No. 2); Piano Trio in A major; The Creation.


----------



## Mandryka

hammeredklavier said:


> Sorry about the constant negativity. Of course, I'm able to appreciate "the music of one of the great masters in the history of music" (albeit with some reservations). I find the slow movement from Op.76/5 to be decent, don't get me wrong. It's just that there's so much surrounding the composer that I perceive or associate with ideas such as "history distortions", "injustice", "propaganda", "cultism". I have to ask "why?" everytime.


What do you think of op 33/6?


----------



## Art Rock

hammeredklavier said:


> It's just that there's so much surrounding the composer that *I perceive or associate* with ideas such as "history distortions", "injustice", "propaganda", "cultism". I have to ask "why?" everytime.


I've bolded the crucial part. After so many posts in many threads, I think it should be clear by now that:

1. These are *your *perceptions and associations, not shared by the vast majority of others.
2. You are not winning anyone over for your theory of cultism and propaganda.
3. You are irritating many people with these repetitive posts and your consistent habit of self-quoting.

Even if you 'have to ask "why?" everytime', it is clearly only counterproductive to do so out loud, by posting it over and over again in these threads. No-one is buying what you're trying to sell. Please take a step back and reflect whether this is the way to continue.

Note that this is not in red, this is not posted as moderator, but as regular Talk Classical member.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Bruckner Anton said:


> Also, in the lecture, he refers to Charles Rosen's book "the classical style" that (I quote the Professor): "Charles Rosen argues persuasively that the classical style did not truly come into its own, until the 1770s with the advent of obbligato accompaniment."





hammeredklavier said:


> In fact, counterpoint never really disappeared, as you see in the work of many composers of the period. As long as counterpoint existed during the common practice, obbligato accompaniments and their various forms also existed.


Btw, one of my own quotes I quoted in [Post#100] was:
""Missa in C, sancti Hieronymi (1777), aka. "Oboenmesse", sounds like a "continuous" line of Neapolitan mass music with oboe obbligato/ritornello. ...""

So, composers were simply naturally doing this stuff in chamber music as well. No one really had to "invent" it. I consider Rosen un-insightful, since he ignored these things.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Art Rock said:


> No-one is buying what you're trying to sell. Please take a step back and reflect whether this is the way to continue.


Ok. But I pretty much self-quoted in this thread to argue against Larold's claim that Joseph Haydn wrote the best masses of this period, and Bruckner Anton's claim that Joseph Haydn "invented" stuff that I think he didn't; all are related to the thread topic <Haydn: Just how highly do you estimate him?>. I'm sorry if my excessive habit of self-quoting annoyed you. I'll try to refrain.
Maybe you're right; "cultism and propaganda" are not the best terms to use in conversation due to their tendency to sound "provocative" to other people, (English isn't my first language, btw), but it's the impression I get whenever I see stuff like https://robertgreenbergmusic.com/download/great-masters-haydn-life-music/, 




but, I'll try to keep the more extreme opinions of mine to myself from now on.


----------



## Art Rock

I have seen his piano trios mentioned many times, not just in this thread. It's a part of his work I never listened to. There are apparently 45 of them - any recommendations of the most outstanding ones for me to try?


----------



## Kreisler jr

The number of 45 is a bit high, including a number of early and/or dubious pieces as well as three lateish ones actually for flute, piano, cello.
As it is sometimes the case (cf. Bach BWV 565) the most famous one, the so-called "gypsy" trio Hob. XV: 25 G maj is not really representative, I think (someone pointed out that there is an even better "gypsy style" finale in Hob. XV: 21 C maj)
But it will be included in many anthologies (and it doesn't hurt). The next most famous are probably the last set of three (there are two single pieces counted later by Hoboken as 30 and 31) Hob. XV: 27-29, in C, E, Eb (43-45 by the other counting, I only use Hoboken). I think they are all more interesting than the "gypsy trio"

If you want to try one disc anthologies, I can recommend: Fontenay (partly because they have one of my favorites A major, #18), Levin/Bylsma/Beths (4 late ones, HIP), Wanderer (they have more than one by now, I only have the first one with usual suspects, 25 and 27-29) and two discs with Andras Schiff et al. that includes a few not so frequently recorded ones (like e minor an Ab major) 
The complete (HIP) series from cpo (Trio 1790) used to be available separately, the first complete recording by the BeauxArts was on CD only as complete box.


----------



## Eclectic Al

Kreisler jr said:


> The next most famous are probably the last set of three (there are two single pieces counted later by Hoboken as 30 and 31) Hob. XV: 27-29, in C, E, Eb (43-45 by the other counting, I only use Hoboken). I think they are all more interesting than the "gypsy trio"


The second movement of Hob XV28 is lovely stuff. Cheeky but with a hint of melancholy.


----------



## Mandryka

Art Rock said:


> I have seen his piano trios mentioned many times, not just in this thread. It's a part of his work I never listened to. There are apparently 45 of them - any recommendations of the most outstanding ones for me to try?


