# Haydns: Joseph vs Michael



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

Who is the greater composer?


----------



## amfortas

I went way out on a limb and voted for Joseph. Gotta live dangerously!


----------



## consuono

I voted for Michael. Hammerdklavier convinced me.

(Just kidding. But Michael write a lot of fine music too.)


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern

Im surprised Hammerklavier hasn't jumped on this thread like white on rice :lol:


----------



## Amadea

Well, I have to say for now I do not know both deep enough to make a choice. So I didn't vote. I think there should be a third option in the poll. The final choice is based on a good amount of personal preference and speculation. In the end, we all know why the poll was made... and for who...  Anyway, for now I'd say for sacred works I'd choose Michael Haydn, for quartets Joseph Haydn. It is only a temporary choice though, based on my poor knowledge of both. When I'll have the time I'll dig deeper in their numerous works, possibly with the help of some books.


----------



## Amadea

GucciManeIsTheNewWebern said:


> Im surprised Hammerklavier hasn't jumped on this thread like white on rice :lol:


He knows it's a trap :lol:


----------



## Amadea

amfortas said:


> Gotta live dangerously!


:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:


----------



## hammeredklavier

GucciManeIsTheNewWebern said:


> Im surprised Hammerklavier hasn't jumped on this thread like white on rice :lol:


Why? I don't even take TC polls seriously. The fact that people can be under "mere-exposure effect" is nowhere more evident than this issue. Cause when you get to know the works of both composers intimately, you simply have to accept Michael is the better melodist/harmonist/contrapuntist/structurist. 
Heck, some people even have biases against certain genres, such as Classical-era liturgical works, so their opinions don't count.


----------



## consuono

hammeredklavier said:


> Why? I don't even take TC polls seriously. The fact that people can be under "mere-exposure effect" is nowhere more evident than this issue. Cause when you get to know the works of both composers intimately, you simply have to accept Michael is the better melodist/harmonist/contrapuntist/structurist.
> Heck, some people even have biases against certain genres, such as Classical-era liturgical works, so their opinions don't count.


Can we put you down as the vote for Michael then? :lol:
Checking the tab, I see it wasn't you. C'mon hammered, pull that lever.


----------



## hammeredklavier

consuono said:


> Can we put you down as the vote for Michael then? :lol:
> Checking the tab, I see it wasn't you. C'mon hammered, pull that lever.


Sure, but I don't really participate in TC polls, -they're meaningless. 
If Joseph Haydn fans are really so confident about the merit of Joseph's work over Michael's, why can't they explain it to me.



Fabulin said:


> Michael Haydn it is for me. I prefer him over his brother and over CPE Bach as well. And to think that if not for hammeredklavier, I never would have even learned of his existence...


----------



## tdc

Michael's aesthetic is closer to my tastes, but he is not a composer I listen to often. Over all I see them both as important composers in the development of music, but neither are personal favorites. 

Joseph has been the more popular one, and is generally credited with contributing more to musical form.


----------



## cybernaut

I voted for Michael because I think he is underappreciated.

And just listen to this musical GORGEOUSNESS:


----------



## hammeredklavier

tdc said:


> Joseph is generally credited with contributing more to musical form.


I'm not even sure if that is true. ("Joseph contributed more to musical form"). Joseph is simply better-known in the academia and public.
https://www.talkclassical.com/70969-beethoven-religious.html#post2067563
https://www.talkclassical.com/54405-haydn-muscular-mozart-23.html#post2036127
https://www.talkclassical.com/70979-haydn-mozarts-symphonies-5.html#post2069226


hammeredklavier said:


> I also speculate that some prototypical ideas for building a "traverse from darkness to light" were passed from Michael (symphony No.29 in D minor , 1784) [1] on through Mozart (K.466) [2], eventually to Beethoven.
> symphony No.29 in D minor - 0:01 , 12:55 , 16:22
> [1]: "The third movement is a rondeau, Presto scherzante. Horns are in F, trumpets in D. The A theme could be seen as a metamorphosis of the first subject of the first movement." -wikipedia
> [2]: "The entry of the piano here, a new material, but interestingly, it's exactly the same chord structure as that first entry in the first movement. A wonderful sense of Mozart referring back to what we remember, having heard before." -Charles Hazlewood
> 
> *Requiem in C minor (1771)*
> "trumpet signal" & requiem 1st theme: [ 0:20 ]
> requiem 2nd theme: [ 3:20 ~ 3:45 ]
> lacrimosa theme: [ 11:40 ~ 11:48 ]
> chromatic fourth theme (climbing from D to G in the bassline): [ 12:40 ~ 12:50 ]
> hosanna theme (lacrimosa theme transformed/recapitulated): [ 24:21 ~ 24:29 ]
> "trumpet signal": [ 26:48 , 27:56 ]
> chromatic fourth theme recapitulated (climbing from G to C in the soprano solo): [ 28:40 ~ 28:50 ]
> cum sanctis tuis fugue: [ 29:17 ~ 31:16 ]
> requiem 2nd theme recapitulated: [ 31:22 ~ 31:50 ]
> requiem 1st theme recapitulated: [ 31:58 ~ 32:30 ]
> cum sanctis tuis fugue recapitulated: [ 32:38 ~ 34:30 ]


----------



## Fabulin

I'm ammunition now! :lol:

All I can say is that the music of Joseph Haydn has never seemed strikingly intelligent to me the way Mozart's, Beethoven's, Bach's or Haendel's does. 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...

Neither Beethoven nor Berlioz nor Tchaikovsky considered him top tier, and if all of them agree on something in music, I don't usually consider them ignorant or mad.

Meanwhile Michael Haydn sounds like Mozart before Mozart, and it was Mozart who got better over interactions with him. At the very least it sounds more competent. 

Even without J. Haydn we would still probably see Beethoven coming into the field and doing his thing - on 25-minute symphonies, if necessary. Bach, Mozart and Haendel combined would have been enough for him to figure things out.


----------



## consuono

Fabulin said:


> I'm ammunition now! :lol:


Wow, thanks alot, Fabulin. Yet another reference for hammered to lay on us. :lol:


----------



## hammeredklavier

cybernaut said:


> I voted for Michael because I think he is underappreciated.


I like the Et incarnatus est from this work; it has subtleties like Mozart's "Ach ich fühl's"


----------



## Haydn70

Fabulin said:


> I'm ammunition now! :lol:
> 
> All I can say is that the music of Joseph Haydn has never seemed strikingly intelligent to me the way Mozart's, Beethoven's, Bach's or Haendel's does. 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*...
> 
> Neither Beethoven nor Berlioz nor Tchaikovsky considered him top tier, and if all of them agree on something in music, I don't usually consider them ignorant or mad.
> 
> Meanwhile Michael Haydn sounds like Mozart before Mozart, and it was Mozart who got better over interactions with him. At the very least it sounds more competent.
> 
> Even without J. Haydn we would still probably see Beethoven coming into the field and doing his thing - on 25-minute symphonies, if necessary. Bach, Mozart and Haendel combined would have been enough for him to figure things out.


Try this triple fugue...this is GREAT counterpoint...stunningly great:


----------



## hammeredklavier

Fabulin said:


> All I can say is that the music of Joseph Haydn has never seemed strikingly intelligent to me the way Mozart's, Beethoven's, Bach's or Haendel's does. 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...
> Neither Beethoven nor Berlioz nor Tchaikovsky considered him top tier, and if all of them agree on something in music, I don't usually consider them ignorant or mad.
> Meanwhile Michael Haydn sounds like Mozart before Mozart, and it was Mozart who got better over interactions with him. At the very least it sounds more competent.
> Even without J. Haydn we would still probably see Beethoven coming into the field and doing his thing - on 25-minute symphonies, if necessary. Bach, Mozart and Haendel combined would have been enough for him to figure things out.


Can't agree more. I have to stress again; Joseph was certainly a good craftsman, but I think there is a good reason why his name is missing from this list:
"Mozart wrote to his father on 29 March 1783 about the musical gatherings in the apartments of Baron van Swieten: "we love to amuse ourselves with all kind of masters, ancient and modern." So music was the main object of the other of the composers Mozart and his colleagues studied in these sessions is mentioned in the Mozart correspondence by name: *Johann Ernst Eberlin, for instance, or Georg Friedrich Handel, or J.S. Bach and his sons Wilhelm Friedemann and Carl Phillip Emmanuel, or Michael Haydn.*"
http://mrc.hanyang.ac.kr/wp-content/jspm/20/jspm_2006_20_10.pdf#page=4

When listening to Michael's music, I get a feeling of "waves of tsunami continually washing over" me. The sort of feeling you get from Bach's and Mozart's, but not really from Joseph's. (Maybe it's because of Joseph's "musical temperament" or supposed lack of sense or skill, I don't know.)





 (13:18, 13:24 and 14:34)




 (5:32 and 7:15)






























 (11:40)




 (16:55)






















(This is not to say Joseph isn't "unique". He also has his own voice in terms of rhythm, phrase-structure, monothematicism, and sudden shock effects with dynamics)


----------



## Bulldog

19 to 3; that's about what I expected from a knowledgeable group of TC members.


----------



## hammeredklavier

"This might seem a rather uninspiring thing to say but Michael Haydn's music has a thorough competence of technique as well a real sense of theatre (in the broadest sense) that is reflected in Mozart's music. One of the many unfortunate legacies of nineteenth-century biographical writing is the excessive focus on the Wunderkind Mozart and the Incomparable Genius Mozart. In Salzburg, if not throughout his life, Mozart was writing in a lingua franca and many of the features of that language are to be found in Michael Haydn too. That Mozart recognized Michael Haydn's mastery is suggested by a letter he sent to his father from Vienna, asking for the latest symphonies of Michael, so that he could perform them in that city."
https://theresia.blog/2019/03/rediscovering-michael-haydn-an-interview-with-david-wyn-jones/


----------



## hammeredklavier

"Joseph regarded his brother's music highly, to the point of feeling Michael's religious works were superior to his own"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Haydn


> "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."





> "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. . . .)""


----------



## cybernaut

hammeredklavier said:


> "Joseph regarded his brother's music highly, to the point of feeling Michael's religious works were superior to his own"
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Haydn


Indeed.

This piece by Michael reminds me of Mozart's Requiem, but was written 20 years earlier:






I'm not saying Michael was superior to Joseph...but Michael definitely deserves a lot more respect and listening.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Bulldog said:


> 19 to 3; that's about what I expected from a knowledgeable group of TC members.


----------



## hammeredklavier

cybernaut said:


> Indeed.
> This piece by Michael reminds me of Mozart's Requiem, but was written 20 years earlier:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not saying Michael was superior to Joseph...but Michael definitely deserves a lot more respect and listening.


And this missa brevis, written in 1772, anticipates Mozart's K.427, especially in the Benedictus:



hammeredklavier said:


>


----------



## hammeredklavier

cybernaut said:


> More genius from Michael Haydn. For me, the beauty of this is on par with J.S. Bach, Mozart, and the other greats.


I just saw that you posted "Missa subtitulo St. Leopoldi in fest Innocentium (1805)" in a wrong thread (Favorite Handel Oratorios), the credo movement is unforgettable:




Btw, Michael also pioneered the Deutsche hochamt (German high mass), the tradition of German-text settings Schubert and Brahms would later follow.


hammeredklavier said:


> "Gregorian melodies, of course, continued to be used in the Mass throughout the eighteenth century; but by Beethoven's time they were relatively rare, especially in orchestral Masses. The one composer who still used them extensively is Michael Haydn, in his a cappella Masses for Advent and Lent. It is significant that in some of these he limits the borrowed melody to the Incarnatus and expressly labels it "Corale." In the Missa dolorum B. M. V. (1762) it is set in the style of a harmonized chorale, in the Missa tempore Qudragesima of 1794 note against note, with the Gregorian melody (Credo IV of the Liber Usualis) appearing in the soprano. I have little doubt that Beethoven knew such works of Michael Haydn, at that time the most popular composer of sacred music in Austria.


----------



## hammeredklavier

4:28




^(remember, this was written in 1773, an year before Joseph published his Op.20. Mozart wrote his K.174 in December 1773.)

3:00





6:23


----------



## Highwayman

I think I`m on the fence here. Joseph has many works that I rate highly such as Erdődy Quartets or Sturm und Drang Symphonies but every time I listen to a new work by him I`m less and less impressed whereas Michael has not as many works as his brother that I listen to with any frequency but his Requiem in C minor is one of my favourites in the genre and every time I listen to a new work by him I`m more and more impressed. However, I should mention that both are not particularly favourites of mine and probably they won`t make it into my top 100 composers list if I ever decide to make one.


----------



## Amadea

Fabulin said:


> Even without J. Haydn we would still probably see Beethoven coming into the field and doing his thing - on 25-minute symphonies, if necessary. Bach, Mozart and Haendel combined would have been enough for him to figure things out.


I disagree with this type of reasoning. Of course Beethoven would have still figured things out but he would be still a different Beethoven than the one we know. In the end, we can apply this reasoning with every composer who lived, because if [insert composer] didn't exist eventually someone else would have figured those things out, because arts always keep going. But if X doesn't exist, and Y takes its place and figures things out, Y would still do things differently than X= different music. And maybe Y would be less talented in those aspects than X would have been if he existed. So the music you love today, would be different (can you imagine it? It would be a little sad in my opinion). That's why I think we can't deny or cancel anybody's role in history of music, expecially J. Haydn. No J. Haydn= different Beethoven = different romantic music. And I'm sure Mozart would have been a way less funnier composer and more lonely if J. Haydn bassoon farts didn't exist


----------



## Eclectic Al

Amadea said:


> And I'm sure Mozart would have been a way less funnier composer and more lonely if J. Haydn bassoon farts didn't exist


Indeed. In many fields of artistic endeavour some seem to feel that the "best" stuff must be serious. I don't buy that.

The idea of getting a whole load of people into a room to listen to a load of other people make noises with complicated machines is inherently ridiculous. The paradox is how much it means to people, and one reaction to that paradox (if you are at all self-aware) is to warm to those who puncture the pomposity, while not ridiculing the activity itself. That's very difficult to achieve, and Joseph is a master.

Joseph is, I think, very self-aware about what he is up to. He composes music, but he also keeps his audience in mind and seeks to entertain, maybe with effects and gestures that a more serious minded individual would see as improper in the context of the intellectual design of the piece. I see that as a ringing endorsement of his genius, and not a criticism. I guess Joseph would have liked the 4th movement of Bartok's Concerto for Orchestra.

In English literature, consider Dickens and Hardy. Both great novelists, but Hardy is a touch :lol: less funny. In their different ways they address themes of great seriousness, and Dickens is not of lower stature because he wrote for an audience to make money and incorporated "comic effects" in his works. Don't tell me a novel is better because it's unremittingly serious: it might be good, but that's not dependent on it lacking humour.


----------



## Amadea

Eclectic Al said:


> Indeed. In many fields of artistic endeavour some seem to feel that the "best" stuff must be serious. I don't buy that.


We live in a society that tells us:
Depressive and serious= deep and clever
Happy and humorous= stupid and dull

It is pure nonsense and it is what makes many think Mozart is not deep and clever. I think that comes from late romantic criticisim (maybe post Wagner...?), which still influences us so much it is absurd. Just think about the idea of genius we have: an absolute original sort of god which takes his ideas from nothing, his art being without defects and the greatest and most importantly they were all so much ahead of their times and ununderstood and tormented. That is the concept of the romantic genius we still have radicated in our minds and culture. Then when you really study Mozart and Beethoven and others you see they had 163727272828737382 influences, overall they were in their times except a couple overlooked works which anticipated modern ideas and so on. What you say about Joseph's awareness of his humour and pomposity is exactly the point I made in a previous threads, and it's also one of the reasons why Mozart liked him (I know hammeredklavier disagrees on this, but we already talked about it). I much prefer an artist who is totally aware of what he's doing, aware of his pomposity and humour (that displays cleverness), to an artist who makes humour without realizing it (some romantics/modernists).


----------



## Fabulin

There is an undying trope of a country mouse poking a finger at a city mouse who wears clothes "reserved" for a wedding, a funeral, or at best a Sunday. Get it? It's ridiculous! How can you pull cabbages out of their patches in such clothes?

When something like that happens in a film, the audience expectedly laughs at the villager instead.

The same is true for many other contexts. Why would people sitting quietly in a room be funny? Or people in black-and-white, high contrast clothing (such as business suits)? Or naked people? Where is the pun? 

It reminds me of potty humour, where the joker is actually less self-aware than the surrounding people and finds something funny because of its recent discovery, and humour helps ease up tension and improve memory.

Most jokes in art grow old very quickly.


----------



## cybernaut

Amadea said:


> We live in a society that tells us:
> Depressive and serious= deep and clever
> Happy and humorous= stupid and dull


People with high IQ's do tend to suffer from depression and anxiety more. 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/bad-news-for-the-highly-intelligent/

Ignorance is bliss.


----------



## cybernaut

A comment on Youtube that I have to agree with:
"I adore Mozart. And we know that Mozart had a high regard for Michael Haydn. His letters make this very clear. But the amount of tunes Mozart stole from Michael almost amounts to plagiarism. This is the Jupiter symphony! And a vast amount of Michael's requiem was clearly 'borrowed' by Mozart."






and someone replied:
"This is just the start. 
Compare Haydn's symphony in d minor to mozarts piano concerto in the same key.
M. Haydn Eflat major symphony-mozart symphony 39 (especially the first movement to last movement respectively).
M Haydn symphony 23-Mozart spring quartet
etc.."


----------



## Eclectic Al

Fabulin said:


> Most jokes in art grow old very quickly.


And people are still enjoying Joseph as we move towards his 300th birthday (as well as reading Dickens). There are bad jokes and there are artistic creations that have a degree of self-deprecation in their essence, and thereby (if touched with genius) a bit more humanity.

I remember sitting in class in school while our English teacher played us LPs of Shakespeare plays. He was cracking up at the jokes. I don't think any of us were, but people do insist that Shakespeare wrote comedies. I'm not really into Shakespeare, but speeches where the character (say Richard III) brings the audience into the play by colluding with us in explaining what is going on are in a similar vein to what I find in some of Haydn's little pranks. In Richard III they inject variety into a tale of intrigue, murder and battle. That light and shade enhances the work, rather than trivialising it.


----------



## Eclectic Al

cybernaut said:


> People with high IQ's do tend to suffer from depression and anxiety more.
> 
> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/bad-news-for-the-highly-intelligent/
> 
> Ignorance is bliss.


Indeed. However, the trap to avoid is therefore assuming that depression and anxiety imply intelligence, let alone wisdom. (Or that serious art works are "greater" than ones with more light and shade.)

The problem with intelligent people might be that they think they have the answer (because they are soooooooo clever), and they are then depressed because no one else can see it and hence they can't make it happen.

Thinking you have an answer which others don't see because they are not so clever might be a characteristic of clever people, but it is not a characteristic of wise ones.


----------



## Amadea

cybernaut said:


> People with high IQ's do tend to suffer from depression and anxiety more.
> 
> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/bad-news-for-the-highly-intelligent/
> 
> Ignorance is bliss.


I was talking about the moods displayed in an artwork rather than the mood of the artists. I don't get why happy or funny art should equal stupid and superficial. Anyway, Einstein wasn't depressed. Leonardo Da Vinci wasn't depressed. I could go on. Beethoven wrote his 2nd symphony, one of his happiest works, when he wanted to commit suicide. Tchaikovsky wrote the Nutcraker when he discovered about his sister's death. What does that tell you? First, the equation depressed=intelligent is false and mostly a stereotype. Second, the mood of an artwork doesn't display the mood the artist had when creating it. It can be the opposite. You can come to your own conclusions. Also, this study you linked has been conducted on today's people, Mensa members, and you should know many today do not even believe the IQ to be an accurate metre of intelligence.


