# Haydn



## carlito (Jun 25, 2015)

I posted this question as reply in a thread but I'd like to open it to the general audience here. 

Would you consider Haydn as one of the most underrated composers in history? I sometimes look at these comparison articles about greatest composers like the NY Times had one a while back about the top 10 greatest composers in the history of classical music. To my surprise, Haydn didn't even make the top 10 list.


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

Not underrated, just neglected. We have Haydn experts here on TC.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Haydn is neither under-rated nor neglected. He often appears fourth on "great composer" lists. If you run into a list where he doesn't make the top ten, that would be cause for raising the eyebrows slightly, shaking the head a bit, and clucking softly...


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Everyone rates him because he was one of the pioneers of some of the forms which became really important in music history.

How well he is rated as a _poet_ in those forms is a more difficult question I think.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

To my ears his music doesn't seem to carry the same weight, depth or gravitas as other composers generally considered "great", so personally, no I don't find him at all underrated, quite the opposite actually. 

The other composers I occasionally see on top ten lists that I don't think deserve to be there are Handel, Tchaikovsky and Verdi.


----------



## Clairvoyance Enough (Jul 25, 2014)

I may be wrong about this, but as far as I know Haydn is one of (the only?) top top tier composers with no mainstream soundbite; you'd think at least one of his many catchy minuets would have caught on. 

I don't know about underrated, but I do think that those two highly intimidating numbers 104 and 67 will forever make one of the most accessible and entertaining composers of all time seem inaccessible to a lot of people, and that no one is going to put their precious list on hold to wade through those numbers.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Considering that Haydn is one of the most popular composers of classical music and also considered along with Mozart as the kings of the Classical period, I can't see any reason to think of him as underrated.


----------



## D Smith (Sep 13, 2014)

In all my years of listening to Classical Music I've never heard the words 'underrated' and 'Haydn' used in the same sentence. Until now that is. He's certainly been amongst the top of my 'playlist' for a very long time.


----------



## aeschylus (Jun 25, 2015)

I think the problem with Haydn is that- Oratorios and Masses apart- he doesn't lend himself to building a concert programme round. His "Oxford " Symphony (no 92) was the first symphony I ever heard, and I still love it after 40 years. The wit and invention in his music is often breath-taking. His sanity and optimism can civilise life for people under the cloud of distress or divorce.

Would you choose his piano sonatas or symphonies (let alone his concerti) above Mozart's, or Beethoven's? No. Does he have the profundity of Bach? No.

He's an original- like Chopin, or Debussy, or, perhaps more truly, Ravel- a master of wit and specific forms, a colourist, with a distinctive optimism, wisdom and playfulness. 

Top ten? Bach. Mozart. Beethoven. Then it becomes personal- for me, Schubert, Chopin, Rachmaninov, Shostakovich, Brahms, Schumann, Scriabin. Haydn would get his place in the next ten, I expect.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

When we think of the short list of composers typically cited as "greatest" or "most important," they are usually thought of in terms of certain individual works that have achieved a sort of "iconic" status as among the highest or most beloved achievements of a genre, an era, or music as a whole: Bach's _Well-tempered Keyboard, Art of Fugue, St. Matthew Passion,_ _B-minor Mass;_ Handel's _Messiah;_ Mozart's Symphony #40, _Marriage of Figaro_, clarinet concerto, string quintets: Beethoven's _Eroica_, 5th, 9th, _"Hammerklavier" Sonata,_ late quartets; Wagner's _Tristan_ and _Ring;_ and so on. This "greatest hits" criterion is harder to apply to Haydn, whose long list of superb works certainly has its high points but seems mostly lacking in those "mountain peaks of Western music." But I doubt whether this constitutes a meaningful value judgment on his stature as a composer of genius. His level of achievement, across an immense opus over a long life, would certainly put him on my short list.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

aeschylus said:


> Would you choose his piano sonatas or symphonies (let alone his concerti) above Mozart's, or Beethoven's?


I would definitely choose Haydn's piano sonatas above Mozart's.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Bulldog said:


> I would definitely choose Haydn's piano sonatas above Mozart's.