Get this, it is a great favourite of mine


----------



## fbjim

I think it's OK to an extent to rebel against the "great man" theory of music progression - very few innovations in music sprung solely from the mind of a single genius and weren't influenced by a vast professional knowledge of prior/contemporary works, and I think it's reasonable to say that "great innovators" in music are frequently just the most visible proponents of larger scale trends which were already happening.

That said we do like it when artists codify, or synthesize all these influences into something new (like the Haydn string quartets). And it's certainly fair to point out that there may be a certain level of exaggeration when we say "Haydn/Mozart/Beethoven invented x" while still keeping in mind that sometimes it does take a single great work to realize and fully show the potential of trends which the composer was influenced by.

e) to put it another way - when people say Haydn, or Beethoven, or anyone else "invented" something - this is _usually_ an exaggeration/shorthand, and not something limited to "Haydn cultists" or anything like that.


----------



## advokat

Maybe it is a naive personal take on the matter, but this is why I like Haydn and have been drawn to him again and again through the years. I do not think that Haydn is cold, superficial and formulaic. For me, he is profound, emotional and personal, but he elegantly conceals the depth behind the form. However, the form is not a mere superficial adornment but a jewel in itself and, if properly understood, a way to express the profound elements. So, for me, exploring Haydn is always a way to look for hidden depths while delighting in form. The ultimate civilised music. I am satisfied that the following collection of Haydn music answers all my needs:
Symphonies - two cycles, one by Marzendorfer (on Scribendum) and the other by Adam Fischer. I also collect the "2032 Project" issues.
Piano sonatas - full cycle by Derzhavina, plus sundry disks by Pletnev, Ax and others.
Piano trios - full cycle by Beaux-Arts trio
Quartets - two full cycles, one by Buchbinder Quartet and another by Kodaly Quartet.
Concertos - the NAXOS box, plus sundry discs by Hamelin and others.
Die Jahrezeiten, by Karajan
Complete masses – Richard Hickox


----------



## Kreisler jr

The irony is that Haydn was pretty much screened off by Mozart and Beethoven, except for the later Oratorios and a few of the most famous quartets and symphonies, so the Haydn reception between ca. 1830s and 1950s was not mainly of the "great man" school but more of the unassuming, industrious little guy who paved the path for the real Greats such as the shortlived Beloved of the Gods and the Heavenstorming Hero. 

The didactic abbreviation/exaggeration you mention in the last paragraph is IMO o.k. in many contexts. For a brief intro one can not always cover Sammartini, Richter, Boccherini and whoever else might have had a rôle in the development of the string quartet but is hardly known today and calling Haydn the "father of SQ or symphony" is not totally misleading as none of the earlier/parallel composers brought the genres to the lofty position they assumed in the mid/late 1780s when a Haydn symphony could be the main attraction of concerts in Paris or London, not some virtuoso fiddler or opera diva.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Kreisler jr said:


> calling Haydn the "father of SQ or symphony" is not totally misleading as none of the earlier/parallel composers brought the genres to the lofty position they assumed in the mid/late 1780s


Guys like Dittersdorf were also popular back then, hence he produced even more symphonies than J. Haydn.



Kreisler jr said:


> when a Haydn symphony could be the main attraction of concerts in Paris or London, not some virtuoso fiddler or opera diva.


I don't know why you keep harping on this. You're the only person I've met who thinks the popularity an artist enjoyed during his lifetime is the measure of his "inherent greatness".
Symphonies were fundamentally "entertainment background music" in those days, and if you're using facts about "how J. Haydn used cheeky surprises and bassoon farts to please the public" to support your argument about his inherent greatness, it doesn't come across as "eloquent".
It's baffling to me why you would call stuff like the slow movement of Joseph Haydn's 101th, "grotesque", but at the same time say:
"The only great somewhat "naive" composer of instrumental music from this time for me, is Dvorak (sometimes great, sometimes a bit too "naive" and to much relying on catchy bohemian tunes and moods)." -Kreisler jr. 
Maybe you could explain the reasoning why Joseph Haydn is great, but Dvorak is not, even though they were both being "naive" to please the public in their late symphonies.

And again, Vicente Martín y Soler's Una Cosa Rara (1786) eclipsed Figaro in popularity back then, so much so that Mozart quoted the music of his Spanish-born colleague in the dinner scene of Don Giovanni. I guess we should also consider Vicente Martín y Soler great?
Likewise, Gluck, whose ideas of operatic reforms I truly regard highly, was also internationally successful, as was Joseph's brother, who received commissions from other European royal courts; Missa hispanica MH422 was composed to fulfill a commission from Spain.
"I have little doubt that Beethoven knew such works of Michael Haydn, at that time the most popular composer of sacred music in Austria." < Beethoven | Michael Spitzer | P.124 >



Kreisler jr said:


> but is hardly known today


Yes, but I say this again; I completely agree with "Classical music concert scheduling is a copycat industry -- when something becomes popular everyone does it." -Larold.
I just don't think Joseph Haydn needs or deserves "special treatment".