----------



## Amadea

Eclectic Al said:


> And people are still enjoying Joseph as we move towards his 300th birthday (as well as reading Dickens). There are bad jokes and there are artistic creations that have a degree of self-deprecation in their essence, and thereby (if touched with genius) a bit more humanity.
> 
> I remember sitting in class in school while our English teacher played us LPs of Shakespeare plays. He was cracking up at the jokes. I don't think any of us were, but people do insist that Shakespeare wrote comedies. I'm not really into Shakespeare, but speeches where the character (say Richard III) brings the audience into the play by colluding with us in explaining what is going on are in a similar vein to what I find in some of Haydn's little pranks. In Richard III they inject variety into a tale of intrigue, murder and battle. That light and shade enhances the work, rather than trivialising it.


You made me think of a critics words I've read regarding the 6 quartets Mozart dedicated to Haydn: clever shakesperean mixture of tragedy and comedy. It is not an easy thing to do.


----------



## Amadea

cybernaut said:


> A comment on Youtube that I have to agree with:
> "I adore Mozart. And we know that Mozart had a high regard for Michael Haydn. His letters make this very clear. But the amount of tunes Mozart stole from Michael almost amounts to plagiarism. This is the Jupiter symphony! And a vast amount of Michael's requiem was clearly 'borrowed' by Mozart."


And that is why I don't like youtube. I suggest you to be careful because this is the type of misinformation from which fake news originate. The composers of the past used to reference a lot the composers they admired to show admiration and musical erudition (on that I opened a thread yesterday). The others took it as compliments. Every composer did it. Also, everyone had their influences and they did not have the concept of plagiarism we have today. The plagiarism is not in a few similar notes which composers develop differently. Otherwise, we should consider every composer who ever lived a plagiarist. Also, you should consider similar sounds can also be the result of the use of the same manners, rules, clichès etc. which every era has.


----------



## cybernaut

Amadea said:


> And that is why I don't like youtube. I suggest you to be careful because this is the type of misinformation from which fake news originate. The composers of the past used to reference a lot the composers they admired to show admiration and musical erudition (on that I opened a thread yesterday). The others took it as compliments. Every composer did it. Also, everyone had their influences and they did not have the concept of plagiarism we have today. The plagiarism is not in a few similar notes which composers develop differently. Otherwise, we should consider every composer who ever lived a plagiarist. Also, you should consider similar sounds can also be the result of the use of the same manners, rules, clichès etc. which every era has.


I guess you missed the part where he wrote "almost".


----------



## hammeredklavier

^Borrowings between Michael Haydn and Mozart seem to have been mutual. (Although it's true Mozart learned more from the elder composer) For instance, Michael also seems to have derived from the credo of Mozart Missa brevis in B flat, K.275 to write the credo of his own Miss brevis in D minor, tempore Quadragesima.











hammeredklavier said:


> Michael Haydn Missa in C, "sancti francisci Seraphici" (c.1756):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (Btw, the melodic charm of the Benedictus of this work is other-worldly;
> 
> 
> 
> . If the date of composition is really 1756, that would mean Michael wrote it at the age of 19.)
> 
> Mozart Missa longa in C, K.262 (1775):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Michael Haydn Missa in C "sancti Hieronymi" (1777):


----------



## hammeredklavier

cybernaut said:


> M. Haydn Eflat major symphony-mozart symphony 39 (especially the first movement to last movement respectively).


I'm not sure which E flat major symphony by Michael the person is talking about. The only mature M. Haydn symphony with a slow introduction is his 27th, B flat major, and it's a different work from Mozart's 39th in style (the Mozart uses dissonance in its intro in a way none of Michael's does). And while there are some tumbral similarities between the concluding movement of Mozart's 39th and the first movement of Michael's 36th, B flat major, the latter is an overture, a work completely different from Mozart's 39th. They were almost contemporary, Michael wrote his in Salzburg in the January of 1788, and Mozart wrote his a few months later in Vienna.


----------



## Amadea

cybernaut said:


> I guess you missed the part where he wrote "almost".


Oh, yeah, I apologize. I've encountered so many on youtube, expecially my compatriots, who believe Mozart (and others) were plagiarists... Some do not even believe Mozart existed, according to them freemasonry invented Mozart and stole all the music from others putting the german name of Mozart on it to make Germany great. They're ignorants who believe in some fake news so I guess, being used to arguments with them, I immediatly jumped to wrong conclusions.


----------



## hammeredklavier

cybernaut said:


> A comment on Youtube that I have to agree with:
> "I adore Mozart. And we know that Mozart had a high regard for Michael Haydn. His letters make this very clear. But the amount of tunes Mozart stole from Michael almost amounts to plagiarism. This is the Jupiter symphony! And a vast amount of Michael's requiem was clearly 'borrowed' by Mozart."
> and someone replied:
> "This is just the start.
> Compare Haydn's symphony in d minor to mozarts piano concerto in the same key.
> M. Haydn Eflat major symphony-mozart symphony 39 (especially the first movement to last movement respectively).
> M Haydn symphony 23-Mozart spring quartet
> etc.."


"In Salzburg, if not throughout his life, Mozart was writing in a lingua franca and many of the features of that language are to be found in Michael Haydn too."https://theresia.blog/2019/03/rediscovering-michael-haydn-an-interview-with-david-wyn-jones/

I think people who don't know the context in which Mozart wrote his works have certain misconceptions about them. For example, the style of accompaniment gestures (which are both arpeggiated and syncopated) that open Mozart's requiem originate not just from Michael Haydn but also older Salzburg masters such as J.E. Eberlin and A.C. Adlgasser.
Johann Ernst Eberlin (1702-1762) Missa in C [ 3:30 ]
Michael Haydn Requiem in C minor (1771) [ 0:55 ]
Michael Haydn Te deum in C (1786) [ 0:58 ]
Michael Haydn Missa in C, sancti Gotthardi (1792) [ 4:14 ]
Michael Haydn Missa in C, sanctae Ursulae (1793) [ 0:10 ]
W.A. Mozart Missa brevis K.194 in D (1774) [ 11:06 ] ,
W.A. Mozart Missa brevis K.275 in B flat (1777) [ 2:19 ] ,
W.A. Mozart Requiem in D minor (1791) [ 0:50 , 28:27 ] ,


hammeredklavier said:


> symphony No.29 in D minor - 0:01 , 12:55 , 16:22
> [1]: "The third movement is a rondeau, Presto scherzante. Horns are in F, trumpets in D. The A theme could be seen as a metamorphosis of the first subject of the first movement." -wikipedia
> [2]: "The entry of the piano here, a new material, but interestingly, it's exactly the same chord structure as that first entry in the first movement. A wonderful sense of Mozart referring back to what we remember, having heard before." -Charles Hazlewood


And while there are some things Michael's D minor symphony (1784) and Mozart's K.466 share in common, there are also elements K.466 shares with the D minor "movement" of Mozart's own K.345 (1779). For example, look at these sections of part-writing 
K.345: 



K.466: 



And the jubilant major-key endings in K.466/iii and K.345/iv.

Vesperae for equal voices in F (1793) is another work by Michael I greatly appreciate, but I hear similarities (in its Confitibor tibi movement) with Mozart's Vesperae de dominica (1779).

What about;
L. Mozart Missa solemnis in C (c.1768) - Et incarnatus est:




Michael Haydn Missa brevis in C, sancti joannis Nepomuceni (1772) - Et incarnatus est:





I think they were simply writing in a "lingua franca".


----------



## SanAntone

The piano trios, the baryton trios (!), the string quartets, the keyboard sonatas, oh, and then there's the symphonies. It is no surprise that this poll is lopsided.


----------



## hammeredklavier

SanAntone said:


> The piano trios, the baryton trios (!), the string quartets, the keyboard sonatas, oh, and then there's the symphonies.


Honestly, I don't care what other trivial stuff Joseph could churn out. His melodies are usually trivial-sounding, and harmonies are DULL as cardboard.  He could never write a gradual like Michael.



SanAntone said:


> It is no surprise that this poll is lopsided.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Behold, one of Joseph Haydn's Greatest Sturm-und-drang(-in-a-teapot) symphonies:


----------



## hammeredklavier

Face it. Joseph's late masses are basically his way of proving his own mediocrity to his brother; 
Just listen to this:




_"Suscipe! Suscipe! I wish I could write like Michael!"_

















"Joseph regarded his brother's music highly, to the point of feeling Michael's religious works were superior to his own"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Haydn


----------



## RogerWaters

It's always good to hear an alternative point of view, but not sure anyone is buying what you're selling, Hammered.

Also not sure people ever watch the 4+ links you include in nearly every post!


----------



## jkl

I know Joseph's music better I think he is the greater of the two.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

Sheeple! You are all sheeple! (Except hammeredklavier).


----------



## Amadea

hammeredklavier said:


> _"Suscipe! Suscipe! I wish I could write like Michael!"_


I do sometimes wonder: are there any other composers you like or even love other than Michael Haydn and Mozart?


----------



## hammeredklavier

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).


----------



## Amadea

I love how he completely ignored my question. I guess the answer is no :lol:


----------



## hammeredklavier

Amadea said:


> I do sometimes wonder: are there any other composers you like or even love other than Michael Haydn and Mozart?


----------



## Amadea

hammeredklavier said:


>


Nice. But no Bach/Handel/Telemann? What about J. Schobert? He's so underrated, Mozart loved him. Rameau? Italian baroque? I guess you hate romantics and modernists.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Amadea said:


> Nice. But no Bach/Handel/Telemann? What about J. Schobert? He's so underrated, Mozart loved him. Rameau? Italian baroque? I guess you hate romantics and modernists.


Yes, there's a lot of others, but that's not the topic of the thread


----------



## hammeredklavier

RogerWaters said:


> It's always good to hear an alternative point of view, but not sure anyone is buying what you're selling, Hammered.
> Also not sure people ever watch the 4+ links you include in nearly every post!


If you feel they're too many, just listen to this passage (Dies irae) from Michael's Requiem in C minor, for now:





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."


----------



## Highwayman

Amadea said:


> I do sometimes wonder: are there any other composers you like or even love other than Michael Haydn and Mozart?


I think hk uses other composers merely as "foils" just to highlight certain qualities of Mozart. Notice how often there is a mention of Mozart in their (?) posts praising other composers such as M. Haydn.


----------



## Eclectic Al

hammeredklavier said:


> Behold, one of Joseph Haydn's Greatest Sturm-und-drang(-in-a-teapot) symphonies


I quite like the "Hen". It's not one of my top favourites (and indeed the Paris group are not generally my top of the Joseph pops), but it's good fun. I seem to have 3 versions kicking around (Kuijken, Fischer and Karajan), in a mixture of styles. My little rating system (which is a mix of whether I like the piece, the performance and the recording quality) gives these 3 versions all 4 stars out of 5.

In comparison (for example) 48 and 49 with Pinnock both get 5 stars, but 47 (Pinnock again) only gets 3. At the London end of things 104 gets 5 stars for both Szell and Karajan. 93 is one of my out and out favourites, so Davis, Karajan and Solti all get 5 stars, Szell gets 4 and a half (- I think let down by recording quality) and Fischer gets 4 and a half (for reasons I can't remember).

I listened to one of Michael's that I think was mentioned earlier, 29 in D minor. I would give it about 3.5 stars on my "do I like it" scale: which tends to mean "OK but not at all striking". So more stars than Joseph's number 47 (which I need to listen to again to confirm), but nothing that would pull me back.


----------



## Bulldog

hammeredklavier said:


> Joseph never had the guts to do something this "disturbing" psychologically.


I figured that if you kept bashing Haydn on a daily basis, you would eventually get around to his anatomy. :lol:


----------



## hammeredklavier

Highwayman said:


> I think hk uses other composers merely as "foils" just to highlight certain qualities of Mozart. Notice how often there is a mention of Mozart in their (?) posts praising other composers such as M. Haydn.


Sigh.. why would I quote this then?


hammeredklavier said:


> "This might seem a rather uninspiring thing to say but Michael Haydn's music has a thorough competence of technique as well a real sense of theatre (in the broadest sense) that is reflected in Mozart's music. *One of the many unfortunate legacies of nineteenth-century biographical writing is the excessive focus on the Wunderkind Mozart and the Incomparable Genius Mozart.* In Salzburg, if not throughout his life, Mozart was writing in a lingua franca and many of the features of that language are to be found in Michael Haydn too. That Mozart recognized Michael Haydn's mastery is suggested by a letter he sent to his father from Vienna, asking for the latest symphonies of Michael, so that he could perform them in that city."
> https://theresia.blog/2019/03/rediscovering-michael-haydn-an-interview-with-david-wyn-jones/


----------



## hammeredklavier

Eclectic Al said:


> I listened to one of Michael's that I think was mentioned earlier, 29 in D minor. I would give it about 3.5 stars on my "do I like it" scale: which tends to mean "OK but not at all striking". So more stars than Joseph's number 47 (which I need to listen to again to confirm), but nothing that would pull me back.


Why is it so hard for Joseph Haydn fans to do accept their idol lacked in certain important aspects compared to his brother? How much longer must this "idolatry" continue on?
I mean, come on, we all know deep down , much of Joseph's work just isn't really all that impressive, don't we?



hammeredklavier said:


> *No.33 in B flat*:
> 1:45 (interesting use of rhythm, development of motifs, and writing for winds)
> 11:18 (Michael wrote far less 4-movement symphonies (with an added minuet) than Joseph, but I like how he only does it when he really needs to. This minuet movement strikes me as memorable.)
> *No.31 in F*:
> 8:56 (the elegant lyricism of voice-leading reminds me of the best moments from Mozart's violin concertos)
> 13:00 (sounds "weird" with angularities)
> *No.29 in D minor*:
> 1:50 (the secondary development / false recapitulation is interesting, especially at 2:50)
> 15:10 (interesting ways to develop)
> *No.28 in C*: 16:45
> *No.40 in F*: 0:01 , 7:30
> 
> Look at Michael's use of the woodwinds, which naturally imitates the human voice [0:34~0:38] (whereas Joseph throws them for "rustic effects"), and
> use of dissonances in the strings [2:03~2:19] and strettos to build tension [2:52~3:17], for example:


----------



## Ingélou

Joseph - I don't think I've ever heard anything of his that I disliked. He's brilliant. 

Having said that, I like Michael's Mass Settings better than Joseph's.


----------



## Xisten267

Tempted to vote for Joseph here, but I cannot as I almost didn't explore his brother's music yet.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

consuono said:


> Can we put you down as the vote for Michael then? :lol:
> Checking the tab, I see it wasn't you. C'mon hammered, pull that lever.


I voted for him. I figure one fewer vote for Joseph won't mean as much as correcting for his missed vote for Michael


----------



## mmsbls

hammeredklavier said:


> Why is it so hard for Joseph Haydn fans to do accept their idol lacked in certain important aspects compared to his brother? How much longer must this "idolatry" continue on?
> I mean, come on, we all know deep down , much of Joseph's work just isn't really all that impressive, don't we?


I think there are very few, if any, TC members who idolize J. Haydn. Yes, many of us love his music, but I haven't seen posts that demonstrate a seemingly excessive devotion to the man.

I like Michael Haydn quite a bit. I like many of his symphonies, including 29,31,and especially 33 and 40, which you list above. I also find several of his masses, such as Missa Sancti Francisci and Requiem in C minor, exceptional. If pressed, I would probably agree that he is underrated although I don't like to use that term. Overall, I prefer Joseph's symphonies and his choral music. I also adore his string quartets. I expect that I will wish to sample more of Michael's music over time when I have the chance.

I assume you are joking when you say, "[W]e all know deep down , much of Joseph's work just isn't really all that impressive, don't we?" You, of course, may believe that, but I find it hard to believe you think many on TC believe that.


----------



## Highwayman

hammeredklavier said:


> Sigh.. why would I quote this then?


Imo, you are trying to promote Mozart the Master Craftsman by suppressing Mozart the Genius Wunderkind. You might be thinking Mozart is popular for the wrong reasons. In the past few decades, Mozart has become a huge _Myth_ with the little nudge of Sir Peter Shaffer and I think you have a hidden agenda to somehow rehumanize him by exhibiting his labours and processes in the way of success. I don`t exactly know why you would do this day and night but you probably fear that this whole _Mozart Myth_ will turn out to be a fad. So it`s only reasonable for you to quote things that criticise Mozart if you want to humanize him and make him look like relatable. My initial point was that you were trying to highlight certain qualities of Mozart, being fallible might be one of these qualities. So please do not reply this with a gazillion quotes somewhat criticising Mozart from your own posts.

P.S. For the record, I absolutely have no problem with what you are doing, you do you!


----------



## consuono

> So please do not reply this with a gazillion quotes somewhat criticising Mozart from your own posts.


I see you know the game. :lol: :lol:


----------



## hammeredklavier

Highwayman said:


> Imo, you are trying to promote Mozart the Master Craftsman by suppressing Mozart the Genius Wunderkind. You might be thinking Mozart is popular for the wrong reasons. In the past few decades, Mozart has become a huge _Myth_ with the little nudge of Sir Peter Shaffer and I think you have a hidden agenda to somehow rehumanize him by exhibiting his labours and processes in the way of success. I don`t exactly know why you would do this day and night but you probably fear that this whole _Mozart Myth_ will turn out to be a fad. So it`s only reasonable for you to quote things that criticise Mozart if you want to humanize him and make him look like relatable. My initial point was that you were trying to highlight certain qualities of Mozart, being fallible might be one of these qualities. So please do not reply this with a gazillion quotes somewhat criticising Mozart from your own posts.
> 
> P.S. For the record, I absolutely have no problem with what you are doing, you do you!


I can't even try to understand the logic behind this gibberish. If I wanted to only elevate Mozart, there are far better ways to do it.


----------



## tdc

Hammeredklavier has stated he thinks Bach is the greatest composer, yet he bashes his music. He also criticizes Mozart, Schubert, Brahms, Beethoven, Chopin, Haydn etc. He criticizes things like Mozart piano concertos and the requiem. He seems to want to convince people the greatest Mozart pieces are mostly more obscure ones that are his personal favorites. I've not yet seen him criticize any Michael Haydn Schoenberg or Wagner.

I suspect he reacts to opinions that he thinks are unfair or unbalanced on the site. The adulation of Schoenberg, Wagner or Michael Haydn hasn't got to the point where he thinks its gotten out of hand on the site, so he feels no need to criticize those composers.


----------



## consuono

> He criticizes things like Mozart piano concertos and the requiem.


Mostly I think because other people praise them. It's being a contrarian, which is pretty easy to do.

I've been reading this site kinda regularly for a little over a year now, I guess. I don't recall seeing the Michael Haydn mania until recently. Before that it was mostly earlier Mozart liturgical music and the occasional swipes at Beethoven and Schubert.

But I guess it's worth it to fight that Haydn (Joseph) Cult. Which I've never seen.


----------



## hammeredklavier

consuono said:


> I've been reading this site kinda regularly for a little over a year now, I guess. I don't recall seeing the Michael Haydn mania until recently. Before that it was mostly earlier Mozart liturgical music and the occasional swipes at Beethoven and Schubert.


Yes, I long ago had some arguments with Schubert-favoring Mozart-haters (Ja***, NL***, Al***), what's your point? Yes, in my attempt to find who had the most influence on Mozart (in terms of liturgical works and instrumental works) through research, I have found some truths about the Haydns. https://www.talkclassical.com/54405-haydn-muscular-mozart-23.html#post2036127 in the process, I started to realize people's treatment of these two masters wasn't really fair. It's ok to like Joseph over Michael, but people go even farther to whitewash facts about the significance and influence of Michael's work. https://www.talkclassical.com/70979-haydn-mozarts-symphonies-7.html#post2070321. It started to annoy me.


----------



## hammeredklavier

tdc said:


> Hammeredklavier has stated he thinks Bach is the greatest composer, yet he bashes his music.