Me too. In fact, I prefer his string quartets to Mozart's, which are quite fine but (to me) less entertaining. Symphony-wise, I think he wrote none to match Mozart's best, though he wrote a passel of really good ones, and he doesn't come close in the piano concerto department. But his two superb cello concertos and his trumpet concerto walk right over Mozart's in a default decision.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

tdc said:


> To my ears his music doesn't seem to carry the same weight, depth or gravitas as other composers generally considered "great", so personally, no I don't find him at all underrated, quite the opposite actually.
> 
> The other composers I occasionally see on top ten lists that I don't think deserve to be there are Handel, Tchaikovsky and Verdi.


You'd be wrong on all four counts... IMNSHO


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Would you choose his piano sonatas or symphonies (let alone his concerti) above Mozart's, or Beethoven's? No. Does he have the profundity of Bach? No.

I would choose Haydn's piano sonatas above Mozart's and certainly play his symphonies more often than Mozart's... for the simple reason that Haydn has far more symphonies that I would consider great. No, I probably wouldn't play any single Haydn symphony more often than Mozart's 40 or 41 or Beethoven's 3, 5, 6, or 9.

Still _Die Schöpfung_ gets played by me as much or more than almost any choral work by any other composer and there are any number of other works I frequently must hear.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

When we think of the short list of composers typically cited as "greatest" or "most important," they are usually thought of in terms of certain individual works that have achieved a sort of "iconic" status as among the highest or most beloved achievements of a genre, an era, or music as a whole: Bach's _Well-tempered Keyboard, Art of Fugue, St. Matthew Passion, B-minor Mass;_ Handel's _Messiah_; Mozart's _Symphony #40, Marriage of Figaro, clarinet concerto_, string quintets: Beethoven's _Eroica_, 5th, 9th, "_Hammerklavier_" Sonata, late quartets; Wagner's _Tristan and Ring_; and so on.

Yes. Thinking of the visual arts it would be hard to put forth any single paintings by Degas, Monet, and Van Gogh that rival such epic masterworks as Michelangelo's Sistine frescoes, Giotto's Arena Chapel, Botticelli's _Primavera_ or _Birth of Venus_, Raphael's _School of Athena_ and _Transfiguration_ or Rembrandt's _Night Watch_. Still I have little doubt that Degas, Monet, and Van Gogh rank among the greatest painters ever.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

When it comes to classical era concert programming, Haydn _does_ seem to get shortchanged (along with everybody else except W.A. Mozart) because of a fellow named W.A. Mozart who simply overwhelms music of that (or any other) era.

But, as I just posted in the thread polling listening preference for Haydn or Mozart, I claim to listen to Haydn more often than to Mozart under normal circumstances, just because I happen to admire many of the qualities of Haydn's music (though I certainly do not deem it greater than Mozart's).

I've been trying to think back to whether I first heard Haydn or Mozart and cannot make a determination, though I do recall that at about the same time I became familiar with Haydn's "Surprise" and "Clock" Symphonies (sides A and B on one of the first records I ever owned) I also came to know the Mozart Oboe Quartet (which still remains my favorite work by Mozart). I have heard each of these three pieces hundreds of times (most of those times being early on when I had only a handful of records to play on my old phonograph including the Haydn "Surprise" and "Clock" Symphonies and the Mozart Oboe Quartet). And they still remain favorite works.

But I have since then gained access to all of Mozart and Haydn and find great joy in so many works by both men. I would not want to be without either. Nor, do I believe, would our world. I might term Mozart the greatest musical genius of all time, but I wonder where he might be had it not been for Haydn. If Haydn is underrated, it is only by someone who discounts any connection of influence from the elder composer to the younger Mozart, because I find it impossible to listen to Mozart without hearing the looming shadow of Franz Joseph Haydn hovering over all.


----------



## carlito (Jun 25, 2015)

Well, NY Times music critic Anthony Tommasini gave his list as: 1. JS Bach, 2. Bethoven, 3. Mozart, 4. Shulbert, 5. Debussey, 6. Stravinsky, 7, J. Brahms, 8. Verdi, 9. Wagner, 10. Bartok.

As you can see, Haydn was not on the list. But to put Brahms, Bartok, and even Stravinsky above Haydn would seem to me a little of shortsightedness to say the least.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

carlito said:


> Well, NY Times music critic Anthony Tommasini gave his list as: 1. JS Bach, 2. Bethoven, 3. Mozart, 4. Shulbert, 5. Debussey, 6. Stravinsky, 7, J. Brahms, 8. Verdi, 9. Wagner, 10. Bartok.
> 
> As you can see, Haydn was not on the list. But to put Brahms, Bartok, and even Stravinsky above Haydn would seem to me a little of shortsightedness to say the least.