----------



## hammeredklavier

fbjim said:


> That said we do like it when artists codify, or synthesize all these influences into something new (like the Haydn string quartets). And it's certainly fair to point out that there may be a certain level of exaggeration when we say "Haydn/Mozart/Beethoven invented x" while still keeping in mind that sometimes it does take a single great work to realize and fully show the potential of trends which the composer was influenced by.
> e) to put it another way - when people say Haydn, or Beethoven, or anyone else "invented" something - this is _usually_ an exaggeration/shorthand, and not something limited to "Haydn cultists" or anything like that.


Yes, there are also claims about other composers inventing stuff; but Joseph Haydn is a curious case, cause only he gets the title "the Father", and what really sets him apart from all the others regarding this matter is that there are tons of "dubious, unsubstantiated claims" and "myths" associated with him ( for instance, the claim that "Mozart said that he learned how to write string quartets from Joseph Haydn" ). But it's worth asking the question if all the pseudo-experts who made those claims are only really just interested in being "Joseph Haydn fans" or are they actually interested in maintaining objectivity and fairness in their views, and investigating, telling the real history.

These chamber works (posted below) were composed outside of Vienna (in 1779 and 1790 respectively. The former predates Joseph's Op.33), and there's absolutely NO evidence the composers "learned from Joseph Haydn" how to write counterpoint in them. (And I don't think writing these works required totally different techniques from writing string quartets.) Maybe it's just natural tendency of the competent Classical period composers to elaborate their expressions with counterpoint as they matured, - it's questionable how much "role" Joseph Haydn really played in all that.









Also, I don't see the point of those titles "the Father of the symphony", "the Father of the string quartet"; they only serve to mislead many people into thinking he really did invent the genres.


----------



## Kreisler jr

hammeredklavier said:


> I don't know why you keep harping on this. You're the only person I've met who thinks the popularity an artist enjoyed during his lifetime is the measure of his "inherent greatness".


As usual you are missing the point. Which was not popularity. (What is "inherent greatness" BTW, I guess you put scare quote for a reason.) 
The point was the elevation of the symphony etc. as an art form. Instrumental music was considered secondary until late Mozart and Haydn and with all respect to Mozart, Haydn did more for the emancipation of the large forms of instrumental music to get the "sublime" status that only operas and oratorios had enjoyed before. (And just read the contemporary reviews if Haydn's late symphonies were described like background divertimenti or as "sublime and heroic". You keep ignoring history and indulging in your three favorite works by Mozart and Michael Haydn despite neither being the topic here.)
Handel's concerti were literally fillers for breaks in oratorios. Haydn's symphonies were the main attraction of the Paris and London concerts. This was of course the basis on which Beethoven could build to elevate symphonies (and also chamber music) even further. The next step was in romanticism when even small forms like lieder and short piano pieces could become "sublime" (although they did not quite have the status of symphonies or quartets)


----------



## advokat

Kreisler jr said:


> As usual you are missing the point. Which was not popularity. (What is "inherent greatness" BTW, I guess you put scare quote for a reason.)
> The next step was in romanticism when even small forms like lieder and short piano pieces could become "sublime" (although they did not quite have the status of symphonies or quartets)


Kreisler, a question for you here. Am I right then in supposing that the earlier keaboard works, such as Bach's WTC and GV, and, for instance, organ concertos by Handel were elevated to the realm of "sublime" retroactivelly, looking at them through the prism of the later developoments that you describe in the quote? And that Haydn had essentially triggered the whole process? if so, then Haydn becomes a true watershed figure in the entire musical history.


----------



## Kreisler jr

No. This would be an exaggeration. Most of bachs keyboard music was not public but private music for players and conoisseur friends. (It is again an exaggeration but they were glorified exercises, thus Clavierübung.)This cannot be compared with public music. The public concerti were clearly not considered as important as large scale vocal music. Symphonies stared as introduction's and fillers. Haydn was instrumental in the development that led to the symphony being a main dish. He was not the only one but the most important in the 1770s - 1790s. One can look up stats how Haydn''s symphonies dominated the programs of th concerts spirituels, for which both Mozart and Haydn wrote their Paris symphonies. It was only one step but an important one towards large scale instrumental pieces being as important or more so than vocal music.


----------



## advokat

Kreisler jr said:


> No. This would be an exaggeration. Most of bachs keyboard music was not public but private music for players and conoisseur friends. (It is again an exaggeration but they were glorified exercises, thus Clavierübung.)This cannot be compared with public music. The public concerti were clearly not considered as important as large scale vocal music. Symphonies stared as introduction's and fillers. Haydn was instrumental in the development that led to the symphony being a main dish. He was not the only one but the most important in the 1770s - 1790s. One can look up stats how Haydn''s symphonies dominated the programs of th concerts spirituels, for which both Mozart and Haydn wrote their Paris symphonies. It was only one step but an important one towards large scale instrumental pieces being as important or more so than vocal music.


I understand that, but my point (and question, I genuinely do not know) is slightly different. You write that smaller genre, such as solo piano pieces were eventually elevated to the "sublime" category. Thus, by the second decade of the 19th century solo piano pieces were widely performed publicly, and the practice and concomitant veneration developed. It very roughly coincided with the rediscovery of "private" exercise books by Bach by wide concert going public. The question is - has the new regard for formerly "private" piano pieces perfumed publicly (not only Liszt and Chopin, but also lesser figures such as Wolfl and Fields) helped to elevate formerly "private" exercises of Bach to the new "sublime" level - or those were unrelated developments?