When? Where did I? I know many instances of consuono (for example) bashing composers he says he considers the "greatest". This one is totally context-free:


consuono said:


> oom-pa-pa Alberti stuff below a tinkly treble. :devil:


(And his bashing of Tchaikovsky and modern music is well-known on this forum)


----------



## Xisten267

hammeredklavier said:


> Yes, I long ago had some arguments with *Schubert-favoring Mozart-haters* (Ja***, NL***, *Al****), what's your point? Yes, in my attempt to find who had the most influence on Mozart (in terms of liturgical works and instrumental works) through research, I have found some truths about the Haydns. https://www.talkclassical.com/54405-haydn-muscular-mozart-23.html#post2036127 in the process, I started to realize people's treatment of these two masters wasn't really fair. It's ok to like Joseph over Michael, but people go even farther to whitewash facts about the significance and influence of Michael's work. https://www.talkclassical.com/70979-haydn-mozarts-symphonies-7.html#post2070321. It started to annoy me.
> Now, can you and tdc get back to the topic (Michael vs. Joseph) instead of whining about how my views are different from yours?


If _Al***_ stands for _Allerius_, then this is an inaccurate statement, because I don't hate Mozart. Wolfgang has been for a long time in my personal top five favorite composers now, and I hear his music regularly (and with great pleasure), except when mozarteans such as a certain ham*** decide that it's _bash time_ for Beethoven, and then I prefer to hear even Ketèlbey over Wolfie.



hammeredklavier said:


> I have a vague idea what Brahms meant cause the way Beethoven uses dissonance in moments like Grave, ma non troppo of Op.135 for example is ridiculously funny .
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe Beethoven was actually struggling to overcome his deafness
> In the Grosse Fuge's bangy dotted homorhythms, he's seems to be saying "I can't hear anything! Dammit!" (Don't get me wrong, I do like the piece)
> Beethoven tried to do stuff like the beginning of Mozart K465 in the beginning of Op.59 No.3, but he didn't really achieve it. His attempts ended up being "bang! bang!", "bam! bam!"


----------



## hammeredklavier

Allerius said:


> If _Al***_ stands for _Allerius_, then this is an inaccurate statement, because I don't hate Mozart. Wolfgang has been for a long time in my personal top five favorite composers now, and I hear his music regularly (and with great pleasure), except when mozarteans such as a certain ham*** decide that it's _bash time_ for Beethoven, and then I prefer to hear even Ketèlbey over Wolfie.


No, it stands for Alleg***.
Btw, around 2018~2019, there were Beethoven enthusiasts creating anti-Mozart threads (ex. Cap****) every week. I apologize if you found me too "obnoxious" during those times.



Christabel said:


> Disagree that these two are the greatest composers in history. I would rank Beethoven there along with Bach, but not Mozart.





Christabel said:


> A harmonic cliche? Da-da, da-da; da-da-da-da-da-da on the final cadence. 5 to 1. A large number of times in some of the symphonies, the piano concertos and in the piano sonatas.
> Zzzzzz. One of the main reasons I grew monumentally bored - but not limited to that.
> OK, the operas: excellent. String quartets excellent. Gran Partita very good. Symphonies 36 to 41 very good. You can have the rest. Please God, have we have SOME dissonance!!!!!!!


----------



## jkl

Michael is increasingly popular. I mean I would imagine 100 years ago or even less when Michael's music is rarely performed compared to today. We can enjoy so much of Michael's music today which shows Classical music is getting better known.


----------



## hammeredklavier

mmsbls said:


> I think there are very few, if any, TC members who idolize J. Haydn. Yes, many of us love his music, but I haven't seen posts that demonstrate a seemingly excessive devotion to the man.


It's true there isn't anyone using cringe-worthy prose language to glorify J. Haydn (At least not in the same level people do Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, for example.). But a lot of things the J. Haydn fans say are often subtly dangerous and have far-reaching consequences, much like "propaganda";


NewEnglandComposer said:


> A lot of the sound qualities of Mozart was done first by Haydn. Haydn also invented the two most important orchestral groups of all time: the string quartet and the symphony.


All I want is; 
1. M. Haydn gets the respect he deserves for the significance and impact of his work.
2. All of M. Haydn 's work gets recorded and known.


hammeredklavier said:


> We should at least get into a habit of mentioning Michael alongside Mozart and Joseph as well. "Mozart and the Haydns".


But it's the Joseph Haydn fandom that always "gets in the way";
When I tell them there were things Michael simply _did better_ than Joseph, and he was equally admired, if not more, as Joseph for it (by Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert). They act as if I'm some kind of nuts. Just look what SanAntone, and Bulldog say in this thread; "M. Haydn fans are a minority, so their views don't matter". 


Bulldog said:


> 19 to 3; that's about what I expected from a knowledgeable group of TC members.





SanAntone said:


> The piano trios, *the baryton trios* (!), the string quartets, the keyboard sonatas, oh, and then there's the symphonies. It is no surprise that this poll is lopsided.


The "the baryton trios" part really irritated me, cause I've always thought that it's unfair baryton trios get performed/recorded even though it's so hard to find a baryton player today, whereas Michael's litanies, oratorios (except Der Kampf der Busse), operas (except Andromeda e Perseo) never get performed/recorded.
0:47







consuono said:


> I voted for Michael. Hammerdklavier convinced me.





GucciManeIsTheNewWebern said:


> Im surprised Hammerklavier hasn't jumped on this thread like white on rice :lol:





Amadea said:


> we all know why the poll was made... and for who...





Amadea said:


> He knows it's a trap :lol:





consuono said:


> Yet another reference for hammered to lay on us. :lol:





consuono said:


> Can we put you down as the vote for Michael then? :lol:
> Checking the tab, I see it wasn't you. C'mon hammered, pull that lever.


Well, people "asked for it" in the first place, in this thread (with a "mocking tone").


----------



## hammeredklavier

I tried to stay away from this thread at first, and even when I reluctantly participated


hammeredklavier said:


> Joseph was certainly a good craftsman
> (This is not to say Joseph isn't "unique". He also has his own voice in terms of rhythm, phrase-structure, monothematicism, and sudden shock effects with dynamics)


I tried to be "respectful".


----------



## RogerWaters

hammeredklavier said:


> When I tell them... Michael... was equally admired, if not more, as Joseph (by Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert).


Is this true?

asaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa


----------



## hammeredklavier

RogerWaters said:


> Is this true?


Schubert wept after his visit to Michael's grave and wrote about the experience to his (Schubert's) brother. His Deutschemesse is his homage to Michael, who pretty much started the tradition of German-text settings. As for Beethoven, there's strong evidence, later in his life, he was inspired by Michael's use of Gregorian modes. Of course Michael wasn't one of his "heroes" (Handel, Bach, Mozart), but neither was Joseph.


----------



## cybernaut

RogerWaters said:


> Is this true?
> 
> asaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa


The composer E.T.A. Hoffmann wrote: 'All connoisseurs of music know, and have known for some time, that as a composer of sacred music Michael Haydn ranks amongst the finest of any age or nations … In this field he is fully his brother's equal; in fact, by the seriousness of his concept he often surpasses him by far.'

https://trinitymusicaz.org/an-articulated-art-lenten-concert-pt-ii/


----------



## cybernaut

jkl said:


> Michael is increasingly popular. I mean I would imagine 100 years ago or even less when Michael's music is rarely performed compared to today. We can enjoy so much of Michael's music today which shows Classical music is getting better known.


yes! It is truly a blessing to be able to so easily hear great works like this!


----------



## Kreisler jr

cybernaut said:


> The composer E.T.A. Hoffmann wrote: 'All connoisseurs of music know, and have known for some time, that as a composer of sacred music Michael Haydn ranks amongst the finest of any age or nations … In this field he is fully his brother's equal; in fact, by the seriousness of his concept he often surpasses him by far.'
> 
> https://trinitymusicaz.org/an-articulated-art-lenten-concert-pt-ii/


But this was explicitly restricted to liturgical church music. (and Hoffmann had some very special ideas there, that made Joseph's less traditional church music suspect) Which became a backwater of musical history (or had already become long before). This was largely irrelevant for Beethoven or Mendelssohn or other later composers (who would compose choral music rather like romanticized Handel or Bach not à la Michael Haydn). For instrumental music, Hoffmann basically coined the "Joseph Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven" trinity.

I don't know any of Michael's church music (and am little interested, I had one disc with a piece that was announced with some publicity as a new discovery but apparently later on turned out to be very probably have been written by another composer, and I found it boring anyway) but I can easily agree that he is an underrated composer of symphonies (and probably chamber music, although I found a disc with Archibudelli so boring, that I also gave it away). However, his symphonies have been recorded (or at least most of them), so he fares still better than a host of composers of similar stature (say Richter, Rosetti, Vanhal, Kraus, although they also have been covered decently in the last 20 years, I think) 
It seems not unlikely that nowadays his famous name helps him more for getting recorded than he suffers from comparison (because almost all these incompetent musicians in the last 200 years prefer for unfathomable reason the weaker composer Joseph...)


----------



## Kreisler jr

mmsbls said:


> I think there are very few, if any, TC members who idolize J. Haydn. Yes, many of us love his music, but I haven't seen posts that demonstrate a seemingly excessive devotion to the man.


Idolizing usually has not only to do with the music but the person and J. Haydn is a pretty bad candidate. Even the few rabid fans hardly idolize him in a fashion found for Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Verdi, Wagner, Bruckner and others. Neither it's a cult following. In fact the more ardent J. Haydn fans often share hammeredklavier's chagrin about "neglect" of their favorite. Especially in former times, even up to the 1980s this was not entirely unfounded (just look at the many Haydn symphony projects that were never finished). Although hammeredklavier is admittedly the first time I have seen someone claiming that J. Haydn was compositionally weak (And I have communicated with and read many musicians commenting positively on J. Haydn). The usual complaint is that it's too much of the same similar stuff, generally boring or dated.


----------



## Amadea

I do respect hammeredklavier a lot. I'm new and I've been here for almost a month. I've had the most interesting exchanges with him, as he's knowleadgeable. If some of my words were perceived as mocking I do apologize because I intended it in a friendly way. It is true he might talk about M. Haydn a bit too much sometimes but I guess we all have that composer we are super passionate about and we can have our strong opinions. As long as there's respect and the threads do not go off topic too much, it's fine in my opinion.


----------



## Amadea

Allerius said:


> except when mozarteans such as a certain ham*** decide that it's _bash time_ for Beethoven, and then I prefer to hear even Ketèlbey over Wolfie.


No offese, but in my opinion Allerius, having seen our recent discussion on Beethoven's fugues, you seem to take little discussions on some aspects of him as attacks on his genius, which nobody really wants to bash. I think, as Beethoven is probably your hero, you take criticisim on him in a too personal way. Everyone respects Beethoven, but it is good to discuss and question some aspects. It doesn't mean we're bashing on him. We actually respect him. I actually do like the Grosse Fugue a lot too. But no composer is absolute and perfect. Not even Mozart and Beethoven.


----------



## mmsbls

hammeredklavier said:


> ... But a lot of things the J. Haydn fans say are often subtly dangerous and have far-reaching consequences, much like "propaganda";


When you say people's comments on TC can be "subtly dangerous and have far-reaching consequences", what do you think the adverse effects could be or have been?



hammeredklavier said:


> All I want is;
> 1. M. Haydn gets the respect he deserves for the significance and impact of his work.
> 2. All of M. Haydn 's work gets recorded and known.


How many composers have all their works recorded? I really don't know, but I'm wondering if it's unrealistic to think more than a few will have all their works recorded.


----------



## hammeredklavier

I mean, why create this poll when it's obvious people don't even know M. Haydn all that much. It's obviously a silly poll only meant to get a rise out of certain people, just to finger point at them; "you are a minority, you are weirdos". (I'm reminded of what Ken*** did long ago in his attempt to prove the "absolute superiority" of a certain composer's piano sonatas) And seeing the comments, it's apparently "aimed at" an "individual". Some members aren't even interested in engaging in insightful discussions, with their constant "you-are-a-minority-you-are-weirdos" attitude with constant use of laughing emoticons and mocking tones, + "unsubstantiated, weird accusations" that don't have anything to do with the thread topic. I'm a bit disappointed.


----------



## hammeredklavier

mmsbls said:


> When you say people's comments on TC can be "subtly dangerous and have far-reaching consequences", what do you think the adverse effects could be or have been?


Not just in the communities such as online forums, but also in the academia, I feel that Joseph gets a bit too much credit for his "innovations" compared to Michael, and sometimes it feels as if there's an "agenda" to unfairly promote one over the other. (It's my general impression). There is a humongous wikipedia article on Joseph's Op.20, but not a single mention of Michael's string ensemble works. Again, I talked about how Michael's string quintet in G major MH189 (1773, written 1 year before Joseph published his Op.20 in 1774) influenced Mozart:

"Btw, a lot of the exaggerated claims about Joseph Haydn being the "father of the string quartet" were originally made by Donald Francis Tovey (1875~1940). During his time, Neoclassicism, a reaction movement against the "excesses of late Romanticism", was gaining ground and the music of Joseph Haydn was being promoted more than ever before. Tovey also claimed that Beethoven's missa solemnis derives from pre-common practice music in a way that was never done in the 18th century, and I doubt how much of Michael Haydn he knew in both of these cases. Sort of like Bach, Michael was "stuck in the church", and he didn't want his music printed, so his fame died rapidly in the 19th century.
Joseph Haydn wasn't even the first guy to utilize the ensemble (consider G.C. Wagenseil) and besides, 4 instruments taking the role of SATB, playing 4 movements is the most "basic, standardized form" any Classical-era composer could have come up with or would have eventually conformed to. 
We could just as well call Mozart the "father of the clarinet quintet, clarinet trio, piano quartet".

Michael Haydn wrote his string quintet MH189 in 1773, in Salzburg - 1 year before Joseph (who was already working as a kapellmeister for the Esterhazies) published his Sun quartets (Op.20).
This impassioned passage ( 



 ) of the slow movement from Michael's MH189 seems to anticipate
Mozart's K.551 ( 



 )
Also look at;
Michael Haydn string quintet in G, MH 189 (1773) : [ 0:49 ~ 1:06 ]
Mozart string quartet in E flat, K.428 (1783) : [ 0:49 ~ 1:14 ]
Some treatment of chromaticism in the minuet ( 



 ) and phrases in the finale also remind me of Mozart.
also look at these sections from MH189 ( 



 )
and Mozart K.533 ( 



 )
Also notice the similarities in the openings of Michael's G major, MH189 and Mozart's K.387, and the finales of Michael's 23rd symphony (MH 287) and Mozart's K.387."


----------



## Amadea

hammeredklavier said:


> There is a humongous wikipedia article on Joseph's Op.20, but not a single mention of Michael's string ensemble works.


But why don't you blog your posts? They're interesting, it is not true "nobody looks at the links", people who actually want to improve their knowledge do. I assume you take time and effort to write all this, but it can easily get lost in the numerous threads. If you blogged them, it would be easier for people to read them all and have a source to look at when needed. Also, have you tried to change Wikipedia's page on Michael?


----------



## hammeredklavier

mmsbls said:


> How many composers have all their works recorded? I really don't know, but I'm wondering if it's unrealistic to think more than a few will have all their works recorded.


Good point, but when I saw that video about how Joseph's baryton trios were performed/recorded even though it's so hard to find a baryton player today, I felt; "why not spend the same amount of zeal and effort in reviving his brother's work instead?"


----------



## hammeredklavier

Amadea said:


> But why don't you blog your posts? They're interesting, it is not true "nobody looks at the links", people who actually want to improve their knowledge do. I assume you take time and effort to write all this, but it can easily get lost in the numerous threads. If you blogged them, it would be easier for people to read them all and have a source to look at when needed. Also, have you tried to change Wikipedia's page on Michael?


Some day, I might create an official blog or something if I feel I really need to, but at the moment I feel have to gather more information, and assess my judgments if they're really correct.


----------



## Amadea

hammeredklavier said:


> Some day, I might create an official blog or something if I feel I really need to, but at the moment I feel have to gather more information, and assess my judgments if they're really correct.


I meant blog them here on the site but I'm happy to know you might consider a blog in the future. If I can give you a suggestion though, I think bashing J. Haydn doesn't work and doesn't help your cause. You catch more flies with honey.


----------



## Xisten267

Amadea said:


> No offese, but in my opinion Allerius, having seen our recent discussion on Beethoven's fugues, you seem to take little discussions on some aspects of him as attacks on his genius, which nobody really wants to bash. I think, as Beethoven is probably your hero, you take criticisim on him in a too personal way. Everyone respects Beethoven, but it is good to discuss and question some aspects. It doesn't mean we're bashing on him. We actually respect him. I actually do like the Grosse Fugue a lot too. But no composer is absolute and perfect. Not even Mozart and Beethoven.


Did you read my quote on member hammeredklavier in post #74 (below of what I wrote)? He was far more agressive towards the composers he disliked some two or three years ago (I too said things I regret saying in those times, but I was always provoked first). And member _tdc_, who you also seem to support, once even expressed his desire to punch Beethoven (!). I've seem many hot debates about composers here in the past years, and I wish that we all respected the great composers, but this is certainly not the case, unfortunately. I agree that member hammeredklavier is very knowledgeable about Mozart and the Classical era overall and I also like to read his interesting insights about these when he is not attacking someone.



hammeredklavier said:


> Some day, I might create an official blog or something if I feel I really need to, but at the moment I feel have to gather more information, and assess my judgments if they're really correct.


It's possible to create blogs here at talkclassical if you wish. Members such as Trout for example have very interesting blogs around here that I recommend, and bookmarked.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Allerius said:


> I was always provoked first.


You had a subtle way of provoking though; like these instances, when you could have put it simply; "most Mozart is cookie-cutter!"
https://www.talkclassical.com/49593-better-than-brahms-i-15.html#post1831311
https://www.talkclassical.com/58678-cyclic-form-classical-works-6.html#post1820086
But I overreacted a bit, admit.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Allerius said:


> except when mozarteans such as a certain ham*** decide that it's _bash time_ for Beethoven, and then I prefer to hear even Ketèlbey over Wolfie.


btw, no one beats Tdc in number of attacks on Beethoven, on this forum.


----------



## Xisten267

hammeredklavier said:


> You had a subtle way of provoking though; like these instances, when you could have put it simply; "most Mozart is cookie-cutter!"
> https://www.talkclassical.com/49593-better-than-brahms-i-15.html#post1831311
> https://www.talkclassical.com/58678-cyclic-form-classical-works-6.html#post1820086
> But I overreacted a bit, admit.


Ironically, my view is that I was actually _praising_ Mozart in these posts you quoted. But let's not return to those old discussions, please.


----------



## Amadea

Allerius said:


> Did you read my quote on member hammeredklavier in post #74 (below of what I wrote)? He was far more agressive towards the composers he disliked some two or three years ago (I too said things I regret saying in those times, but I was always provoked first). And member _tdc_, who you also seem to support, even expressed his desire to punch Beethoven once (!). I've seem many hot debates about composers here in the past years, and I wish that we all respected the great composers, but this is certainly not the case, unfortunately.


I've been here for a month so maybe I am "too young" to fully understand the dynamics of this forum. I assumed people were careful in discussing such great composers, as I usually try to be. If I question an aspect of a composer, I never mean to say the composer is bad and doesn't deserve credit. I just do not believe in putting one or two composers on the highest pedestal, seeing them as unfallible, perfect in every aspect, the favourite composer always seen as the greatest in everything, expecially compared to others. I do not believe in that. The development of classical music has been a group work. I believe in questioning myself and many aspects of artists, maybe because of my studies in art critic. I do now understand why you reacted that way, Allerius.


----------



## Musicaterina

I like the music of both Haydns very much, and I think that the compositions of Michael Haydn are played much too rarely. I often hear some of them on youtube.