Is this guy just telling us what he likes, or is this supposed to be some kind of "genius" rating? Anybody who seriously believes he's qualified to rank Bach, Mozart and Beethoven against each other immediately declares himself to be unworthy of consideration. And Debussy at #5? Verdi at #8? Verdi and Stravinsky above Wagner? What can it all mean?

Idiotic.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

No Haydn... and no Handel. I'm sorry but if any of the truly greats get shortchanged its Handel.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Per voting on another forum.

1 - Beethoven
2 - Bach
3 - Mozart
4 - Haydn
5 - Mahler
6 - Schubert
7 - Brahms
8 - Stravinsky
9 - Handel
10 - Tchaikovsky


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

carlito said:


> I posted this question as reply in a thread but I'd like to open it to the general audience here.
> 
> Would you consider Haydn as one of the most underrated composers in history? I sometimes look at these comparison articles about greatest composers like the NY Times had one a while back about the top 10 greatest composers in the history of classical music. To my surprise, Haydn didn't even make the top 10 list.


Haydn is very often regarded as one of the greatest composers of all times. Very often he may not be the first, second or event third preference but he is definitely right up there.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> No Haydn... and no Handel. I'm sorry but if any of the truly greats get shortchanged its Handel.


Somehow the human mind has difficulty with "pairs" of things, and whoever comes off second in a "pair" gets undervalued. Bach and Handel? If Bach is number one, Handel ends up in a sort of limbo. Mozart and Haydn? Same for Haydn. Wagner and Verdi? I think many people undervalue Verdi, though Mr. Tommasini above seems to do the reverse.

To answer my own question: what can it all mean? Nothing. Hurray for Handel and Haydn!


----------



## GreenMamba (Oct 14, 2012)

carlito said:


> Well, NY Times music critic Anthony Tommasini gave his list as: 1. JS Bach, 2. Bethoven, 3. Mozart, 4. Shulbert, 5. Debussey, 6. Stravinsky, 7, J. Brahms, 8. Verdi, 9. Wagner, 10. Bartok.
> 
> As you can see, Haydn was not on the list. But to put Brahms, Bartok, and even Stravinsky above Haydn would seem to me a little of shortsightedness to say the least.


What do you mean "even Stravinsky"? I think a lot of people would put Stravinsky above Haydn.

Regardless, if it's a personal favorites list, you can't expect everyone to put Haydn in the top 10.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

GreenMamba said:


> Regardless, if it's a personal favorites list, you can't expect everyone to put Haydn in the top 10.


It would seem "personal favorites" lists are quite pointless... And "cultural impact" lists are closer to factual ground.

But isn't "cultural impact" lists just a conglomeration of "personal favorites" lists. Does it make it any more so because more people agree? Dunno.

Composer A influenced composers B, C, and D because he was their favorites. Well, unless you like what they're doing, so what? It's just another personal opinion. Ah, who knows.


----------



## Sappho (Jun 27, 2015)

ArtMusic said:


> Haydn is very often regarded as one of the greatest composers of all times. Very often he may not be the first, second or event third preference but he is definitely right up there.


I agree. His string quartets are second to none in the era (Sacchini might have come close but he wrote far fewer of them) - indeed I find the majority of them more complex, aesthetic and evolved than most of Mozart's.

Which reminds me of this old game.



Blake said:


> Composer A influenced composers B, C, and D because he was their favorites. Well, unless you like what they're doing, so what? It's just another personal opinion. Ah, who knows.


Quite!

There's nothing like the look on people's faces when you illustrate how Schubert lifted some 'characteristic' modulations from Gluck and Weigl, or how young Beethoven derived his 'stereotypical' ferocity from CPE Bach.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

carlito said:


> Well, NY Times music critic Anthony Tommasini gave his list as: 1. JS Bach, 2. Bethoven, 3. Mozart, 4. Shulbert, 5. Debussey, 6. Stravinsky, 7, J. Brahms, 8. Verdi, 9. Wagner, 10. Bartok.
> 
> As you can see, Haydn was not on the list. But to put Brahms, Bartok, and even Stravinsky above Haydn would seem to me a little of shortsightedness to say the least.