----------



## tdc

It is interesting to look back at history and see what was popular and trend setting, but ultimately popularity and changing fashions,(or whether one looks at something as an 'exercise' or something 'sublime'), doesn't affect the notes on the page. It is perhaps for this reason today that for many listeners a small Bach miniature is considered even more sublime than a Haydn symphony.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Kreisler jr said:


> Haydn did more for the emancipation of the large forms of instrumental music to get the "sublime" status that only operas and oratorios had enjoyed before.


Explain. Are you talking about the fact that Joseph Haydn has a lot more "full length symphonies with minuets and slow introductions in them" and less "overtures" than his brother and Mozart? Or are you talking about One-movement Sonata Cycle















Kreisler jr said:


> (And just read the contemporary reviews if Haydn's late symphonies were described like background divertimenti or as "sublime and heroic".


There were plenty of people who thought Dvorak's symphonies were "sublime and heroic", contrary to your view they were "naive". What's your point? I was just saying I did not understand your reasoning why you think Dvorak's mature symphonies are naive and Joseph Haydn's are sublime (to an extent his contemporaries' are never).



Kreisler jr said:


> You keep ignoring history and indulging in your three favorite works by Mozart


What are those three? I wish I could find anything like 
















in Joseph Haydn.



Kreisler jr said:


> You keep ignoring history and indulging in Mozart and Michael Haydn despite neither being the topic here.)


Which composers should we compare Joseph Haydn to, to discuss *"Haydn: Just how highly do you estimate him?"* then? Monteverdi? Josquin? Rachmaninoff? Richard Strauss?


----------



## hammeredklavier

Kreisler jr said:


> It was only one step but an important one towards large scale instrumental pieces being as important or more so than vocal music.


In the late 1780s to 1790s, everyone was composing symphonies in the same scale as Joseph Haydn. Let's not pretend that Joseph Haydn was the only guy doing it or that he's the most special. I think Knecht and Wranitzky (with his programmatic symphony "Grande symphony for the peace with the French Republic, Op.31", which contains a funeral march) even influenced Beethoven in ways Joseph Haydn did not.

"From 1790, he conducted both royal theater orchestras. He was highly respected by Mozart, Haydn and Beethoven; the latter two preferred him as conductor of their new works (e.g., Beethoven's First Symphony in 1800). Wranitzky was a prolific composer. His output comprises ten operas, 44 symphonies, at least 56 string quartets (some sources give a number as high as 73) and a large amount of other orchestral and chamber music. His opera, Oberon - The Fairy King from 1789 was a favorite in this genre and inspired Emanuel Schikaneder to write the libretto of The Magic Flute for Mozart in 1791; in the mid-1790s, Goethe sought to collaborate with Wranitzky on a sequel to the Mozart opera. Today, Wranitzky is identified as being one of three possible composers said to have composed the Austrian national anthem (the identity of the actual composer is not definitively known)." (wikipedia)





I. Allegretto - Andante pastorale - Allegretto - Villanella grazioso, un poco adagio : 00:00
II. Tempo mederno (Allegretto) : 09:40
III. Allegro molto : 12:44
IV. Tempo mederno (Allegro molto) : 18:38
V. L´inno con variazioni - Andantino -Coro : Allegro con brio - Andantino : 20:59

There's actually evidence Beethoven studied Knecht's work.
"Vollständige Orgelschule (Leipzig, 1795-1798/1989) - Ludwig van Beethoven owned a copy of this work"

Knecht symphony: 12:20
Beethoven Op.67/iii: 22:00

Knecht symphony: 0:57
Beethoven Op.125/i: 3:27

also, notice the "continuity":
12:30 , 18:30 , 20:50
and "recalling of themes" across movements in the Knecht symphony:
0:00 , 20:04 , 0:58 , 9:40


----------



## Eclectic Al

Well I listened to the Knecht symphony. There was quite a lot of banging, but aside from that it was a bit dull. (To be honest, even the banging was a bit dull.) The Allegro Molto stuff was the best bit. I got very little from the rest.

I then looked at that quite amusing web article where Classic FM got someone to listen to all Joseph's symphonies and rank them. He placed number 4 as the worst, so I listened to that. After the Knecht thing it seemed pretty good. Is it a bit formulaic? Are some bits not especially memorable? Maybe, but the first movement is quite jolly with plenty of life. I liked the slow movement quite a lot, haunting and I would definitely revisit it. The last movement is least successful for me: not bad, but a fairly routine minuet-style piece. At least you could imagine people dancing the minuet, though. I can see why the Classic FM guy might have been less than enthusiastic about it, but the first two movements were really pretty good, especially the second, and the minuet was then just a routine minuet.

As I mentioned earlier, maybe the problem with some of these posts of Michael Haydn and other pieces is that the performances aren't very good (as there are so few performances to choose from and good ensembles perhaps don't perform them). For the Haydn number 4 I was listening to Fischer, as it's all I've got for those symphonies where I haven't got multiple versions. Perhaps this was just a much better performance than the Knecht group could muster.