----------



## mmsbls

hammeredklavier said:


> Not just in the communities such as online forums, but also in the academia, I feel that Joseph gets a bit too much credit for his "innovations" compared to Michael, and sometimes it feels as if there's an "agenda" to unfairly promote one over the other. (It's my general impression). There is a humongous wikipedia article on Joseph's Op.20, but not a single mention of Michael's string ensemble works. Again, I talked about how Michael's string quintet in G major MH189 (1773, written 1 year before Joseph published his Op.20 in 1774) influenced Mozart:
> 
> "Btw, a lot of the exaggerated claims about Joseph Haydn being the "father of the string quartet" were originally made by Donald Francis Tovey (1875~1940). During his time, Neoclassicism, a reaction movement against the "excesses of late Romanticism", was gaining ground and the music of Joseph Haydn was being promoted more than ever before. Tovey also claimed that Beethoven's missa solemnis derives from pre-common practice music in a way that was never done in the 18th century, and I doubt how much of Michael Haydn he knew in both of these cases. Sort of like Bach, Michael was "stuck in the church", and he didn't want his music printed, so his fame died rapidly in the 19th century.
> Joseph Haydn wasn't even the first guy to utilize the ensemble (consider G.C. Wagenseil) and besides, 4 instruments taking the role of SATB, playing 4 movements is the most "basic, standardized form" any Classical-era composer could have come up with or would have eventually conformed to.
> We could just as well call Mozart the "father of the clarinet quintet, clarinet trio, piano quartet".
> 
> Michael Haydn wrote his string quintet MH189 in 1773, in Salzburg - 1 year before Joseph (who was already working as a kapellmeister for the Esterhazies) published his Sun quartets (Op.20).
> This impassioned passage (
> 
> 
> 
> ) of the slow movement from Michael's MH189 seems to anticipate
> Mozart's K.551 (
> 
> 
> 
> )
> Also look at;
> Michael Haydn string quintet in G, MH 189 (1773) : [ 0:49 ~ 1:06 ]
> Mozart string quartet in E flat, K.428 (1783) : [ 0:49 ~ 1:14 ]
> Some treatment of chromaticism in the minuet (
> 
> 
> 
> ) and phrases in the finale also remind me of Mozart.
> also look at these sections from MH189 (
> 
> 
> 
> )
> and Mozart K.533 (
> 
> 
> 
> )
> Also notice the similarities in the openings of Michael's G major, MH189 and Mozart's K.387, and the finales of Michael's 23rd symphony (MH 287) and Mozart's K.387."


First, thanks for taking everyone's comments seriously enough to respond even when it might be frustrating for you. Although I have said I prefer Joseph, I do enjoy Michael enormously. I have noticed several suggestions of yours that I will input into my large file of desired works to hear. I probably will add several more works of Michael to our growing TC list "Talk Classical Community's Favorite and Most Highly Recommend Works" for others to hear as well.

I work in academia (although in science), and I tend to think that most academics work hard to understand "competing views". I would think those with expertise in the Classical Era would be quite familiar with Michael Haydn, and if they felt Joseph was superior in some ways, they would have excellent reasons for thinking so. I, of course, don't know to what extent there might be biases or what those biases might be.


----------



## Highwayman

hammeredklavier said:


> If I wanted to only elevate Mozart, there are far better ways to do it.


I agree. I don`t think you are doing (whatever you are doing) very good.



hammeredklavier said:


> ... "unsubstantiated, weird accusations" that don't have anything to do with the thread topic.


There is a difference between speculations and accusations. You are quite a famous poster around these parts so it is only natural if some posters are speculating upon your posts. I don`t know how do you receive my tone but this is merely a game for me. And I disagree that this is strictly off-topic, because you (as a poster) are aetiologically related to the OP. I mean BWAGM created this thread because of you.

The thing is, I find it hard to believe that your excessive posting activity is based solely on whims or impulses. You are far too methodical for this. Again, I don`t have any problems whether you happen to be a devious villain trying to destroy Joseph or a selfless saint trying to spread the word of Michael.


----------



## Amadea

...I truly do not envy moderators.


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern

Amadea said:


> I do respect hammeredklavier a lot. I'm new and I've been here for almost a month. I've had the most interesting exchanges with him, as he's knowleadgeable. If some of my words were perceived as mocking I do apologize because I intended it in a friendly way. It is true he might talk about M. Haydn a bit too much sometimes but I guess we all have that composer we are super passionate about and we can have our strong opinions. As long as there's respect and the threads do not go off topic too much, it's fine in my opinion.


Yeah, my comment at the beginning of the thread was good-natured as well. Teasing, sure, but not snide.


----------



## mmsbls

hammeredklavier said:


> Good point, but when I saw that video about how Joseph's baryton trios were performed/recorded even though it's so hard to find a baryton player today, I felt; "why not spend the same amount of zeal and effort in reviving his brother's work instead?"


I checked Naxos for their Michael Haydn recordings. They have a large number including possibly all his symphonies (the early ones are not listed with number but rather Symphony in F major, etc.), 6 string quartets, 3 string quintets, 16 masses, 2 requiems, plus a large number of other works. I suspect that the recordings cover the vast majority of his compositions, but I don't know.


----------



## mmsbls

Please keep posts focused on the topic of Joseph and Michael Haydn. Do not make personal comments about others or their posting styles.


----------



## Amadea

hammeredklavier said:


> Good point, but when I saw that video about how Joseph's baryton trios were performed/recorded even though it's so hard to find a baryton player today, I felt; "why not spend the same amount of zeal and effort in reviving his brother's work instead?"


I searched "Michael Haydn opera omnia" and found this, I do not think it is complete but has a lot of stuff and a beautiful description:

https://www.brilliantclassics.com/articles/m/michael-haydn-collection/


----------



## hammeredklavier

Highwayman said:


> The thing is, I find it hard to believe that your excessive posting activity is based solely on whims or impulses. You are far too methodical for this. Again, I don`t have any problems whether you happen to be a devious villain trying to destroy Joseph or a selfless saint trying to spread the word of Michael.


All you do is to critique on my morality, ethics, and speculate on my motivations. Do you have anything to say in agreement/disagreement regarding the actual points I made regarding the actual thread topic, Joseph vs Michael?


----------



## hammeredklavier

mmsbls said:


> I checked Naxos for their Michael Haydn recordings. They have a large number including possibly all his symphonies (the early ones are not listed with number but rather Symphony in F major, etc.), 6 string quartets, 3 string quintets, 16 masses, 2 requiems, plus a large number of other works. I suspect that the recordings cover the vast majority of his compositions, but I don't know.


I still want to hear his 17 litanies, for example.


----------



## mmsbls

hammeredklavier said:


> I still want to hear his 17 litanies, for example.


I can't find any of the litanies listed on the Naxos site although some may be there by names I don't recognize.


----------



## Amadea

hammeredklavier said:


> I still want to hear his 17 litanies, for example.


Have you checked my link in my previous post?
I'll post another link I found, I didn't found the litanies but there's a good discography but probably you already know this site I guess:
https://www.michaelhaydn.com/michael-haydn/cd-aufnahmen/

Vesperae have been recorded by Naxos though. Have you cheked on discogs?


----------



## hammeredklavier

Amadea said:


> Vesperae have been recorded by Naxos though.


I know that one


hammeredklavier said:


> Vesperae for equal voices in F (1793) is another work by Michael I greatly appreciate


----------



## Amadea

Ok not everything has been recorded, the brilliant classics collection has a lot of works though!!  I guess I know what to listen to tomorrow. Do not worry, it seems he's becoming more and more popular, you'll see there will more recordings  maybe we could send a letter to brilliant classics or others, we could do like a petition or something and if there are enough people asking and buying a record could be made.


----------



## Coach G

Now listening to Michael Haydn's _Trumpet Concerto #2_ on YouTube, which is very fine.

It begs the question:

Which is your favorite RELATIVE of a great composer?

CPE Bach; son of JS Bach
JC Bach; son of JS Bach
WF Bach; son of JS Bach
Michael Haydn; brother of Joseph Haydn
Leopold Mozart; father of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart
Fanny Mendelssohn; sister of Felix Mendelssohn
Clara Schumann; wife of Robert Schumann
Johann Strauss I; father of Johann Strauss II
Eduard Strauss; brother of Johann Strauss II
Josef Strauss; brother of Johann Strauss II
Siegfried Wagner; son of Richard Wagner; and grandson of Franz Liszt
Karen Khachaturian; nephew of Aram Khachaturian


----------



## hammeredklavier

Look at the melodic charm;




 (2:57)
and the "chilliness" in the use of chromaticism, minor keys;











Eclectic Al said:


> In comparison (for example) 48 and 49 with Pinnock both get 5 stars, but 47 (Pinnock again) only gets 3. At the London end of things 104 gets 5 stars for both Szell and Karajan.
> I listened to one of Michael's that I think was mentioned earlier, 29 in D minor. I would give it about 3.5 stars on my "do I like it" scale: which tends to mean "OK but not at all striking".


Their aesthetic values are different;
Joseph is more about sudden shock effects in terms of timbre, dynamics, rhythm, etc, that "catch you off guard" - like these sections in the 104th for example; 








Not the sort of "completeness of learned logic" Michael strives for in his;


----------



## Rapide

Joseph is greater of the two. But both are great composers in every way.


----------



## Bulldog

Coach G said:


> It begs the question:
> 
> Which is your favorite RELATIVE of a great composer?
> 
> CPE Bach; son of JS Bach
> JC Bach; son of JS Bach
> WF Bach; son of JS Bach
> Michael Haydn; brother of Joseph Haydn
> Leopold Mozart; father of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart
> Fanny Mendelssohn; sister of Felix Mendelssohn
> Clara Schumann; wife of Robert Schumann
> Johann Strauss I; father of Johann Strauss II
> Eduard Strauss; brother of Johann Strauss II
> Josef Strauss; brother of Johann Strauss II
> Siegfried Wagner; son of Richard Wagner; and grandson of Franz Liszt
> Karen Khachaturian; nephew of Aram Khachaturian


It's a tie for me with CPE Bach and Michael Haydn. I'd also add Mozart's son Franz Xavier; I've only heard his piano concertos, but was impressed.


----------



## Kreisler jr

CPE Bach
Alessandro father of Domenico Scarlatti (probably for the ones closest in stature, it seems defensible to claim that Alessandro was actually the more important composer)
Josef Strauss (at least the equal of Johann in some pieces, unfortunately died young and never wrote a whole operetta, I think)
Michael Haydn
the other Bach sons (there was another composer, Joh. Chr. Friedrich and of course a bunch of uncles, cousins etc. also in the generation before JS)


----------



## ArtMusic

Mozart learned much from both the Haydn brothers, that says a lot about the caliber of the two Haydns. It certainly ran in the family! I love the Michael Haydn symphony incorrectly attributed to Mozart:


----------



## Kreisler jr

I listened to several of my Michael Haydn CDs in the last weeks. A large serenade (including some kind of concertante for trombone) (Güttler/Capriccio) and a few symphonies (Goritzki on cpo with late ones including the one with the Jupiter-style finale, Liszt chamber orchestra on Teldec (this was actually one of my first 30 CDs or so, my father probably found it in a bargain bin and gave it to me as a present), and one of the Farberman/Bournemouth series (Vox/Regis, I have one Vox twofer and two singles on Regis). I also listened to a string trio (Hob. V: Es1; it was long thought to have been composed by Joseph). The trio is so similar to Hob. V: 8 (still attributed to Joseph) that I could not make any distinction neither in style nor quality. Obviously, both are minor works.

As for the symphonies, they are sometimes better than I remembered (although I must have liked them in general, otherwise I would not have continued buying CDs with them) and it's certainly music worth of attention if one likes the classical period. Nevertheless, I don't find them particularly distinctive, usually less interesting than the average symphony by Joseph (although already quite early works by Michael, as far as I can tell from the confusing Perger numbers are quite accomplished, so there might be a few among the weakest by Joseph that I would not prefer). More than in the case of Joseph, Michael can appear a "lesser Mozart" as it is often a bit closer, less quirky, more melodic. And of course, most listeners will have encountered the grand Salzburg serenades of Mozart's before Michael


----------



## Phil loves classical

hammeredklavier said:


> Why? I don't even take TC polls seriously. The fact that people can be under "mere-exposure effect" is nowhere more evident than this issue. Cause when you get to know the works of both composers intimately, *you simply have to accept Michael is the better* melodist/harmonist/*contrapuntist*/structurist.
> Heck, some people even have biases against certain genres, such as Classical-era liturgical works, so their opinions don't count.


Late to this party.

Hammered, show me some counterpoint by M Haydn that I should accept is better than this:


----------



## hammeredklavier

Phil loves classical said:


> Late to this party.
> Hammered, show me some counterpoint by M Haydn that I should accept is better than this:


Harmony & Counterpoint : Joseph Haydn VS. Michael Haydn
https://www.talkclassical.com/20416-michael-haydn-requiem-2.html#post2086390

Again, this is the kind of stuff Joseph does in Op.20 (No.2):
















looks to me more like a 40-year old student composer. Maybe this is why he always sounds either endlessly "pompous" (in the late symphonies, or Die Schöpfung) or "chatty" (in Op.33 No.2 "Joke" or 70th symphony, for example), lacking in "depth of expressive dissonance".
So far, Fabulin, tdc, cybernaut sound to me like people who've looked at both composers in depth.



Fabulin said:


> All I can say is that the music of Joseph Haydn has never seemed strikingly intelligent to me the way Mozart's, Beethoven's, Bach's or Haendel's does. 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...
> Neither Beethoven nor Berlioz nor Tchaikovsky considered him top tier, and if all of them agree on something in music, I don't usually consider them ignorant or mad.
> Meanwhile Michael Haydn sounds like Mozart before Mozart, and it was Mozart who got better over interactions with him. At the very least it sounds more competent.
> Even without J. Haydn we would still probably see Beethoven coming into the field and doing his thing - on 25-minute symphonies, if necessary. Bach, Mozart and Haendel combined would have been enough for him to figure things out.


----------



## hammeredklavier

hammeredklavier said:


> 4:28
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ^(remember, this was written in 1773, an year before Joseph published his Op.20. Mozart wrote his K.174 in December 1773.)
> 3:00
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 6:23





hammeredklavier said:


> Btw, Michael also pioneered the Deutsche hochamt (German high mass), the tradition of German-text settings Schubert and Brahms would later follow.


Even in his youth, Joseph was a bit of a "clown", goofing around cutting off the ponytails of his fellow choristers, while his younger brother was composing and improvising fantasies and fugues on the organ by the age of 12. Later in life, Joseph realized how far behind he was and self-taught himself with Fux's book, but I guess he was getting too old and it was "too late". I think all this is reflected in their music. No wonder why Joseph was writing something this amazing at 29. While Michael was writing this at 19, and this at 25 (1762; just before moving from Großwardein to Salzburg).
But J. Haydn fans will deny this at all cost, (ie. Joseph's "clown-like qualities"), claiming that Michael was the one being "pedantic", "academic", while Joseph was not.



hammeredklavier said:


> Joseph was certainly a good craftsman, but I think there is a good reason why his name is missing from this list:
> "Mozart wrote to his father on 29 March 1783 about the musical gatherings in the apartments of Baron van Swieten: "we love to amuse ourselves with all kind of masters, ancient and modern." So music was the main object of the other of the composers Mozart and his colleagues studied in these sessions is mentioned in the Mozart correspondence by name: *Johann Ernst Eberlin, for instance, or Georg Friedrich Handel, or J.S. Bach and his sons Wilhelm Friedemann and Carl Phillip Emmanuel, or Michael Haydn.*"
> http://mrc.hanyang.ac.kr/wp-content/jspm/20/jspm_2006_20_10.pdf#page=4


----------



## Phil loves classical

hammeredklavier said:


> Harmony & Counterpoint : Joseph Haydn VS. Michael Haydn
> https://www.talkclassical.com/20416-michael-haydn-requiem-2.html#post2086390
> 
> Again, this is the kind of stuff Joseph does in Op.20 (No.2):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> looks to me more like a 40-year old student composer. Maybe this is why he always sounds either endlessly "pompous" (in the late symphonies, or Die Schöpfung) or "chatty" (in Op.33 No.2 "Joke" or 70th symphony, for example), lacking in "depth of expressive dissonance".
> So far, Fabulin, tdc, cybernaut sound to me like people who've looked at both composers in depth.


So far it sounds to me you haven't actually compared the counterpoint or harmony of both in depth, and just posting lots of clips and links and hoping something sticks. Mike Haydn's counterpoint is more contained in species (from what I've heard or seen), while the Haydn Op. 20 No. 5 is much more varied and free. I think in terms of harmony they are quite comparable, while Mozart is more bold than either. I'm still waiting for some more specific examples from you to compare head to head, but so far not at all convinced that Mike is more superior to Joseph in any tangible way.


----------



## EdwardBast

Phil loves classical said:


> So far it sounds to me you haven't actually compared the counterpoint or harmony of both in depth, and just posting lots of clips and links and hoping something sticks.


Exactly. The MO, in case you haven't noticed, is to reach a conclusion first, then choose a tiny unrepresentative sample of music that supports it in order to deprecate a composer.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Have you actually gone through the posts and listened to the examples? The way Joseph generally handles part-writing is often quite unimaginative; his way to set the text "suscipe deprecationem nostram" in the paukenmesse, for example, is no different from E. Angerer's.



hammeredklavier said:


> Michael Haydn Missa in C, sancti Hieronymi:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (13:18, 13:24, 14:34)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (5:32, 7:15)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (19:55)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Joseph Haydn late masses:





hammeredklavier said:


> I like how the mature Michael Haydn wrote a minuet in his symphonies only when he really needed to;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whereas some 60+ minuets Joseph churned out in his symphonies fail to make any impression, imv;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think this has to do with the sense and skill of harmony and counterpoint of both composers.





hammeredklavier said:


> Look at this style of dissonance in Michael's 31st symphony:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - something I never find in Joseph's


And I don't know what point you're trying to make by citing a very academic fugue; something any professional composer of the period could produce (sometimes even as exercise). 
[Here's one by Leopold Mozart: 



]
I agree that Joseph was fond of "playing notes for notes sake", it's what differentiates him from Dittersdorf. ("His (Dittersdorf's) symphonic and chamber compositions greatly emphasize sensuous Italo-Austrian melody instead of motivic development, which is often entirely lacking in his works.")



hammeredklavier said:


> The J. Haydn symphony is surely not one of his best. (Right?) The inane triadic theme repeated ad-nauseam in the development of the 1st movement strikes me as rather naïve and inflexible. Perhaps it reflects his tendency to "drag things out" with static harmonies (often just slowly circling fifths).
> And to think that he wrote the symphony at age 45... No wonder why he wrote the Seven last words of Christ the way he did.


But when it comes to using dissonance expressively and imaginatively, he's obviously not at Michael's level. (I agree with Tdc's view that Joseph's style is easier to copy, for this reason). Counterpoint and harmony came far more naturally for Michael.

If you ask me, Joseph is good for this sort of stuff-
60th/i: 



83rd/ii: 



The problem is there's way too much of it (the style of sound) in the symphonies (which are themselves way too many), it gets tiring easily imv.



hammeredklavier said:


> It seems that for J. Haydn, things didn't come "naturally". I occasionally get an impression that he's trying way too hard. Look this, for example:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ( 6:32 ~ 7:45 )
> This is way too much. The guy apparently has found something good for a melody. He clings to it with all his might, trying to arouse emotion in the listener with it. Way too artificial (almost sickening, imv).
> 
> 
> 
> And the awkward transition to the concluding fugue, which is in itself "generic" (compare it with the dissonant strettos of the one from Mozart's K.262) - In my view, these passages from the J. Haydn are "fillers". Honestly, I can't believe a composer of his renown (and at his level of maturity at the time) wrote this stuff. A sad excuse by his own brother's standards. It's no wonder to me why Joseph himself admitted he wasn't as good as his own brother in this area, and we now know Schubert admired Michael far more for this.
> Frankly, if the Nelson mass was written by F.X. Brixi, nobody today would have known it.
Click to expand...