It's not a big deal, just one man's list. If you don't like his list, make up your own and live by it.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

Sappho said:


> Quite!
> 
> There's nothing like the look on people's faces when you illustrate how Schubert lifted some 'characteristic' modulations from Gluck and Weigl, or how young Beethoven derived his 'stereotypical' ferocity from CPE Bach.


I would even apply that to the likes of Beethoven, Mozart, Brahms, etc... What makes them the ~best~? Because they are a lot of people's favorites... and they've found new things which inspired yada-yada to find new things. Well, so what? Haha

They're plenty of people who aren't moved by the things they've found.


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock (Jul 6, 2013)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> No Haydn... and no Handel. I'm sorry but if any of the truly greats get shortchanged its Handel.


or Telemann, imo.


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock (Jul 6, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> Somehow the human mind has difficulty with "pairs" of things, and whoever comes off second in a "pair" gets undervalued. Bach and Handel? If Bach is number one, Handel ends up in a sort of limbo. Mozart and Haydn? Same for Haydn. Wagner and Verdi? I think many people undervalue Verdi, though Mr. Tommasini above seems to do the reverse.
> 
> To answer my own question: what can it all mean? Nothing. Hurray for Handel and Haydn!


The 'Handel and Haydn Society' seems to be going against the grain in this regard .


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

HaydnBearstheClock said:


> The 'Handel and Haydn Society' seems to be going against the grain in this regard .


Ah yes. True enough. I shall revise my statement to note that the human mind also gets a kick out of grouping things that start with the same letter.

But isn't it interesting that Handel and Haydn are both the "underdogs" in other pairs: Bach and Handel, Mozart and Haydn.

Someone in Boston noticed that those underdogs were the overdogs when it came to writing the most popular oratorios.


----------



## Funny (Nov 30, 2013)

I don't have a peer-reviewed study to back this up but I would bet that the more acquainted one is with the works of Haydn and the overall sweep of Classical-music history the higher he ranks. As the average listener has heard less than (again, guesstimating) a tenth of Haydn's symphonic or string-quartet output (for starters), the general consensus among music listeners fails to give Haydn his due. This may be largely because any given work or set of works provides only a snapshot of the totality of what Haydn did, offering only the subjective value of music that is more or less delightful to listen to.

When you listen to all the symphonies, for instance, you can hear Haydn's compositional progression, which becomes the progression of classical music at large, in weaving narrative emotion, symmetry vs. asymmetry, enriched orchestral color, rhythmic specificity, ear-catching devices and transformations, and other innovations into the fabric of what we now consider to be the default vocabulary for this entire musical realm. Most of these innovations he didn't originate (there are some I think he did but haven't eliminated all possible earlier instances), but he adopted and worked with them in successive pieces to hammer them into viable musical processes that form the basis of just about everyone who came after, with Mozart and Beethoven being only the most obvious and clearly linked examples. 

Unless and until that profound influence on Western music history is adequately acknowledged, Haydn should certainly be considered 'underrated' in general.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Funny said:


> I don't have a peer-reviewed study to back this up but I would bet that the more acquainted one is with the works of Haydn and the overall sweep of Classical-music history the higher he ranks.


Of course the higher someone ranks Haydn, the more likely they are to listen often and become acquainted with the broad range of his works. Chicken or egg?


----------



## Scififan (Jun 28, 2015)

I have the complete set with Dorati and the Philharmonia Hungarica. The vinyl editions of that set include the fine notes by H.C. Robbins Landon and anyone who listens to the music in the light of these notes will have no doubts about the brilliance of this composer's work. Most people have listened to the _London_ set but beautiful works abound--not least among the _Sturm und Drang_ works.

Harold Truscott has this to say of him:

"Haydn was the first supreme master to make the symphony and sonata the foremost vehicle of his thought. . . . No later symphonies have improved upo Haydn's position; no one can do more than equal him; even Beethoven, in some ways scarcely surpassed him. One thing alone would mark him out--the variety and range of his thought in the mass of works. Each symphony is a world in itself, even the smallest and earliest. There is no repetition. In this sense, and it,is a deep one, he _is _the "Father of the Symphony". He first perceived and expressed the heights and depths this kind of music could attain."


----------