----------



## Bulldog

hammeredklavier said:


> Which composers should we compare Joseph Haydn to, to discuss *"Haydn: Just how highly do you estimate him?"* then? Monteverdi? Josquin? Rachmaninoff? Richard Strauss?


There's no need to make any of those comparisons.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Compare with Joseph Haydn's 83rd:




So other than "he was popular, he's joyful, and I like that", do you have any other plausible arguments why he's truly great?


----------



## Eclectic Al

hammeredklavier said:


> So other than "he was popular, he's joyful, and I like that", do you have any other plausible arguments why he's truly great?


Those would seem like quite good reasons.

There are people who are interested in an artistic field and people who are not. If a particular artist within a field is popular with people who are interested in it, and if I also like their work (and if it is joyful, although that is not necessary) then I think that's quite a good test for me to think he might be pretty good.

I also detect that among people on this thread who are well-versed in the more theoretical aspects of these matters, there are plenty who like, and see high quality in, Joseph's work too. I take that as additional support to the argument that he is great (if you want to use that word).

It is certainly more plausible than looking at particular passages from works by Composer A, comparing them with passages from other composers, and then asserting that the characteristics of A are somehow just characteristics as opposed to deficiencies, but at the same time that they show how A is deficient.

I'm just not getting the point of this endless churning out of stuff from the same era as Haydn, coupled with comparisons whose significance seems to escape most readers - so far as I can tell.


----------



## Woodduck

hammeredklavier said:


> Compare with Joseph Haydn's 83rd:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So other than "he was popular, he's joyful, and I like that", do you have any other plausible arguments why he's truly great?


Four minutes into this rambling, and to me somewhat comical, mess of a movement, and my brain is saying, "Where the heck is this going?" and "Could we really have six minutes left?" Joseph Haydn's works - and those of other master composers - don't give rise to such questions.

8:00 now. Can I make it to 10:01?

8:30. Ah, the happy calm after the storm. And just as corny.

The real comparison here is with the storm and finale from Beethoven's "Pastoral." Picking out an out-of-context section of a Haydn movement demonstrates nothing.


----------



## Eclectic Al

OK, I listened to the Wranitsky post. I liked the stormy bits, but they seemed to be joined by filler, and it went on about 2x too long. I didn't get to the end.

What puzzles me though is what this has to do with Haydn's 83rd (- assuming you are talking about the finale). The pieces have no similarity in mood. They are clearly not trying to achieve comparable effects on the listener.

I much preferred the Haydn finale, as a piece which hangs together as a whole. It was clearly less successful than the Wranitsky at being stormy, but it surely wasn't trying to be stormy. The problem with the Wranitsky was that he seemed to be trying too hard to produce some sort of contrast to his stormy bits, and it just didn't seem coherent as a whole.

Edit: Oh I see from Woodduck's post (which crossed with this one) that I was supposed to compare with the selected bit of The Hen. I thought it must be finale against finale or what's the point? I'm not interested in picking out bits. I quite like the Hen as a whole.

Also, in line with Woodduck, as noted above - I didn't finish. It was way too long.


----------



## MatthewWeflen

I listened to the Wranitzky excerpt as well. I think lack of concision is its greatest sin. It's as if Bruckner (whom I admire, and whose own lack of concision suits his own stormy, romantic style better) set about writing a Haydn-era classical symphony. Like, dude: Time to edit!

Haydn has clear ideas, gets in, develops them, and gets out. Listening to one of his symphonies is never a bore or confusing. He's sort of like Costanza. Always leave them wanting more!

Haydn 83 is significantly better than this for just those reasons.


----------



## Phil loves classical

hammeredklavier said:


> Compare with Joseph Haydn's 83rd:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So other than "he was popular, he's joyful, and I like that", do you have any other plausible arguments why he's truly great?


I quite liked the Wranitzky. I thought it was tight and compelling. I wish it just ended at 8:20. The part after didn't go so well for me. Considering it's not a real orchestra, only a playback from a notation program, it's really impressive to me.

I lost interest in the Knecht around 2:20, and skipped to the 3rd movement, and after a couple minutes of that I quit. I just found it had too many mundane moments like later in the part from 1:09 to 1:40.

I doubt anyone can prove to you that Haydn is truly great. Just as you can't prove to someone who doesn't like Mozart why he is great.


----------



## hammeredklavier

------------------------------------


----------



## RogerWaters

I listened to Wranitsky's Symphony in D Major Op. 36 on Spotify and it sounds really good to me. Well constructed, warm and charming. Quite like Haydn in that respect to a non-specialist.






This also sounds really good:






However, I guess the question becomes who influenced who?