----------



## hammeredklavier

Phil loves classical said:


> the Haydn Op. 20 No. 5 is much more varied and free.


Where do we find this sort of sound in Joseph Haydn?:



hammeredklavier said:


> The way to set the text "Lacrimosa dies illa" for psychological effect in the final minutes of the Dies irae (11:40~13:40); I believe this even goes beyond his contemporary Gluck's achievements in operatic music. Also look at sections like: 12:41 , 14:01 , 16:55, etc.
> 
> 4:28 (written in 1773) , 3:00 , 1:24 , 1:17 (written in 1772) , 5:49 (written in 1768)


I can agree that the opening of Die Schöpfung is one of Joseph's best symphonic intros though. The guy surely knows how to BANG!










Look at Michael's use of the woodwinds, which naturally imitates the human voice [0:34~0:38] (whereas Joseph throws them for "rustic effects"), and
use of dissonances in the strings [2:03~2:19] and strettos to build tension [2:52~3:17], for example:


----------



## hammeredklavier

6:23


----------



## Phil loves classical

hammeredklavier said:


> Quote Originally Posted by hammeredklavier View Post
> Look at this style of dissonance in Michael's 31st symphony:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - something I never find in Joseph's
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> use of dissonances in the strings [2:03~2:19] and strettos to build tension [2:52~3:17], for example:


When you refer to dissonances in those instances above, I hear only embellishing tones that could in any way fit that description. Those are the most common devices in music, which every composer used. And you say it's something you never find in Joe Haydn's music? C'mon man, your arguments are full of fallacies. All I gathered is you like Mike's sound or his decisions over Joe's, nothing wrong with that. But you haven't been able to come up with any semblance of proof of his superiority in any way.


----------



## hammeredklavier

I've found that listening to a lot of J. Haydn orchestral music makes me feel slightly "sick". There's a "dosage limit"; 2 Paris/London symphonies, or 1 late mass at a time. I think he lacks "modesty" in certain ways. The difference between the two brothers is kind of like that of Liszt vs. Brahms; one may seem more innovative and flamboyant on the surface, but the other has more "substance". This sort of sound always comes to my mind when I think of J. Haydn's music:



hammeredklavier said:


> If you ask me, Joseph is good for this sort of stuff-
> 60th/i:
> 
> 
> 
> 83rd/ii:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is there's way too much of it (the style of sound) in the symphonies (which are themselves way too many), it gets tiring easily imv.


M. Haydn
40th/ii: 



27th/ii: 







31th/ii: 



 (8:57, 10:13)
26th/ii: 







22th/ii: 



, (Mozart copied out the fugal finale of this symphony (K.291))
23th/ii: 



etc..

Missa sancti Nicolai Tolentini (1772)
-Qui tollis: 



-Et incarnatus est: 



Missa sancti Aloysii (1777)
-Gloria: 



-Credo: 



Missa sancti Joannis Nepomuceni (1772)
-Gloria: 



-Credo: 








(1773)

I agree with Tdc regarding J. Haydn:


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.






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


----------



## Phil loves classical

^ I do think Mike did have a unique sound in first part of the Requiem, that Mozart sort of copied in his. But I feel he surpassed Mike in every way. I don't think he is able to sustain interest as well as Mozart or his bigger bro. I think modesty is not a virtue that can be appreciated in music. You either have the talent that is self-evident or you dress up your lack of talent as modesty. When some piece of music is profound in a less obvious or predictable way, it's still not being modest, maybe even less so way I see it.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Phil loves classical said:


> ^ I do think Mike did have a unique sound in first part of the Requiem, that Mozart sort of copied in his.


Not just the beginning. 



 (Consider the Agnus dei of Mozart K.257 and K.258).
The Dies irae is remarkable for its new "Classical" expressions (expressing both light and darkness within the form with coherent flow), written just 2 decades after Bach's death.

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):











Phil loves classical said:


> I don't think he is able to sustain interest as well as Mozart or his bigger bro. I think modesty is not a virtue that can be appreciated in music. You either have the talent that is self-evident or you dress up your lack of talent as modesty. When some piece of music is profound in a less obvious or predictable way, it's still not being modest, maybe even less so way I see it.


Tell me what's so unpredictably interesting about:

45th/i: 



60th/i: 



85th/i: 




85th/ii: 



with 100th/ii: 




44th/iv: 



60th/iv: 




60th/i: 



83rd/ii: 




Where does Joseph express feelings such as "sorrow" for example? Op.54 No.2/ii? 
Remember that Joseph was "respected", but not really "admired" through history. Berlioz, Schumann, Hanslick, etc all criticized him for his "inability to express".

"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. . . .)""


----------



## Bulldog

hammeredklavier said:


> I've found that listening to a lot of J. Haydn orchestral music makes me feel slightly "sick".


I had a good laugh with the above comment.

The solution to your sick problem is to stop punishing yourself and listen to some Schubert.


----------



## Phil loves classical

^ I don't find Haydn particularly profound, that was just a general comment. But on his ability to express, he expressed what he wanted, as in joy, tenderness, majesty. He also expressed what no other composer could match (including Mozart) in my book: charm. For me, once I have Mozart and Joe Haydn, I don't need Michael.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Btw, I'm even inclined to think no other single work had greater influence on Mozart (also look at the 'Quam olim Abrahae'):



hammeredklavier said:


> This work was written in 1771. I think belongs more in the 1770s in style; the Gregorian melody of the opening movement ("Te decet") quotes J.A. Hasse's Requiem in C, which was written 8 years earlier. The arias also have a certain "Hassean" post-Baroque quality about them. An exceptional work for its time, but Mozart's by comparison sounds more "contemporary" to the late Classical period, like Die Zauberflote, for example.
> 
> I always think that Michael's influence on Mozart (his younger colleague and friend), Weber (his pupil), Schubert (his admirer) is more important and significant than his brother Joseph's (whose influence on Mozart did not go beyond some rhythmically rustic expressions in string ensemble music.) in terms of dramatic/expressive chromaticism.
> 4:28 (written in 1773) , 3:00 , 1:37 , 1:24 , 1:17 (written in 1772) , 5:49 (written in 1768)
> {Never found Joseph's use of chromaticism really "striking" tbh btw; seems to be just "playing around notes for notes' sake" on the "surface" level: 23:55 , 12:20. It might be why his music can sometimes be seen as "narrow" in terms of emotional scope. I'm even inclined to think his Op.20 should classify as "divertimentos", but this is a topic for another thread.}
> 
> The way to set the text "Lacrimosa dies illa" for psychological effect in the final minutes of the Dies irae (11:40~13:40); I believe this even goes beyond his contemporary Gluck's achievements in operatic music. Also look at sections like: 12:41 , 14:01 , 16:55, etc.
> 
> "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."
> 
> The Michael Haydn requiem also influenced works of Mozart Mozart himself actually considered important such as K.339/iv (from the vespers, which Mozart himself held in high regard) and K.426 (which Mozart later transcribed for strings and added an introductory adagio, and would profoundly affect Beethoven). For instance, K.339/iv (with its subject) is unmistakably reminiscent of the Cum sanctis tuis from the Michael Haydn requiem. Both K.339/iv and K.426 deal with this motivic expression, found in the Michael Haydn:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K.426, I believe, just takes the chromatic expressivity to the maximum. (There are other works such as K.194, K.243, K.257, etc where Mozart takes ideas from the Michael Haydn requiem, but I'll just focus on K.339, K.426 in this post)
> 
> Btw, this is how I see the formal layout:
> *Requiem in C Minor, MH 155 (1771)*
> "trumpet signal" & requiem 1st theme: [ 0:20 ]
> requiem 2nd theme: [ 3:20 ~ 3:45 ]
> lacrimosa theme: [ 11:40 ~ 11:48 ]
> chromatic fourth theme (climbing from D to G in the bassline): [ 12:40 ~ 12:50 ]
> hosanna theme (lacrimosa theme transformed/recapitulated): [ 24:21 ~ 24:29 ]
> "trumpet signal": [ 26:48 , 27:56 ]
> chromatic fourth theme recapitulated (climbing from G to C in the soprano solo): [ 28:40 ~ 28:50 ]
> cum sanctis tuis fugue: [ 29:17 ~ 31:16 ]
> requiem 2nd theme recapitulated: [ 31:22 ~ 31:50 ]
> requiem 1st theme recapitulated: [ 31:58 ~ 32:30 ]
> cum sanctis tuis fugue recapitulated: [ 32:38 ~ 34:30 ]


----------



## hammeredklavier

Phil loves classical said:


> ^ I don't find Haydn particularly profound, that was just a general comment. But on his ability to express, he expressed what he wanted, as in joy, tenderness, majesty. He also expressed what no other composer could match (including Mozart) in my book: charm. For me, once I have Mozart and Joe Haydn, I don't need Michael.


Of course, we all know Joseph is more popular and people are more familiar with his music (due to the widespread slogan "Haydn and Mozart"), it's your job to prove/explain to me though you're not under "mere-exposure effect".


----------



## Bulldog

hammeredklavier said:


> Of course, we all know Joseph is more popular and people are more familiar with his music (due to the widespread slogan "Haydn and Mozart"), it's your job to prove/explain to me though you're not under "mere-exposure effect".


It isn't anyone's job to explain anything to you.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Phil loves classical said:


> For me, once I have Mozart and Joe Haydn, I don't need Michael.


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) 



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.
There is a really good example I have in mind but I can't remember which mass it was.







hammeredklavier said:


> 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

Another thing I find "natural" and "spontaneous" about Michael is the use of expressions like this:
22nd/i: 



 (5:21)

Joseph on the other hand sounds more "articifial", he has to artificially go into that "rustic mode", and doesn't seem to occur as "spontaneously":
95th/i: 



83th/i: 




Only Michael could "achieve" this sense of "serenity" and "innocent piety":


----------



## hammeredklavier




----------



## hammeredklavier

Bulldog said:


> The solution to your sick problem is to stop punishing yourself and listen to some Schubert.


----------



## Phil loves classical

hammeredklavier said:


> Of course, we all know Joseph is more popular and people are more familiar with his music (due to the widespread slogan "Haydn and Mozart"), *it's your job to prove/explain to me though you're not under "mere-exposure effect"*.


You're entitled to your view; not gonna do that, hehe. I can accept neither Haydn as superior to the other, and just prefer Joseph. I don't mind being proved to be ignorant, if you just show me what you consider is M's best counterpoint (and just one instance, even though counterpoint isn't everything). I respect you enough to give it a good go.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Phil loves classical said:


> You're entitled to your view; not gonna do that, hehe. I can accept neither Haydn as superior to the other, and just prefer Joseph. I don't mind being proved to be ignorant, if you just show me what you consider is M's best counterpoint (and just one instance, even though counterpoint isn't everything). I respect you enough to give it a good go.


There are many good ones, I can't really decide. 
But do listen to the fugal finale I posted in [#139], and the divertimento I posted in [#127]

Missa brevis in D minor, tempore Quadragesima - Corale 




the concluding fugue (Cum sancto spiritu, @ 8:24) of this; I like the harmonies at 8:54:







hammeredklavier said:


> *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:


> Missa sancti Nicolai Tolentini (1772)
> -Qui tollis:
> 
> 
> 
> -Et incarnatus est:


----------



## Phil loves classical

^ I think the fugal part of MH 546 clearly has more development over the one in the Symphony 28 finale. I don't think the divertimento and missa brevis part you pinned is really that contrapuntal. Not a fair comparison since it's a different genre, but I believe strongly that Joe's fugal part in his Op. 20 No. 5 has more development and variety (and harmonic movement) than the MH 546 finale. So I still can't see his younger bro being superior to him.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Phil loves classical said:


> ^ I think the fugal part of MH 546 clearly has more development over the one in the Symphony 28 finale. I don't think the divertimento and missa brevis part you pinned is really that contrapuntal. Not a fair comparison since it's a different genre, but I believe strongly that Joe's fugal part in his Op. 20 No. 5 has more development and variety (and harmonic movement) than the MH 546 finale. So I still can't see his younger bro being superior to him.


5:07~10:07




^Michael also wrote longer fugues (even longer ones than Joseph's) with various devices when his employer allowed him to. The sort of academic fugue-writing of J. Haydn Op.20 No.5/iv (which even utilitzes a Handelian subject) was nothing new. Something Bach had already demonstrated in the WTC and AOTF way more skillfully a tone of times.

Stuff like this was something new. Notice how the parts in 9:10 and 11:40 (of Dies irae, a single movement) are starkly different in "feelings":





I've already said Joseph Haydn "plays with notes for notes' sake" and that's what differentiates him from Dittersdorf. ("His (Dittersdorf's) symphonic and chamber compositions greatly emphasize sensuous Italo-Austrian melody instead of motivic development, which is often entirely lacking in his works.")
I still agree with Fabulin, Tdc that Michael utilizes contrapuntal dissonance with way more sense and skill than Joseph.

The development of Michael's 33rd/i is way more contrapuntally interesting than anything by Joseph, 




"""














The J. Haydn symphony is surely not one of his best. (Right?) The inane triadic theme repeated ad-nauseam in the development of the 1st movement strikes me as rather naïve and inflexible. Perhaps it reflects his tendency to "drag things out" with static harmonies (often just slowly circling fifths).
And to think that he wrote the symphony at age 45... No wonder why he wrote the Seven last words of Christ the way he did.

Btw, I'm reminded of
Bernstein: "Once again, we're back to our principal theme. But what a drag it's been to get there. So much academicism, so many unnecessary schoolboy repeats. Such a lack of deletion. That's really a piece by a bad composer. It's just stalling for time. The way people do while they're trying to think of an answer to a question."





"""

Joseph's developments tend to feel rather "dragged-out" due to his weaknesses in these areas. Michael Haydn's 28th/iii is way more interesting due to its integration of counterpoint into the sonata-form; something that actually anticipates Mozart K.551/iv.

2:19 








I know your "favorite way" to compare Joseph with other 18th century composers to the latters' disadvantage is to talk of their "developments", but maybe you're the one overrating Joseph's prowess in them every time.

This is really a sad excuse for a string quartet:
















and the 40-year old Joseph Haydn actually penned it (Op.20). Just look at all those "schoolboy repeats" going up rather inanely in scale-degree diatonically. (WOW!) That's the sort of composer he was in his 40s. Let's not exaggerate his abilities.



hammeredklavier said:


> Even in his youth, Joseph was a bit of a "clown", goofing around cutting off the ponytails of his fellow choristers, while his younger brother was composing and improvising fantasies and fugues on the organ by the age of 12. Later in life, Joseph realized how far behind he was and self-taught himself with Fux's book, but I guess he was getting too old and it was "too late". I think all this is reflected in their music. No wonder why Joseph was writing something this amazing at 29. While Michael was writing this at 19, and this at 25 (1762; just before moving from Großwardein to Salzburg).


----------



## hammeredklavier

And btw, Michael is also superior to Joseph in terms of variety of form in this area:



hammeredklavier said:


> when it comes to the "cyclic form" or whatever, he's more interesting than his brother's.
> 
> *symphony No.33 in B flat (1786)*
> 
> I. Vivace:
> 
> 
> 
> II. Adagietto cantabile:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I. Vivace:
> 
> 
> 
> IV. Presto ma non troppo:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----
> 
> I also speculate that some prototypical ideas for building a "traverse from darkness to light" were passed from Michael (symphony No.29 in D minor , 1784) [1] on through Mozart (K.466) [2], eventually to Beethoven.
> 
> *symphony No.29 in D minor (1784)* - 0:01 , 12:55 , 16:22
> 
> [1]: "The third movement is a rondeau, Presto scherzante. Horns are in F, trumpets in D. The A theme could be seen as a metamorphosis of the first subject of the first movement." -wikipedia
> [2]: "The entry of the piano here, a new material, but interestingly, it's exactly the same chord structure as that first entry in the first movement. A wonderful sense of Mozart referring back to what we remember, having heard before." -Charles Hazlewood
> 
> -----
> 
> *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:


> Btw, this is how I see the formal layout:
> *Requiem in C Minor, MH 155 (1771)*
> "trumpet signal" & requiem 1st theme: [ 0:20 ]
> requiem 2nd theme: [ 3:20 ~ 3:45 ]
> lacrimosa theme: [ 11:40 ~ 11:48 ]
> chromatic fourth theme (climbing from D to G in the bassline): [ 12:40 ~ 12:50 ]
> hosanna theme (lacrimosa theme transformed/recapitulated): [ 24:21 ~ 24:29 ]
> "trumpet signal": [ 26:48 , 27:56 ]
> chromatic fourth theme recapitulated (climbing from G to C in the soprano solo): [ 28:40 ~ 28:50 ]
> cum sanctis tuis fugue: [ 29:17 ~ 31:16 ]
> requiem 2nd theme recapitulated: [ 31:22 ~ 31:50 ]
> requiem 1st theme recapitulated: [ 31:58 ~ 32:30 ]
> cum sanctis tuis fugue recapitulated: [ 32:38 ~ 34:30 ]





hammeredklavier said:


> 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).


Also, listen to bits of

1:11 







0:58


----------



## hammeredklavier

Btw, why do you find early Classical period string quartets ending with generic academic fugues so impressive? The truth is the composers did it just cause they couldn't think of a better way to distribute "weight" to the end. This is why they mostly did the sort of thing in their "juvenilia", and moved away from that once they had better sense in handling form. I even think Mozart's D minor, K.173/iv (1773) is more interesting for its use of dissonance and chromaticism than J. Haydn Op.20 No.5/ii (published in 1774), which just sounds plain, chatty and academic.


----------



## Phil loves classical

hammeredklavier said:


> The sort of academic fugue-writing of J. Haydn Op.20 No.5/iv (which even utilitzes a Handelian subject) was nothing new. Something Bach had already demonstrated in the WTC and AOTF way more skillfully a tone of times.
> 
> Stuff like this was something new. Notice how the parts in 9:10 and 11:40 (of Dies irae, a single movement) are starkly different in "feelings":
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> And I still agree with Fabulin, Tdc. Michael utilizes contrapuntal dissonance with way more sense and skill than Joseph.
> 
> The development of Michael's 33rd/i is way more contrapuntally interesting than anything by Joseph,
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> Let's not exaggerate.


Just picking out certain arguments. What is so new in those passages by M in the Requiem? I don't see anything in terms of form, or even in the contrast of mood, especially when one comes over 2 minutes later.

How is the counterpoint you referring to in that part of Symphony 33 that interesting? It utilizes lots of chords tones, and some short runs of scales together, basically a chord progression in development, the tie to the next part is nicely done, but is not unique or that remarkable.

I feel you're the one exaggerating here. I see your argument as basically: What M does here is great, J can't compare. And this thing by J is just academic, or otherwise banal.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Phil loves classical said:


> I believe strongly that Joe's fugal part in his Op. 20 No. 5 has more development and variety (and harmonic movement) than the MH 546 finale. So I still can't see his younger bro being superior to him.


Come on, are you really impressed by stuff this juvenile?
















You think these are really "impressive use of strettos"?

Fabulin and Tdc are completely right in their assessment of Joseph Haydn.







hammeredklavier said:


> Michael Haydn Missa in C, sancti Hieronymi:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (13:18, 13:24, 14:34)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (5:32, 7:15)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (19:55)





Fabulin said:


> All I can say is that the music of Joseph Haydn has never seemed strikingly intelligent to me the way Mozart's, Beethoven's, Bach's or Haendel's does. 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...
> Neither Beethoven nor Berlioz nor Tchaikovsky considered him top tier, and if all of them agree on something in music, I don't usually consider them ignorant or mad.
> Meanwhile Michael Haydn sounds like Mozart before Mozart, and it was Mozart who got better over interactions with him. At the very least it sounds more competent.