Wikipedia as this to say:



> Although some scholars believe that he studied with Haydn, there is no proof of this. However, it is certain that he studied and was influenced by Haydn's string quartets. As with Haydn, Wranitzky's quartet writing went through many stages of development beginning with the pre-classical and evolving to the finished sonata form of late Viennese classicism. The majority of his quartets are in three movements; many share the qualities of the Parisian quatuor concertant, with virtuoso writing in all four parts. In these works, he explored the emerging Romantic style with (for the time) daring harmonic progressions, theatrical gestures and virtuoso display. Based on the ten Wranitzky quartets he has studied, music historian and Anton Reicha scholar Ron Drummond writes, "I can safely and with absolute confidence say that Wranitzky's achievement as a composer of string quartets is a greater achievement, overall, than Mozart's. Lest that statement be misunderstood, let me clarify: it's simply that Wranitzky's output dwarfs Mozart's, and the quality of each man's (mature) productions is so superb that Wranitzky wins by sheer numbers."[3]


I have no problem with you hammering your case, Hammerdklavier.

It's just I feel you don't do it well. Your posts are often not clear and presented unattractively. You self-quote too much, and you too often make harsh subjective judgements dressed up as objective fact (i.e. about features of Haydn that are 'bad').

I'm more than happy to learn more about Haydn-era classical composers, though! This is an especially valuable part of your critique.


----------



## Eclectic Al

hammeredklavier said:


> I meant the slow movement of Joseph's 83rd.


OK, I listened to that. I think it's a pretty good slow movement. I don't think it has many similarities to the Wranitsky though. I more started thinking about Beethoven's 4th Piano Concerto, although the other way round (- this is just my personal impression and what came to mind). In the Beethoven you get outbursts tamed by the calm piano. In the Haydn you get a gentle insouciant and rather charming melody, interjected with outbursts but refusing to be disturbed. Obviously Beethoven is grumpier, and Haydn is more elegant and charming, but that's their schtick. Perhaps a better comparison is with Vivaldi slow movement of Summer from the 4 Seasons, which also works in much the same way as the Haydn.

The Wranitsky seems to be aiming at a different impression altogether. That's clearly a storm thing (which was fine), with peaceful interludes that were just a bit dull and didn't seem to flow. It was a bit like watching a film of a storm at sea and then cutting to a quiet field somewhere else entirely, and then back to the sea, still stormy, and then back to the field, still calm. The storm didn't calm down, and the quiet field didn't get rained upon: they were hundreds of mile apart. As well as Beethoven's Pastoral, perhaps Wranitsky needed to listen to Britten's Sea Interludes, but I guess time didn't permit.



hammeredklavier said:


> Speaking of stylistic similarities of Joseph Haydn with Wranitzky, try:


Life's too short. But there's no need. I am quite happy to accept that there may be loads of sylistic similarities; they were writing symphonies at around the same time in around the same place. So?



hammeredklavier said:


> I'm sorry to self-quote again, but "coherence" is exactly what troubles me about Joseph Haydn's 83rd:
> "In the 83rd, the idea " dum dum dum dum dum dum (in pianissimo) DADADADADADADADADADADADADADA!!!!! (in fortissimo) " occurs like 4 times throughout the slow movement and it is essentially the "essence" of the movement. I'm not saying it's objectively a bad thing, but how does this add/contribute to the overall "sense of sturm-und-drang" of the symphony and its expressivity in a meaningful way?"


I didn't think Number 83 was particularly sturm-und-drang: symphonies don't have to be. As I said earlier, I didn't mind the loud interjections failing to disturb the charming melody. It seemed to work as Haydn's version of Vivaldi's Summer or Beethoven's PC 4 slow movement, allowing for their differences in temperament. I much prefer the Beethoven, but then it is one of my favourite Beethoven pieces. The Haydn version is pretty good though in its own terms.



hammeredklavier said:


> Anyway, I was just trying to tell Kreisler jr; "If we're supposed to care how popular Joseph Haydn was in his time; why not Wranitzky** also?" with [Post#155].
> Though I have reservations about the finale as well; I understand that people are annoyed by my negativity; I'll refrain from expressing more negativity (for its own sake) about this work of Joseph Haydn.
> 
> ** "Paul Wranitzky composed a significant number of symphonies during the last decade of the 18th century, making him one of the leading symphonists in Vienna, if not Europe. As a result of his respected post as director of the Imperial Court theater orchestras, Wranitzky had one of Europe's finest orchestras at his disposal and, of course, a ready audience. He was also a favored composer of Empress Marie Therese, and wrote many works for the private use of her and her family."


I'm quite happy to accept that Wranitsky may well have been very popular. I am not sure why that would matter, but then I'm in the "I like Haydn" camp, rather than the "Haydn was very influential" group. He probably was, but I don't care about that either way.

As RogerWaters says, I'm happy to be introduced to pieces and composers I didn't know about. It's just that, for me, so far none has particularly impressed relative to Haydn. As was noted by MatthewWeflen, I think that's because he seems to know what he is doing, does it and stops. Wranitsky seems to be striving for effect, and not knowing how to convince or when to stop; Knecht was just dull; and Michael Haydn seemed more "by the book" and also dull.


----------



## Kreisler jr

advokat said:


> I understand that, but my point (and question, I genuinely do not know) is slightly different. You write that smaller genre, such as solo piano pieces were eventually elevated to the "sublime" category. Thus, by the second decade of the 19th century solo piano pieces were widely performed publicly, and the practice and concomitant veneration developed. It very roughly coincided with the rediscovery of "private" exercise books by Bach by wide concert going public. The question is - has the new regard for formerly "private" piano pieces perfumed publicly (not only Liszt and Chopin, but also lesser figures such as Wolfl and Fields) helped to elevate formerly "private" exercises of Bach to the new "sublime" level - or those were unrelated developments?


That's a completely different question. And I don't know the answer. First, of all, I think the timing you suggest is off by several decades. There were almost no public solo piano recitals in the 1810s. They would be mostly semiprivate even in Chopin's time. Beethoven would insert an improvisation as one item on a programm containing a piano concerto, two symphonies and a few arias. And the great piano works before ca. 1830 are still almost all multimovement sonatas. The small pieces are Hausmusik for upper class teenage girls. And as such they have nothing to do with Bach (Field's Nocturnes, Beethoven's bagatelles or Schubert's shorter pieces, for instance) The virtuosi like Liszt would play opera paraphrases and similar stuff, both "popular" (because of the opera tunes) and highly virtuosic (thus not for amateurs)
Certainly, there was some influence of the WTC on Chopin, Mendelssohn and Schumann, but I don't think solo Bach would be often played in concerts (for all I know, even in the 1950s, solo piano Bach was rare or restricted to a few pieces like the Italian concerto). The romantics were fond of the concerti for two and three keyboards, though; these might have been the most frequently publicly played Bach pieces in the 1830s-50s.


----------



## Kreisler jr

hammeredklavier said:


> Explain. Are you talking about the fact that Joseph Haydn has a lot more "full length symphonies with minuets and slow introductions in them" and less "overtures" than his brother and Mozart? Or are you talking


I am talking about the normal 4 movement symphony (and string quartet etc.) without silly programs (like Knecht, Ditters etc.). And I never claimed, Haydn was the only one who did this. But because of his long activity and because he started in an era when these genres were only budding and because of his supreme diversity and quality, status and influence since the 1780s, he is the most important of all of those who helped bringing these genres to their high status.

This was not merely due to "external" social factors because Haydn (unlike Mozart and others) had a relatively modest starting position, had the disadvantage of not being a great virtuoso like many others but came to be the most highly regarded composers because of his compositions. And this was still true in the early 1800s as one can see from many somewhat negative early reviews of Beethoven when reviewers wish that he should please write more like Haydn. Only after Beethoven had been accepted as the new standard of serious instrumental music (which in many respects was not until after his death) was Haydn (with most of Mozart) somewhat relegated to predecessor status. But unlike virtually all contemporaries besides Mozart and maybe Gluck Haydn's music "survived" throught he 19th century, so if maybe relegated behind Mozart, he was clearly estimated far above all the other quickly forgotten contemporaries you see as equal or superior to Haydn.

http://secm.org/misc/sun/sun.html
(this is from 1799)

You seem to see Haydn not even as primus inter pares in this time period but you must be aware that this is a minority position of very few people (both among scholars and audiences).



> Which composers should we compare Joseph Haydn to, to discuss *"Haydn: Just how highly do you estimate him?"* then? Monteverdi? Josquin? Rachmaninoff? Richard Strauss?


Haydn was the most important composer of instrumental music ca. 1770-1800, i.e. in his prime. He was the most important composer together with Mozart (who was obviously superior in opera) in that time. So he is among the two most important of 1/3 of a century, which seems pretty good to me.

So his historical status is closer to Monteverdi than to Rachmaninoff, although as Monteverdi was one of the few composers (I cannot really think of any other, but I am not very knowledgeable in medieval/renaissance) who was instrumental in a musical revolution, created some masterworks in the pre-revolutionary style (early madrigals and that old style mass whose nickname I forgot), and some in the (post)revolutionary style that are as good as any at the time.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Kreisler jr said:


> because of his supreme diversity and quality, status and influence since the 1780s, he is the most important of all of those who helped bringing these genres to their high status.


He was popular during those times, like G. Paiseillo, G. Sarti, A. Salieri. As I pointed out; quantity was his main strength, always churning things out by groups of 6. I don't think he would have been (arbitrarily) chosen to be part of the "Viennese school" along with Mozart and Beethoven if he wasn't good at that (being prolific) either.



Kreisler jr said:


> And this was still true in the early 1800s as one can see from many somewhat negative early reviews of Beethoven when reviewers wish that he should please write more like Haydn.


Reviewers at the time wanted Mozart to write more like Kozeluch.