----------



## Phil loves classical

^

HAL : Dave, this conversation can serve no purpose anymore. Goodbye.


----------



## Bulldog

With Phil riding off into the sunset, this is a good time to look at the numbers:

Joseph - 45
Mike - 5

So even with a particular member flooding the screen with constant anti-Joseph postings and embedded videos galore, it's significant to keep in mind that nobody's being fooled by the outlier rantings. Little Mike remains little appreciated.


----------



## Eclectic Al

Apparently there was an even younger brother, Johann Evangelist Haydn. I don't think he composed anything, but I am confident that if he had then his achievements would have dwarfed those of the great Michael, let alone the inferior Joseph.


----------



## EdwardBast

hammeredklavier said:


> Btw, why do you find early Classical period string quartets ending with generic academic fugues so impressive? The truth is the composers did it just cause they couldn't think of a better way to distribute "weight" to the end. *This is why they mostly did the sort of thing in their "juvenilia", and moved away from that once they had better sense in handling form.*


Yeah, just like Beethoven did - Oh wait, there is the finale of Op. 59#3. And the finales of the Sonatas Op. 106 and 110. And I seem to remember he wrote a really big fugue as the finale of one of his late quartets - I forget what that was called.


----------



## Torkelburger

hammeredklavier said:


> This is really a sad excuse for a string quartet:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and the 40-year old Joseph Haydn actually penned it (Op.20). Just look at all those "schoolboy repeats" going up rather inanely in scale-degree diatonically. (WOW!) That's the sort of composer he was in his 40s. Let's not exaggerate his abilities.


There is absolutely nothing wrong whatsoever with that passage. I have no idea why you keep harping on it and bringing it up incessantly. You are just nit-picking unnecessarily and over-exaggerating its characteristics in order to support a weak claim. The excerpt is obviously a transition between other, more important material, which serves to transition from the tonic C Major to the Dominant G Major by way of the circle of fifths in just a handful of bars (17)--a very tiny percentage of a larger piece (obviously well over 150 bars).

Transitions, even as they were used in loosely-defined Sonata Form in the Classical Period, did not usually contain thematic material (this isn't Mahler), and was usual and customary to use sequences, scales, or patterns of some sort. The diatonic scale-degree repeating works fine in the circle of fifths context. What is actually novel about the passage, and the quartet in general, is the significance of the equality of parts.

You're the one exaggerating his "inabilities". It looks foolish, IMO.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Bulldog said:


> So even with a particular member flooding the screen with constant anti-Joseph postings and embedded videos galore, it's significant to keep in mind that nobody's being fooled by the outlier rantings. Little Mike remains little appreciated.


Again, mere-exposure effect.


----------



## Kreisler jr

I don't find academic fugues a great solution; while they are an interesting alternative I am not surprised that Haydn only once again used a final fugue in 50#4. My favorite finale in op.20 is the folksy presto of #4. Although it is maybe the most conservative I think the final fugue works best in the fminor fitting the overall serious character.


----------



## Bulldog

hammeredklavier said:


> Again, mere-exposure effect.


There you go again, insulting the other members of TC just because you have an obsession with Haydn.


----------



## hammeredklavier

^something for us to think about: 


hammeredklavier said:


> Yes, there are "over-popular" composers in classical music today. What's your point? I totally agree with "Classical music concert scheduling is a copycat industry -- when something becomes popular everyone does it." (Larold), and sometimes their over-popularity even twists and distorts our view of history in a way that's unfair for lesser-known composers.
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think something like this is an example of music written by an 18th-century composer whose "musical thinking" doesn't work or flow imaginatively due to his prowess in harmony and counterpoint. And _"It's because he's not academic or pedantic!"_ seems a bit like a sad excuse to glorify mediocrity.
> ...
> 
> I don't want to hear the "Nobody cares... Nobody thinks... " argument anymore. It just sounds like _"Since nobody can see that the emperor is naked, he's not naked!"_
> ...
> 
> If pointing out or suggesting that -"Joseph Haydn is "pompously happy" all the time and this may be the reason why other composers were admired/respected just as much, if not more (by someone like Mozart), and people today are simply used or accustomed to that "pompously happy" sound because they're "brainwashed or misguided" into thinking _"that's just how a Classical period composer is supposed to sound"_" -counts as an "offense" for some people,
> maybe they should question themselves if they're indulging in the idolatry of Joseph Haydn.


----------



## Bulldog

You were way off the mark when you originally made the above comments. Throwing them at us again doesn't change anything.


----------



## Kreisler jr

"Pompously happy" is a BS characterization that is (oxy)moronic so it does not mean anything, just forget about it.
How would you explain that Joseph Haydn was an extremely successful composer during his lifetime _according_ to the standards (melody, expression, harmony, counterpoint) of contemporaries if he was nothing special because if he is not as good as Michael who had decent success but nothing _remotely_ comparable to Joseph, the latter must have been merely an average composer and it is a mystery why he was the most famous composer of instrumental music in Europe between the 1770s and 1800s who got an invitation to London (and was extremely successful there) and whatnot. (And who also has far more pieces under his name that he didn't write because his name sold so well - why are there not dozens of fake Michael Haydn quartets and symphonies?)

The explanation cannot have anything to do with early 20th century critics like Tovey (who was also a decent composer and should be able to spot "student mistakes", poor counterpoint etc. at least as well as hammeredklavier, in fact Tovey can be mildly condescending towards nowadays famous composers like Bruckner and Schumann for their supposed technical faults but never is towards Haydn) or early 21st century listener who are just used to Joseph Haydn (not as much as they are used to Mozart, I'd wager).

We are asked to believe that the whole musical establishment of the late 18h and early 19th century (NB the very same musical world Mozart and M. Haydn and Beethoven and all their contemporaries lived and had careers in) was fooled by Haydn's bassoon jokes. They should have invited Michael to write symphonies for Paris and London. Or maybe Myslivecek. How could Beethoven go to the trouble copying out a "student piece" like op.20#1 (maybe the most modest of op.20), instead of some sublime litany by the great Eberlin...? What does a Bonn hillbilly know, he should stick to banging on the piano.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Kreisler jr said:


> "Pompously happy" is a BS characterization that is (oxy)moronic so it does not mean anything, just forget about it.


A lot of things in music are hard to describe in words, so I'm using "vague terms", just like other people. But I've given more than enough examples to explain my points already, so I'm sure everyone will understand by now, without the need to be "picky" about the "semantics".
We all know the "feel" we get from his music; I'm not quite sure if "pompously happy" is the right term, but I can't think of a better one:

"If you ask me, Joseph is good for this sort of stuff-
60th/i: 



83rd/ii: 



The problem is there's way too much of it (the style of sound) in the symphonies (which are themselves way too many), it gets tiring easily imv." 
-hammeredklavier {Post #125}

" 



At around 4:44, I'm yelling in my mind:
"Joe, stop BANGING and write some expressive harmony for goodness' sake!"" 
-hammeredklavier {Post #129}



Kreisler jr said:


> How would you explain that Joseph Haydn was an extremely successful composer during his lifetime _according_ to the standards (melody, expression, harmony, counterpoint) of contemporaries if he was nothing special because if he is not as good as Michael who had decent success but nothing _remotely_ comparable to Joseph, the latter must have been merely an average composer and it is a mystery why he was the most famous composer of instrumental music in Europe between the 1770s and 1800s who got an invitation to London (and was extremely successful there) and whatnot. (And who also has far more pieces under his name that he didn't write because his name sold so well - why are there not dozens of fake Michael Haydn quartets and symphonies?)


We talked about this plenty of times in other threads already:

"It's interesting to note though, all the "testimonies" about the supposed "innovation" of Joseph Haydn come from the 20th century as "second-hand" (such as those of Donald Francis Tovey and H. C. Robbins Landon), and NOT from the 18th century, the actual period when the supposed "innovation" was taking place."
-hammeredklavier {Thread <Haydn's true place in music history - once lost, now regained>, Post #37}

"There were composers, who, throughout their lives, were stuck in remote areas of Europe (or the church), away from the musical capitals, and didn't want their music published or printed (didn't care whether the posterity would remember them). Their work would have had less chance of being distributed widely, and, so over time, they would be at a disadvantage in terms of reputation and fame." 
-hammeredklavier {Thread <How Do Important Composers Get Flatlined>, Post #30}

"There was no such thing as the "Trinity" back then (It's only an "illusion" we created in our minds today) - Only the "Viennese Classicists" or the "Viennese School"." 
-hammeredklavier {Thread <Haydn's true place in music history - once lost, now regained>, Post #39}

"On what grounds are you suggesting these composers found J. Haydn more inspiring and admirable than Hummel?" 
-hammeredklavier {Thread <Haydn's true place in music history - once lost, now regained>, Post #41}

And still, important people at the time also recognized Michael's merits; the royal court of Spain commissioned a mass from him (Missa hispanica MH 422; although I don't think of this particular work as one of Michael's masterpieces) and it's possible even Beethoven did recognize Michael's merits. Schubert paid him homage by writing the Deutchemesse.

"Gregorian melodies, of course, continued to be used in the Mass throughout the eighteenth century; but by Beethoven's time they were relatively rare, especially in orchestral Masses. The one composer who still used them extensively is Michael Haydn, in his a cappella Masses for Advent and Lent. It is significant that in some of these he limits the borrowed melody to the Incarnatus and expressly labels it "Corale." In the Missa dolorum B. M. V. (1762) it is set in the style of a harmonized chorale, in the Missa tempore Qudragesima of 1794 note against note, with the Gregorian melody (Credo IV of the Liber Usualis) appearing in the soprano. I have little doubt that Beethoven knew such works of Michael Haydn, at that time the most popular composer of sacred music in Austria. ...
From his notes and sketches it is evident that he regarded the "Gregorian" modes primarily as a means of religious expression. In 1809 he wrote: "In the old church modes the devotion is divine, I exclaimed, and God let me express it someday." And in 1818, when he first thought of writing a choral symphony: "A pious song in a symphony, in the old modes, Lord God we praise Thee-alleluja.""
< Beethoven | Michael Spitzer | P.123~124 >

And I think this article by David Wyn Jones pretty much answers your question as well:

"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."

Did Michael Haydn's musical style influence Mozart's and how?

"This might seem a rather uninspiring thing to say but Michael Haydn's music has a thorough competence of technique as well a real sense of theatre (in the broadest sense) that is reflected in Mozart's music. One of the many unfortunate legacies of nineteenth-century biographical writing is the excessive focus on the Wunderkind Mozart and the Incomparable Genius Mozart. In Salzburg, if not throughout his life, Mozart was writing in a lingua franca and many of the features of that language are to be found in Michael Haydn too. That Mozart recognized Michael Haydn's mastery is suggested by a letter he sent to his father from Vienna, asking for the latest symphonies of Michael, so that he could perform them in that city."



Kreisler jr said:


> The explanation cannot have anything to do with early 20th century critics like Tovey (who was also a decent composer and should be able to spot "student mistakes", poor counterpoint etc. at least as well as hammeredklavier, in fact Tovey can be mildly condescending towards nowadays famous composers like Bruckner and Schumann for their supposed technical faults but never is towards Haydn) or early 21st century listener who are just used to Joseph Haydn (not as much as they are used to Mozart, I'd wager).


During that early-20th century Neoclassical period, only Mozart and Joseph Haydn were "known" and being "revived" at the time as far as 18th century Austro-German Classicism was concerned. Even though Joseph had all the elements that can be seen as "faults", (lack of harmonic subtleties and frequent reliance on banging), there was no real "frame of reference" to compare him to. 
So "lies" like these could "fool" everyone since then:

"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."
But now that we know more about the period (due to the continued revival); these "lies" don't seem so convincing anymore.

The stuff in Joseph Haydn I pointed out in my previous posts isn't really "student mistakes"; they're just his "musical tendencies and style" (developed throughout his career).
Even though the fact that Joseph is about "colorless bangings and chattiness" rather than harmonic subtleties is something we cannot ignore - rather than explaining why his "colorless bangings and chattiness" are superior to harmonic subtitles, Joseph Haydn fans keep repeating _"So what? We can't see that the emperor is naked, so he's not naked!"_; it just seems a bit like "idolatry" to me.

I don't think "popularity" tells us much; maybe Joseph was too "superficially pleasing" and he is even to today's audience; maybe he was the 18th century Liszt, lacking "depth and subtleties of craftsmanship" or "range of expression" (*I'm not saying that he is; I'm just speculating*).



Kreisler jr said:


> We are asked to believe that the whole musical establishment of the late 18h and early 19th century (NB the very same musical world Mozart and M. Haydn and Beethoven and all their contemporaries lived and had careers in) was fooled by Haydn's bassoon jokes. They should have invited Michael to write symphonies for Paris and London. Or maybe Myslivecek. How could Beethoven go to the trouble copying out a "student piece" like op.20#1 (maybe the most modest of op.20), instead of some sublime litany by the great Eberlin...? What does a Bonn hillbilly know, he should stick to banging on the piano.


J. Haydn was both Beethoven's teacher and Mozart's friend and was at some point arbitrarily chosen to be a member of the "Viennese school". (I think this helped Joseph to achieve his popularity today. Michael was Weber's teacher, but Weber is nowhere as renowned as Beethoven.).

"I think people in the 19th/20th centuries would have thought like; "So, in the Classical period, we have Mozart and Beethoven. Who else do we have? I guess we should just include another "Viennese master", J. Haydn into the group cause he was super-prolific and popular." <- I think J. Haydn had been "chosen rather arbitrarily" by them in this manner." 
-hammeredklavier {Thread <Haydn's true place in music history - once lost, now regained>, Post #42}


----------



## hammeredklavier

Torkelburger said:


> What is actually novel about the passage, and the quartet in general, is the significance of the equality of parts.







This quintet by Michael (1773, Salzburg) predates the publication of Joseph's Op.20 (1774) and seems to have had way more influence on Mozart. People have claimed that the "equality of parts in the string quartet" was an innovation of Joseph, but I'm also skeptical about that (whether the claim is actually true).

6 Quartets (1764) by Georg Christoph Wagenseil (1715~1777)



hammeredklavier said:


> I guess "2 violins, 1 viola, 1 cello" (the most "basic", "standardized" set of string instruments representing SATB) was the instrumentation composers would eventually conform to. That one isn't "rocket science" either. When composers of the period transcribed a 4-voiced fugue (for example) for strings, they used that instrumentation.
> 
> "It's not, after all, a particularly balanced group. Two violins, one viola (which is tuned a fifth lower), and one cello (which is an octave below that). We hear all sorts of quasi mystical stuff about the famed 'balance' and 'equality' of the group, but in fact the differences between the instruments make the ensemble in some ways extremely problematic. A viola is bigger than a violin, which makes it louder, but also harder to play in tune, particularly when the playing is fast. And the cello is so much larger still that the distances the left hand has to traverse necessitate a radically different fingering system. All this means that music played on one instrument will not always transfer easily to another. To take only the most obvious example: a rapid melody that may be a walk in the park for the violins can become a steep mountain path for the viola; for the cello, an oxygen mask and advanced climbing gear may be needed." https://www.gresham.ac.uk/lecture/transcript/print/mozart-quartet-in-c-major-k465-dissonance/


----------



## Phil loves classical

^ That's a real nice piece by Mikey. Easily my favourite of all the stuff I've heard so far. Nothing else really made me want to hear more.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Phil loves classical said:


> ^ That's a real nice piece by Mikey. Easily my favourite of all the stuff I've heard so far. Nothing else really made me want to hear more.


3:00









I also like the minor key variation at 3:44

Btw, one thing about Joseph's way to handle variations; 
Joseph's 'Gott erhalte Franz der Kaiser' was apparently a famous tune of the time; even Michael wrote a set of keyboard variations on it.
But in the actual string quartet, the way Joseph handles that in variations is to repeat it ad nauseam with different generic accompaniments. (The slow movement of the surprise symphony is another example)
It almost makes me think if Joseph was born in our time, he would have composed like:





I think this tendency of his extends to other forms as well:
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.


----------



## Phil loves classical

hammeredklavier said:


> You'll never find anything like this in Joseph:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (1772)


I'm sure glad I won't. Zzzzzz


----------



## hammeredklavier

Phil loves classical said:


> I'm sure glad I won't. Zzzzzz


Then tell me what's so great about:












I just can't feel any "emotion" from the use of harmony and part-writing. Can you?

I don't think we can expect anyone to have an "objective view" regarding this issue unless he
-has given equal chance (amount of listening time) to both Joseph and Michael.
-regards all genres of Classicism equally, not be biased against one over another.


----------



## hammeredklavier

^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.


----------



## RogerWaters

hammeredklavier said:


> I don't think we can expect anyone to have an "objective view" regarding this issue unless he
> -has given equal chance (amount of listening time) to both Joseph and Michael.
> -regards all genres of Classicism equally, not be biased against one over another.


Translation:



> I don't think we can expect anyone to have an "objective view" regarding this issue unless he
> -likes Michael more than Joseph


.............


----------



## hammeredklavier

RogerWaters said:


> Translation


You see more merit in J. Haydn's late symphonies than Mozart's, so I don't expect you to see Michael's merits readily. I also remember your opinions on the music of the period. Likewise, it's doubtful how many people are engaged in "serious listening" of both composers. One can even "prefer" Johann Strauss II over Brahms, for instance, depending on how he views the music of the late 19th century. 
The fact remains that Joseph lacks many qualities we would expect to find in a great 18th century master. and it might be the reason why people who actually take time and effort to *listen to both composers* think this way:


Highwayman said:


> I think I`m on the fence here. Joseph has many works that I rate highly such as Erdődy Quartets or Sturm und Drang Symphonies but every time I listen to a new work by him I`m less and less impressed whereas Michael has not as many works as his brother that I listen to with any frequency but his Requiem in C minor is one of my favourites in the genre and every time I listen to a new work by him I`m more and more impressed.


"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'."

Berlioz didn't know about Michael Haydn, but I'm pretty sure he would have viewed Michael in a similar way as he did Gluck and Mozart. (For all the reasons I've given since Page 9 of this thread)

There's nothing wrong with a composer being over-popular and many people liking his music. But Excessive idolatry around a composer does nothing but harm to another composer. I'm inclined to think Joseph is just really popular, due to many reasons (ex. the "propaganda" around his music; _"it's just how a Classical period composer is supposed to sound"_ , _"he was the "Father""_.) other than his competence as a composer. 
Everytime I look at this (one of his Sturm-und-drang symphonies)




 (occurs 3 times within the movement)




I can only gasp at the "banality" in both the quality of melodic/harmonic material and its development.

You can take only so much of this 



before it gets tiring on the ear.


----------



## Phil loves classical

^ Since we're doing some heavy speculation of composers' unsaid views of other composers in this thread and digging up past posters' views, I suspect what you see as the greater "influence" of M. Haydn on Mozart, in the similarity of certain passages in their Requiems, and MH's Symphony 28 finale on WM's Jupiter Finale, is actually what Mozart felt he could improve on, and in my view he succeeded. I think Mozart didn't outrightly steal so much from J. Haydn (you can prove me wrong on that) because he didn't find what he could improve on.

I'll bring this quote/story up again:

"At a private party a new work of Joseph Haydn was being performed. Besides Mozart there were a number of other musicians present, among them a certain man who was never known to praise anyone but himself. He was standing next to Mozart and found fault with one thing after another. For a while Mozart listened patiently; when he could bear it no longer and the fault-finder once more conceitedly declared: "I would not have done that", Mozart retorted: "Neither would I, but do you know why? Because neither of us could have thought of anything so appropriate."


----------



## hammeredklavier

Phil loves classical said:


> I think Mozart didn't outrightly steal so much from J. Haydn (you can prove me wrong on that) because he didn't find what he could improve on.


"Mozart wrote to his father on 29 March 1783 about the musical gatherings in the apartments of Baron van Swieten: "we love to amuse ourselves with all kind of masters, ancient and modern." So music was the main object of the other of the composers Mozart and his colleagues studied in these sessions is mentioned in the Mozart correspondence by name: Johann Ernst Eberlin, for instance, or Georg Friedrich Handel, or J.S. Bach and his sons Wilhelm Friedemann and Carl Phillip Emmanuel, or Michael Haydn." http://mrc.hanyang.ac.kr/wp-content/jspm/20/jspm_2006_20_10.pdf#page=4

You could say the same to any composer not listed in the above. Maybe Mozart just wasn't interested in Joseph as some people would have us believe.

Can we interpret ["I learned nothing from Haydn" -Beethoven] as "there's nothing to improve on in J. Haydn's music since it's really not that great?"





I don't get the extreme fascination with the mediocre harmonist, like seriously. If those school teachers and textbooks didn't constantly tell you "Haydn and Mozart" from childhood, I doubt if you would have been interested in Joseph Haydn as much as you're now.

There's nothing wrong with a composer being over-popular and many people liking his music. But when the fascination gets extreme, it does nothing good, but only harm, to another composer's reputation.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Phil loves classical said:


> "I would not have done that", Mozart retorted: "Neither would I, but do you know why? Because neither of us could have thought of anything so appropriate."


We've talked about this already:

We all know Mozart prided himself on his good manners.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz_Xaver_Richter#1778_Richter_meets_Mozart
"Both Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart and his father Leopold knew Richter. Mozart would have met him still as a boy on his Family Grand tour in 1763 when the Mozart family came through Schwetzingen, the summer residence of the Elector Palatinate. Mozart met him once again in 1778 on his way back from Paris when he was headed for the unloved Salzburg after his plans to gain permanent employment in Mannheim or Paris had come to naught. In a letter to his father, dated November 2, 1778, Mozart seems to suggest that the by then elderly Richter was something of an alcoholic:

"Strasbourg can scarcely do without me. You cannot think how much I am esteemed and beloved here. People say that I am disinterested as well as steady and polite, and praise my manners. Everyone knows me. As soon as they heard my name, the two Herrn Silbermann [i. e. Andreas Silbermann and Johann Andreas Silbermann] and Herr Hepp (organist) came to call on me, and also Kapellmeister Richter. He has now restricted himself very much ; instead of forty bottles of wine a day, he only drinks twenty! ... If the Cardinal had died, (and he was very ill when I arrived,) I might have got a good situation, for Herr Richter is seventy-eight years of age. Now farewell ! Be cheerful and in good spirits, and remember that your son is, thank God ! well, and rejoicing that his happiness daily draws nearer. Last Sunday I heard a new mass of Herr Richter's, which is charmingly written."
However, Mozart was not one to laud lightly. The epithet "charmingly written" can be taken at face value and from someone like Mozart this was high praise indeed."


----------



## Phil loves classical

hammeredklavier said:


> We've talked about this already:
> 
> We all know Mozart prided himself on his good manners.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz_Xaver_Richter#1778_Richter_meets_Mozart
> "Both Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart and his father Leopold knew Richter. Mozart would have met him still as a boy on his Family Grand tour in 1763 when the Mozart family came through Schwetzingen, the summer residence of the Elector Palatinate. Mozart met him once again in 1778 on his way back from Paris when he was headed for the unloved Salzburg after his plans to gain permanent employment in Mannheim or Paris had come to naught. In a letter to his father, dated November 2, 1778, Mozart seems to suggest that the by then elderly Richter was something of an alcoholic:
> 
> "Strasbourg can scarcely do without me. You cannot think how much I am esteemed and beloved here. People say that I am disinterested as well as steady and polite, and praise my manners. Everyone knows me. As soon as they heard my name, the two Herrn Silbermann [i. e. Andreas Silbermann and Johann Andreas Silbermann] and Herr Hepp (organist) came to call on me, and also Kapellmeister Richter. He has now restricted himself very much ; instead of forty bottles of wine a day, he only drinks twenty! ... If the Cardinal had died, (and he was very ill when I arrived,) I might have got a good situation, for Herr Richter is seventy-eight years of age. Now farewell ! Be cheerful and in good spirits, and remember that your son is, thank God ! well, and rejoicing that his happiness daily draws nearer. Last Sunday I heard a new mass of Herr Richter's, which is charmingly written."
> However, Mozart was not one to laud lightly. The epithet "charmingly written" can be taken at face value and from someone like Mozart this was high praise indeed."


So Mozart was just being polite when he went out of his way to praise J. Haydn by lowering himself *and his critic* when J. Haydn wasn't even there?


----------



## Kreisler jr

Hammeredklavier, you are still completely ignoring contemporary sources and the immense success of Haydn. All the dubious stuff you claim about the reception in the early 20th century is moot. This is more than 100 years too late. 
Haydn was not in a big metropolis either. But he was invited to London (and before his music was brought to and published in Paris) because his music was so highly respected. You simply claim that this is irrelevant but it is an unchallenged historical fact and a main point of the whole debate. He was more famous than Mozart until after the latters death and both were clearly considered the most important composers of their time. This ranking above Michael Haydn and Rossetti and whatever worthy second or third rank composer was in place shortly before Mozart's death, it is not an artifact of 20 years later (although it was clearly maintained).

http://www.classicalmusicguide.com/viewtopic.php?t=23501

And it is obvious that Mozart hugely benefitted throughout the 19th century from being more compatible with romantic aesthetics (and by having better operas and piano concertos) and therefore overshadowed Haydn; he had not overshadowed him in 1790. Of course, in symphonies and solo piano Beethoven soon dominated and "screened off" even a good bit of Haydn and Mozart, and all the lesser composers. Haydn still "survived" with a bunch of his most famous quartets and symphonies and especially the two late oratorios. Here again you are of course entitled to your preference for more conservative liturgical music (I have no knowledge here, but I'd happily concede that M. Haydn was a superior composer in this field and the neglect of these masses, litanies etc. might be a pity) but this was a rather uninteresting, hopelessly old-fashioned part of music for the development in the late 18th century. Whereas the Creation and the Season fused the monumental Handelian style with the popular and so were hugely successful and kept in the repertoire.

I am bowing out of these fruitless discussion. You are both ignoring lots of historical facts about the status of J. Haydn as seen by contemporaries and you are putting very narrow personal preferences about a small aspect of music, harmony and part writing, above everything else. These are just stylistic differences, not "faults" of Jos. Haydn. This apparently blinds you to the originality, innovation and brilliance of Haydn in many other aspects of music, such as form, cohesion, variation, variety, motivic development, "drive" (long range control of movement and "phrase rhythms") etc.

No other composer before Shostakovich* managed to write 8 slow movements in a row (together almost an hour) without boring everyone to death. To ignore or belittle the skill that allowed Haydn to do this, seems very one-sided to me, to put it mildly.

*I don't know for sure, of course, but his last string quartet is the closest piece in mainstream repertoire I am aware of.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Kreisler jr said:


> Here again you are of course entitled to your preference for more conservative liturgical music (I have no knowledge here, but I'd happily concede that M. Haydn was a superior composer in this field and the neglect of these masses, litanies etc. might be a pity) but this was a rather uninteresting, hopelessly old-fashioned part of music for the development in the late 18th century.


I've heard statements like the above a million times already elsewhere. I've come to think it's one of the biggest propaganda slogans overrate Joseph Haydn. Tdc is absolutely right; Joseph Haydn's style was just "easier to copy" for other composers; that's all. It is probably why it's not until the Missa solemnis Beethoven starts to adopt Michael's ways. 




The fact that this was written just 2 decades after Bach's death far more impressive than anything Joseph achieved with Op.20;


hammeredklavier said:


> Stuff like this was something new. Notice how the parts in 9:10 and 11:40 (of Dies irae, a single movement) are starkly different in "feelings":


What are your thoughts on Mozart's K.427, K.626 (and the influence on Bruckner), which were absolutely influenced by Michael? Schubert also wrote the Deutschemesse as an homage to Michael. 
When J. Haydn writes liturgical music, he's not being old-fashioned, but when when Mozart and Michael do, they're being old-fashioned? What kind of strange logic is this?

Why not just accept Joseph was simply mundane in terms of expressive harmony?
I think Die Schöpfung is one of those "exercises in endless pomposity" in late J. Haydn. This is the problem with J. Haydn; he uses his symphonic techniques in all those works; strikes me as a bit of a "one-trick pony"; the master of BANGING.


----------



## hammeredklavier

"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. . . .)""
https://www.classical915.org/post/happy-birthday-michael-haydn

"Joseph regarded his brother's music highly, to the point of feeling Michael's religious works were superior to his own"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Haydn


----------



## Eclectic Al

Part of this thread has seen people who look like they know what they are talking about suggesting that Joseph Haydn was an excellent composer and (to the point of the poll) "greater" than Michael Haydn in various respects.

My comments are those of someone who does not know what he is talking about.

I have always found J Haydn to be under-promoted, rather than boosted by propaganda. As an amateur listener to classical music, I would have got the message that Bach, Beethoven and Mozart were what really mattered in the Bach to Beethoven time period, and then there were various others who came later that we could talk about, such as Brahms and on into the 20th century (with pre-Bach being more of a niche interest). That's how I would have seen the received wisdom/propaganda hitting us amateurs.

Regarding the Bach-Beethoven period, amateur listeners would get the impression that all others were also-rans, and that not much was being missed by ignoring them. It is only after randomly acquiring Pinnock's Sturm und Drang set (probably on a cost-per-disc basis at the time) that I got the J Haydn bug. So if Haydn is over-promoted it didn't affect me, except to the extent that Mr Pinnock recorded those symphonies.

After getting the bug, I can only say that the appeal of Haydn for me is about a life-affirming character to his music. I'm less interested in whether composers are technically excellent, than in whether I warm to them. In that sense I am much more a fan of Bach and Haydn, because I find them easy to warm to. I enjoy and admire much Beethoven, but warm to him less. As for Mozart, I don't really warm to more than a few pieces. For me, it's a matter of temperament, and Bach and Haydn seem especially in tune with my temperament. I like them without having to try. I have the same alignment of temperament with Brahms (especially later Brahms) and a few others. By alignment, I suppose I mean that I "get it" without having to try, whereas with some others I have to try. For example, I like some Shostakovich pieces, but have to put on my Shostakovich head to get into them, whereas I like many Bartok pieces, and don't have to don a Bartok head - my own will do nicely!

I have tried a few of the Michael Haydn pieces posted here, and for me they seem lifeless relative to Joseph's pieces. They may be technically good (or better), but for me they lack life, and do not readily align with my sensibility.

As a non-technician I don't think I can explain things any better than above.

What I am sure about is that I don't listen to Haydn because lots of people have told me how good he is; it is more that I listen to him despite it being indicated to me that he has little to offer compared with Bach, Mozart and Beethoven, because I have discovered that that is not true for me.


----------



## EdwardBast

hammeredklavier said:


> *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. . . .)""
> https://www.classical915.org/post/happy-birthday-michael-haydn


I've sung a Schubert mass. It didn't work. ^ ^ ^ Or, worse yet, maybe it did. And that's a pathetic story. Please tell me it was right before Schubert died and his mental faculties weren't at their best.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Eclectic Al said:


> I have tried a few of the Michael Haydn pieces posted here, and for me they seem lifeless relative to Joseph's pieces. They may be technically good (or better), but for me they lack life, and do not readily align with my sensibility.


I could argue that J. Haydn is too pompously happy all the time and Berlioz, Schumann, Hanslick and many others criticized him for it. It's J. Haydn who is technically good in playing around with notes for notes' sake (monothematicism) and cerebral rhythmic patterns, emotionally-empty bangings with dynamics, but "soulless" in terms of expressivity with harmony.







hammeredklavier said:


> M. Haydn
> 40th/ii:
> 
> 
> 
> 27th/ii:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 31th/ii:
> 
> 
> 
> (8:57, 10:13)
> 26th/ii:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 22th/ii:
> 
> 
> 
> , (Mozart copied out the fugal finale of this symphony (K.291))
> 23th/ii:
> 
> 
> 
> etc..


----------



## hammeredklavier

The difference between the two brothers is much like that between Liszt and Brahms - one is much more "pompous" and may seem more "innovative" on the surface, but the other has more "substance". Go back to my post [#131] to see how "generic" Joseph gets. At the same time, Joseph never had the sense and skill of harmony and counterpoint to be expressive like:




Notice the changes of mood frequently occurring with flow? (ex. @1:17, @3:13, @4:00).
Come on, J. Haydn fans, just because your idol never had the sense and skill in harmony and counterpoint, it doesn't mean you can just denigrate all of it as "hopelessly old-fashioned".



hammeredklavier said:


> *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)


In fact, Michael has so much variety with _stile antico_ and orchestral style in his works -something Joseph could never achieve in any field. 












The D minor Missa sancti Francisci Seraphici is pretty much Michael demonstrating to his older brother how to write a better version of the Nelson mass.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Eclectic Al said:


> Part of this thread has seen people who look like they know what they are talking about suggesting that Joseph Haydn was an excellent composer and (to the point of the poll) "greater" than Michael Haydn in various respects.


Where, exactly? To me, only these people sound like they've _seriously_ listened to both composers
(And nope; "having listened to a few clips only once on TC" doesn't count as "having _seriously_ listened"):

"Michael's aesthetic is closer to my tastes" -*tdc*
"I don't listen to his (Joseph's) 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." -*tdc*
"All I can say is that the music of Joseph Haydn has never seemed strikingly intelligent to me the way Mozart's, Beethoven's, Bach's or Haendel's does. 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...
Meanwhile Michael Haydn sounds like Mozart before Mozart, and it was Mozart who got better over interactions with him. At the very least it sounds more competent." -*Fabulin*
"The composer E.T.A. Hoffmann wrote: 'All connoisseurs of music know, and have known for some time, that as a composer of sacred music Michael Haydn ranks amongst the finest of any age or nations … In this field he is fully his brother's equal; in fact, by the seriousness of his concept he often surpasses him by far.' https://trinitymusicaz.org/an-articulated-art-lenten-concert-pt-ii/" -*cybernaut*
"Joseph has many works that I rate highly such as Erdődy Quartets or Sturm und Drang Symphonies but every time I listen to a new work by him I`m less and less impressed whereas Michael has not as many works as his brother that I listen to with any frequency but his Requiem in C minor is one of my favourites in the genre and every time I listen to a new work by him I`m more and more impressed." -*Highwayman*


----------



## RogerWaters

hammeredklavier said:


> You see more merit in J. Haydn's late symphonies than Mozart's, so I don't expect you to see Michael's merits readily. I also remember your opinions on the music of the period.


What are my 'opinions on the music of the period'? Mozart is top three for me, Haydn close behind (but I enjoy some of his late symphonies more than Mozart's). My favourite composers (not in order) are probably Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Haydn, Wagner, Bruckner, Schumann, Sibelius, Debussy and Ravel. I don't like all of Haydn by any means. Some of the late symphonies, heaps of the string quartets, the trumpet concerto and the cello concertos. But most of that, I love.



hammeredklavier said:


> The fact remains that Joseph lacks many qualities we would expect to find in a great 18th century master.


Speak for yourself! What I expect of a great 18th century master, I get from Haydn.

Of course, I am but a mere dilettante.

I've listened to brother Haydn, but, unlike J, M's music does not entice me to listen further.

I don't take it as my loss.


----------



## Phil loves classical

I think I know more exactly why M Haydn doesn't hold my attention now, after a bit of analysis. I'm just looking at the opening few minutes of his Requiem, Mozart's Requiem, and Haydn's Nelson Mass. M Haydn doesn't really move from the tonic chord. The first several bars have some nice dissonances in the melody with the chord, but it never really moves from the root chord. By the 8th bar, I'm looking for some progress, but it actually winds down and then basically repeats with the voices.






With Mozart there is some clear progression already by the end of the 4th bar. By the 15th bar (around 1:30) he's already onto new something else. Plus the motion in the bass is way more interesting than M Haydn's, whose step-wise motion becomes boring (to me anyway) after a while.






J. Haydn's Nelson Mass also has a lot more motion in harmony. Look at how he harmonizes the diminished 7th with the tonic after the i, iv and i chords. He's great at creating drama. By the 26th bar (only 0:50 in), he onto the next idea, leaves you hanging and transitions to a A chord (quite distant from the opening Dm chord). Now that's progression.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Phil loves classical said:


> The first several bars have some nice dissonances in the melody with the chord, but it never really moves from the root chord. By the 8th bar, I'm looking for some progress, but it actually winds down and then basically repeats with the voices.


You mean the T-PD-D-T intro virtually everyone did in every piece at the time? 
The J. Haydn mass is no different. At the 16th bar, he "actually winds down and then basically repeats with the voices."







hammeredklavier said:


> ^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.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Both of these guys are far more capable of dramatic use of chromaticism than Joseph:

M. Haydn requiem (1771)








Mozart string quintet K.516 (1787)


----------



## Phil loves classical

hammeredklavier said:


> You mean the T-PD-D-T intro virtually everyone did in every piece at the time?
> The J. Haydn mass is no different. At the 16th bar, he "actually winds down and then basically repeats with the voices."


The M mass has a longer intro, but it's pretty much exclusively between i and v chords for the first few minutes at least. The J mass had like I said i, iv, various o7 chords and then modulates to the V major. The M has more line movement to non-chord tones (which is its strength) than the J mass, but I'm saying I prefer the J overall as it has more macro movement in harmony. Notice I'm not saying one is better than the other, just what holds my attention more.

BTW, your video isn't really applicable to either. Are you just throwing that in for perceived support?


----------



## hammeredklavier

Phil loves classical said:


> BTW, your video isn't really applicable to either. Are you just throwing that in for perceived support?


Maybe not the best video to support my point, but you sounded like Joseph somehow didn't adhere to the 18th century T-PD-D-T function intro "cliches".


----------



## Bulldog

hammeredklavier:

It's a good thing that you are promoting Michael's music which definitely deserves more exposure.

It's a bad thing that you do so by dumping on his older brother or any other composer.

My point is that Michael's works rate greater exposure regardless of whether he is better or worse than Joseph. It's not a competition. One can easily enjoy the music of both composers.


----------



## SanAntone

Bulldog said:


> hammeredklavier:
> 
> It's a good thing that you are promoting Michael's music which definitely deserves more exposure.
> 
> It's a bad thing that you do so by dumping on his older brother or any other composer.
> 
> My point is that Michael's works rate greater exposure regardless of whether he is better or worse than Joseph. It's not a competition. One can easily enjoy the music of both composers.


Béla Bartók: "Competitions are for horses, not artists" - or composers.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Bulldog said:


> hammeredklavier: It's a good thing that you are promoting Michael's music which definitely deserves more exposure. It's a bad thing that you do so by dumping on his older brother or any other composer. My point is that Michael's works rate greater exposure regardless of whether he is better or worse than Joseph. It's not a competition. One can easily enjoy the music of both composers.


Fair point. I stress again that it's never a bad thing many people appreciate Joseph Haydn.
It's just this thing regarding the Haydns that I have issues with:
"" ... "lies" like these could "fool" everyone since then:

"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."
But now that we know more about the period (due to the continued revival); these "lies" don't seem so convincing anymore. ... "" 
-hammeredklavier (Post #160)



Phil loves classical said:


> The M mass has a longer intro, but it's pretty much exclusively between i and v chords for the first few minutes at least. The J mass had like I said i, iv, various o7 chords and then modulates to the V major. The M has more line movement to non-chord tones (which is its strength) than the J mass, but I'm saying I prefer the J overall as it has more macro movement in harmony. Notice I'm not saying one is better than the other, just what holds my attention more.