"Early reception of the "Haydn" Quartets was both enthusiastic and disgruntled. An anonymous early reviewer, writing in Cramer's Magazin der Musik in 1789, gave a judgment characteristic of reaction to Mozart's music at the time, namely that the works were inspired, but too complex and difficult to enjoy:

_"Mozart's works do not in general please quite so much [as those of Kozeluch] ... [Mozart's] six quartets for violins, viola, and bass dedicated to Haydn confirm ... that he has a decided leaning towards the difficult and the unusual. But then, what great and elevated ideas he has too, testifying to a bold spirit!"_

Giuseppe Sarti later published an attack against the "Dissonance" quartet, describing sections as "barbarous", "execrable", and "miserable" in its use of whole-tone clusters and chromatic extremes. Around this same time, Fétis printed a revision of the opening of the "Dissonance" quartet, implying that Mozart had made errors. When the publishers, Artaria, sent the quartets to Italy for publication, they were returned with the report "the engraving is full of mistakes"." (wikipedia)



Kreisler jr said:


> http://secm.org/misc/sun/sun.html
> (this is from 1799)


It's funny you quote this even after all your constant denial and denigration of Bach's status in classical music. "Most of bachs keyboard music was not public but private music for players and conoisseur friends. (It is again an exaggeration but they were *glorified exercises*, thus Clavierübung.)" -Kreisler jr



Kreisler jr said:


> Haydn was the most important composer of instrumental music ca. 1770-1800, i.e. in his prime. He was the most important composer together with Mozart (who was obviously superior in opera) in that time. So he is among the two most important of 1/3 of a century, which seems pretty good to me.


We've talked about this countless times already, and you're repeating yourself again. How do you explain why Vivaldi was "forgotten" up until the 20th century?

"Bach transcribed for keyboard several masterpieces of the Venitian composer while Vivaldi had probably known nothing about Bach.
Bach has transcripted 10 concertos from Vivaldi, 6 for harpsichord, 1 for 4 harpsichords, 3 for organ (from Bouquet,Boyer, Marie-Thérèse - Vivaldi et le concerto - Editions Que Sais-je (PUF), Paris, 1985 p. 107)
At the end of the XVIIIth century, after his death, Vivaldi is forgotten, but while Bach reach an european notoriety post-mortem about 1820*, the discovery of Vivaldi will wait more than a century**." (bachen.htm)

"Why is Michael Haydn not popular nowadays as his elder brother?
"He's suffered from being a supporting figure in two careers, Mozart's and Haydn's. The fact that his music was not distributed very widely in his lifetime did not help, also the fact that he couldn't be captured in the narrative of Vienna the musical capital pushed him to the margins."" -Professor David Wyn Jones

"I think one of the reasons why he did not get as famous as his brother is that he never wanted his music printed. Joseph Haydn's works really disseminated throughout Europe via printing also, and that's what lacks with Michael Haydn's music. And, of course, Michael Haydn stayed in Salzburg all the time, so he didn't have the same exposure to other kinds of music. So that's maybe one of the reasons he did not get as famous as his brother." -Dr. Eva Neumayr


----------



## hammeredklavier

RogerWaters said:


> However, I guess the question becomes who influenced who?


I knew that, but wasn't really concerned about that question in that post. What I meant was; listening to Joseph Haydn often just "feels like listening to Wranitzky" in terms of harmony and stuff.


----------



## TC2

Haydn is my second favorite composer after Beethoven.

I would not claim that he is better than Mozart by any objective criteria, to the extent that any such thing exists in music. But where Mozart is graceful, heavenly, perfect, Haydn has a certain earthiness and sense of pure joy that I find endearing. I listen to him more.

Sure, it's a matter of personal taste. I admit that I am a classicist. I'll take Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven over Wagner, Bruckner, Mahler, Richard Strauss, and Rachmaninov almost any day. (Not that I dislike everything by the latter group.) I like a sense of proportion. I like some restraint (no over-wrought heart-on-the-sleeve for me). I like concise argument (no, a single symphony does not need to contain the whole world). And frankly, I enjoy a danceable tune with some rhythmic drive. But I can see why people who prefer the late romantic era don't like Haydn. They are polar opposites in many ways.


----------



## hammeredklavier

TC2 said:


> Sure, it's a matter of personal taste. I admit that I am a classicist. I'll take Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven over Wagner, Bruckner, Mahler, Richard Strauss, and Rachmaninov almost any day. (Not that I dislike everything by the latter group.) I like a sense of proportion. I like some restraint (no over-wrought heart-on-the-sleeve for me). I like concise argument (no, a single symphony does not need to contain the whole world). And frankly, I enjoy a danceable tune with some rhythmic drive. But *I can see why people who prefer the late romantic era don't like Haydn. They are polar opposites in many ways.*


I'm not sure if that's true; we have people like Clairvoyance, who are enthusiastic about both Wagner and Joseph Haydn. I, a fan of 18th century music, on the other hand, don't quite see Joseph Haydn in the same way he does.



Clairvoyance Enough said:


> I do prefer the harmony of Mozart's darker pieces, but, again, I find them rhythmically toothless. The finale of his 40th tries to be vicious without abandoning the same elegant phrasing Mozart always employs, which sounds neat in a way, but Haydn's 44th or La Passione actually drives forward with intensity when I listen to it. In any case, I don't base my high opinion of Haydn on the sturm und drang stuff much anyway. I just find the gestures of his material one minute to the next far more interesting. I'm supposed to end up whistling the slow movement of the 27th concerto, but I never do. Bland twinkle twinkle same old. I constantly have any number of Haydn's melodies stuck in my head. Each his own.


----------