That's the thing about Joseph; he feels more like a "hard rock" than Michael does. To me, that part of the Nelson mass reminds feels a lot like the opening of his own 78th symphony, albeit the one from the mass is more extended. Again, I find that Joseph uses too much of "his own symphonic techniques". The overall impression is that he doesn't really feel "exotic" to me, compared to Michael who incorporates elements of: 




while at the same time evokes sentiments (in terms of "serenity" and "innocent piety") that are unique from the Baroque.











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)
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> *There is a really good example I have in mind but I can't remember which mass it was.*


I just remembered
Schöpfungsmesse - Gloria 




(I think the 30-second part "Gratias agimus tibi" in this movement is ok though; possibly my second favorite part in Joseph's catholic music after the 'Gratias agimus tibi - qui tollis' of the theresienmesse).


----------



## hammeredklavier




----------



## hammeredklavier

hammeredklavier said:


> Both of these guys are far more capable of dramatic use of chromaticism than Joseph:
> M. Haydn requiem (1771)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mozart string quintet K.516 (1787)


The gesture (at 5:49) obviously points toward Beethoven Op.123:




 (listen carefully at 6:43)




 (at 1:48)







hammeredklavier said:


> Everytime I look at this (one of his Sturm-und-drang symphonies)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (occurs 3 times within the movement)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can only gasp at the "banality" in both the quality of melodic/harmonic material and its development.


Compare it (Joseph's 83rd) with Michael's 31st:




 (8:57, 10:13)


----------



## hammeredklavier

Phil loves classical said:


> So Mozart was just being polite when he went out of his way to praise J. Haydn by lowering himself *and his critic* when J. Haydn wasn't even there?


Btw, when Christian Bach died, Mozart wrote to his father *"What a loss to the musical world!"* I can see why.

















Joseph Leopold Eybler (8 February 1765 - 24 July 1846) 
"On May 30, 1790, Mozart wrote a testimonial for the young Eybler: "I, the undersigned, attest herewith that I have found the bearer of this, Herr Joseph Eybler, to be a worthy pupil of his famous master Albrechtsberger, a well-grounded composer, equally skilled at chamber music and the church style, fully experienced in the art of the song, also an accomplished organ and clavier player; in short a young musician such, one can only regret, as *so seldom has his equal.*""


----------



## hammeredklavier

Phil loves classical said:


> "At a private party a new work of Joseph Haydn was being performed. Besides Mozart there were a number of other musicians present, among them a certain man who was never known to praise anyone but himself. He was standing next to Mozart and found fault with one thing after another. For a while Mozart listened patiently; when he could bear it no longer and the fault-finder once more conceitedly declared: "I would not have done that", Mozart retorted: "Neither would I, but do you know why? Because neither of us could have thought of anything so appropriate."


This seems a bit "taken out of context", since in the original source, < Mozart: The First Biography / Franz Xaver Niemetschek, ‎Cliff Eisen / Page 59 >
the paragraph immediately precedes "With extreme modesty, Mozart combined a noble consciousness of his dignity as an artist. ..."


----------



## hammeredklavier

Phil loves classical said:


> I think I know more exactly why M Haydn doesn't hold my attention now, after a bit of analysis. I'm just looking at the opening few minutes of his Requiem, Mozart's Requiem, and Haydn's Nelson Mass.


Btw, it's more fair to compare Joseph's Stabat mater (1767) with his 5-year younger brother's Requiem in C minor (1771) and compare Joseph's Nelson mass (1798) with Michael's Missa subtitulo sancti Francisci in D minor (which is about the same length as Joseph's Nelson mass and was written in 1803). 
Just like how I compared Joseph's 83rd with Michael's 31st, both of which were written in 1785 (Post #192).
Why not discuss Joseph's ambitious Stabat mater, where he intended to outdo Pergolesi? Is it not good enough a work? Maybe deep down, you agree with what I said about the brothers' development as composers in Post #122?


----------



## Phil loves classical

hammeredklavier said:


> This seems a bit "taken out of context", since in the original source, < Mozart: The First Biography / Franz Xaver Niemetschek, ‎Cliff Eisen / Page 59 >
> the paragraph immediately precedes "With extreme modesty, Mozart combined a noble consciousness of his dignity as an artist. ..."


You're grasping at straws here. That sentence you're quoting is leading up to the point that Mozart "never sought the applause of the multitude". But the paragraph preceding the story of that incident mentioned it shows "his high regard for Joseph Haydn". So to me the context is clear. It sounds like you're the one taking it out of context. Why does it bother you so much if Mozart had high regard for music you don't like?


----------



## Eclectic Al

Rather than endless posts of links to bits of this and that, and comparisons - which few will bother to engage with - why not start a thread with a weekly Michael Haydn piece?

I'd probably give it a whirl (so long as it was not a sacred choral work) for a few weeks at least. Thus far, I've found anything from Michael that I've listened to to be lacking in anything special - but it could be the performances. Hence, one of his best in a good performance would be a recommendation that might allow people like me to give him a fair hearing.

As indicated by some above, none of this is best viewed as a competition. If I find that I like some Michael pieces then that does not detract from Joseph's achievement - all it does it give me a few more pieces that I might wish to re-listen to from time to time, which would be great.


----------



## Kreisler jr

The problem is that the sacred choral works are the only ones where there is a tiny sliver of a cause that could be made for Michael Haydn being as good or better a composer than Joseph...


----------



## hammeredklavier

Kreisler jr said:


> The problem is that the sacred choral works are the only ones where there is a tiny sliver of a cause that could be made for Michael Haydn being as good or better a composer than Joseph...


I'm a little skeptical about Joseph's alleged "superiority" in other areas such as symphonies as well. I sort of appreciate the slow movements of the 80th, and Op.76 No.6 (I find it interesting how it anticipates certain late-Beethovenian expressions), but there are just way too many that fail to make an impression. 
https://www.talkclassical.com/71012-haydns-joseph-vs-michael-9.html#post2090913
https://www.talkclassical.com/65796-haydn-problem-quantity-favourite-5.html#post2089053
For example, the slow movements of Op.20 (published in 1774); the style of dissonance feels "lukewarm", I don't hear much difference between those and 6 Quartets (1764) by Georg Christoph Wagenseil (1715~1777) in this regard.









(1773, Salzburg)


----------



## hammeredklavier

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.







I'm seriously inclined to think Joseph doesn't reach his "maturity" probably until Op.54 (1788), since *his struggle to be expressive* with harmony and counterpoint in the earlier works such as Op.20 (published in 1774) is just way too much.








In Op.20 No.2/ii, there's too much music in monophony of voices (sections colored in blue and red), and in homorhythm of voices, it almost sounds "awkward" as a string quartet. (these actually make up more than half of the movement) There's not so much we can call "contrast" in terms of harmony and counterpoint in these works.








He does try create contrast with part-writing in some sections (such as the section in yellow), but it all feels "lukewarm" due to his ineptitude with dissonance. 
Yes, this was the kind of stuff he was writing at the age of 40. This sort of expressions also creeps into his later works like the Seven last Words of Christ, where expressions like the section in yellow dominate. And to create turbulence in movements like "Sonata V" and the Earthquake finale, he solely relies on techniques like the sections in blue and red. 
I think the reason why Joseph doesn't express "sorrow" (and his range is "limited") is because he didn't quite develop proper ways to do it in his youth. So the so-called "experts" and "scholars" have been doing all kinds of lectures and essays on this composer, calling him the FATHER, simply because he was the only one privileged to be continually promoted and revived and through history with the slogan "Haydn and Mozart".

[ "The music which the masters have assimilated in their childhood forms the texture of their musical development. It cannot be otherwise and I am unable to understand why the great educators of our age do not lay even greater stress upon this all-important point. _I have said assimilated,-you will notice that I did not say appropriated._ That is quite a different matter. _The music is absorbed and goes through a process of mental digestion until it becomes a part of the person_, just as much as the hair on their heads, or the skin on their bodies. It is stored away in their brain-cells and will come forth again in the minds of creative musicians, not in the same or even similar form, _but often in entirely new and wonderful conceptions._" -Gustav Mahler
"Even in his youth, Joseph was a bit of a "clown", goofing around cutting off the ponytails of his fellow choristers, while his younger brother was composing and improvising fantasies and fugues on the organ by the age of 12. Later in life, Joseph realized how far behind he was and self-taught himself with Fux's book, but I guess he was getting too old and it was "too late". I think all this is reflected in their music. No wonder why Joseph was writing something this amazing at 29. While Michael was writing this at 19, and this at 25 (1762; just before moving from Großwardein to Salzburg)." -hammeredklavier (Post #122) ]
It's as simple as that. Btw, Level82rat is another member who recognizes Michael's merits; I wonder what he has to say on this topic.



Kreisler jr said:


> The problem is that the sacred choral works are the only ones where there is a tiny sliver of a cause that could be made for Michael Haydn being as good or better a composer than Joseph...


Yes, Joseph is very popular, but on what basis are you claiming he's "greater" than Michael?
Are we truly naive enough to believe there's no such thing as "over-popular composers"? 
Are we really cultish enough to deny the existence of banalities and naiveties a composer carried into his middle-age, because they're too embarrassing to look at? Simply believe the "beautiful lies" that _"It's just how a Classical period composer is supposed to sound", "Not being as good as Mozart is totally understandable"_, etc cause they make us feel better?


----------



## hammeredklavier

Eclectic Al said:


> I'd probably give it a whirl (so long as it was not a sacred choral work) for a few weeks at least. Thus far, I've found anything from Michael that I've listened to to be lacking in anything special - but it could be the performances. Hence, one of his best in a good performance would be a recommendation that might allow people like me to give him a fair hearing.


You actually think there are "multiple recordings" of a single work of his? Please realize that he's not over-popular like his brother. Some of his music I've cited in this thread is live performances and isn't even available on CD.
Maybe you just need repeated listenings. There have been numerous testimonies on this forum people "didn't get" a composer until they listened to his music many times over a long period.



Eclectic Al said:


> As indicated by some above, none of this is best viewed as a competition. If I find that I like some Michael pieces then that does not detract from Joseph's achievement - all it does it give me a few more pieces that I might wish to re-listen to from time to time, which would be great.


People have been absolutely encouraging and triggering competition in this thread:
[ "With Phil riding off into the sunset, this is a good time to look at the numbers:
Joseph - 45
Mike - 5
So even with a particular member flooding the screen with constant anti-Joseph postings and embedded videos galore, it's significant to keep in mind that nobody's being fooled by the outlier rantings. Little Mike remains little appreciated." -Bulldog (Post #150)
"19 to 3; that's about what I expected from a knowledgeable group of TC members." -Bulldog (Post #19) ]
Now that I've told them the "truths" of Bangydn's "clown-like qualties"; they accuse me being a "hater" and ask me to stop.
I don't care if you "like" Michael or not. You absolutely don't need to. (I also remember you said once that you just don't care for any vocal stuff in classical music. That's fine.) As for me, I know all of Bangydn's naive ways to be pleasing and amusing; just look at the slow movements of his late symphonies; 93th and 94th (*Bassoon farts* / " symmetrical phrases... *BAM! Surprise!") and all the bangy Londons and the Bangnedictus of the Nelson mass. It's interesting sometimes how much a cult has been formed around a composer with an emotional range so limited. I'm still suspicious if people are under the influence of "mere-exposure effect" when it comes to issue; if they've given both composers equal amount of chance.



Eclectic Al said:


> Rather than endless posts of links to bits of this and that, and comparisons - which few will bother to engage with - why not start a thread with a weekly Michael Haydn piece?


Just think of this thread as a "recommendation thread" then. Pure "recommendation threads" on Michael don't work (don't get attention) cause, again, he's not over-popular like his brother. I was the only one who posted anything in those Michael Haydn threads of the past even when they were revived.


----------



## Neo Romanza

I voted for Joseph Haydn, but, in my mind, this doesn't make him _better_ than Michael. Truth be told, I don't listen to either of these composers' music very often --- if ever. The Romantic Era is where my interest in classical began.


----------



## 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).


An "austere quality"? O RLY? I don't know what to make of this after all your denigration of Michael as "hopelessly old-fashioned". I still stand by my view that the difference between the two brothers is much like that of Liszt and Brahms; one of them may seem more flamboyant than the other on the surface, but the other has more substance. Taking "good stuff from the old" is exactly what Joseph fails in many respects.**



Kreisler jr said:


> http://www.classicalmusicguide.com/viewtopic.php?t=23501


Dittersdorf was a friend and colleague of Joseph in Vienna. They often hung out together and played quartets with Mozart and Vanhal. Likewise, Michael's pupils in Salzburg; Weber, Reicha, Wolfl, Diabelli would all have made favorable comments about Michael.
I still don't know what you're really trying to say by pointing out how popular Joseph was in his time. Lots of composers were "popular" at that time. Vicent Martin y Soler's Una Cosa Rara (1786) eclipsed Figaro's popularity and Mozart quotes the music of his Spanish-born colleague in the dinner scene of Don Giovanni. (And as I said, only Joseph has had (rather unfairly) the privilege of being always mentioned alongside Mozart (under the pretext "18th century Viennese Classicists") with the experts not questioning Joseph's capabilities just cause - "Not being as good as Mozart is totally understandable.")

** For instance, I wish I could find in Joseph strikingly dramatic uses of pedal points such as
Michael Haydn Requiem - Cum sanctis tuis: 



Mozart Requiem - Domine jesu : 






hammeredklavier said:


> 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."


look at the subtleties of dissonance such as in the "Mise-RE-re"; 







Kreisler jr said:


> No other composer before Shostakovich* managed to write 8 slow movements in a row (together almost an hour) without boring everyone to death. To ignore or belittle the skill that allowed Haydn to do this, seems very one-sided to me, to put it mildly.


Collect the best 8 slow movements from Joseph's quartets and put them together as one work. "It won't bore anyone to death."



Phil loves classical said:


> I think Mozart didn't outrightly steal so much from J. Haydn (you can prove me wrong on that) because he didn't find what he could improve on.


An argument can be made that the 'symphonic' intro to Die Schopfung (written after Mozart's death) is a weaker version of Mozart's dissonance quartet.
It's ok to like any composer all you want, but let's not exaggerate Joseph's capabilities with respect to Michael's.


----------



## Phil loves classical

^ Still not letting it go, huh?

Are you sure you're not exaggerating Michael's abilities next to Joseph's? Why don't you give a lecture at a conservatory, where the listeners are more influential and could better promote your cause?


----------



## Bulldog

Leaving aside Hammeredklavier's ridiculous nit-picking about Haydn's string quartet op. 20/2, it's easily my favorite string quartet from the Classical era; each movement is delightful and/or stunning in its effect.


----------



## Kreisler jr

hammeredklavier said:


> Dittersdorf was a friend and colleague of Joseph in Vienna. They often hung out together and played quartets with Mozart and Vanhal. Likewise, Michael's pupils in Salzburg; Weber, Reicha, Wolfl, Diabelli would all have made favorable comments about Michael.
> I still don't know what you're really trying to say by pointing out how popular Joseph was in his time. Lots of composers were "popular" at that time.


You seriously think that it was favoritism or accidental that the Emperor and Dittersdorf talked about Haydn (without having to specify which one) and Mozart (without having to exlude Leopold) instead of Martin y Soler and Salieri? Or about Michael Haydn and Eberlin? It could not have been the case that Dittersdorf was simply expressing the common opinion that Mozart and Joseph Haydn were clearly and by some margin the most important composers in the Empire at that time?

You think it was just accidental that we have almost as many fake Joseph Haydn works as real ones because he was so popular and fake Haydn sold well? How many "Paris" and "London" symphonies are there by Vanhal or Gyrowetz if they were as highly regarded as Joseph? How come Haydn was basically the only composer who was not a piano or violin virtuoso who could acquire such fame, status, invitations, ONLY for compositions? Because this is one reason why "father of the symphony" is not such a gross exaggeration: Haydn brought the symphony from a "filler" to something that could be the "main dish" of a concert, as it was in his London concerts.

(BTW I didn't say and don't think that e.g. Michael's symphonies are "old-fashioned". The point you keep missing is that the liturgical music in the classical adaption of the "church style" by Michael you love was considered mostly old-fashioned and in any case it was local functional music and quite irrelevant for "international" instrumental music and opera. I have absolutely nothing against this music although I am not sufficiently familiar with or interested in it to clearly perceive the difference (if there is any) to Joseph's church music.)



> Collect the best 8 slow movements from Joseph's quartets and put them together as one work. "It won't bore anyone to death."


If you really do not know the history behind the 7 last words (hint: It was an orchestral work first), look it up.

I don't see any point in continuing this discussion; it's just reiteration of the same things. I don't know how often to point out the historical facts like those about Haydn's status above, if you think just saying the "many composers were "popular"" was a refutation.


----------



## Kreisler jr

Bulldog said:


> Leaving aside Hammeredklavier's ridiculous nit-picking about Haydn's string quartet op. 20/2, it's easily my favorite string quartet from the Classical era; each movement is delightful and/or stunning in its effect.


I'd have a hard time picking 10 favorites from Haydn's quartets (disregarding Mozart and Beethoven) and my overall fav from op. 20 is nowadays probably #4 but as I recounted in another thread, I once almost fell from my chair twice at a concert when I heard this piece for the first time, not expecting all that much from "early Haydn", first at the gloriously radiant beginning (the "Sun" nickname is from a cover but as certainly someone has pointed out, it could easily have been inspired by the beginning of this C major quartet), then at the dramatic beginning and the contrasts in the slow movement that is only resolved in the menuet (also probably an innovation, to connect the inner movements in such a way).


----------



## hammeredklavier

Kreisler jr said:


> You seriously think that it was favoritism or accidental that the Emperor and Dittersdorf talked about Haydn (without having to specify which one) and Mozart (without having to exlude Leopold) instead of Martin y Soler and Salieri? Or about Michael Haydn and Eberlin? It could not have been the case that Dittersdorf was simply expressing the common opinion that Mozart and Joseph Haydn were clearly and by some margin the most important composers in the Empire at that time?


As I said, Michael also received commissions from other European royal courts such as Spain. So did the emperor consider Mozart the most important? No. Gluck had a better position than Mozart, who received only 40% of the salary Gluck did. All you're trying to say is Joseph was popular and highly-regarded at the time, like how Paiseillo was. And I pointed out how cookie-cutter the Paris and London symphonies are in my previous threads (I'm starting to get tired of quoting myself and others). Again, its the problem with Joseph Haydn. Too much of his style is based off of his own symphonic techniques. Just like the symphonic intro to Die Schopfung, for example; https://www.talkclassical.com/71012-haydns-joseph-vs-michael-9.html#post2090913.
Schubert grew up listening to Michael's music at church, not Joseph. Both Mozart's and Michael's requiems incorporate dramatic elements to an extent they can be regarded as opera almost. Also listen to Michael's opera, Andromeda e Perseo, which I posted earlier. 
Why do you keep claiming Joseph needs or deserves "special treatment" from all of us. He doesn't. He was just one of the composers at the time. In fact he was limited and one-dimensional in expressing various emotions. Give me one example where he expresses "sorrow".


----------



## Phil loves classical

hammeredklavier said:


> Give me one example where he expresses "sorrow".


 I'm going to post this again. And you're going to say, it's not that good, and that Michael did it better because this and this.

H.C. Robbins Landon has described it as "dark-hued, sombre - even tragic." To me, it's the most individual expression of sorrow up till Mozart's Symphony 40.


----------



## Kreisler jr

hammeredklavier said:


> As I said, Michael received commissions from other European royal courts such as that of Spain. Gluck had a better position than Mozart, who received only 40% of the salary Gluck did. All you're trying to say is Joseph was popular and highly-regarded at the time, like how Paisello was. And I pointed out how cookie-cutter the Paris and London symphonies are in my previous threads (I'm starting to get tired of quoting myself and others).


Not half as tired as the rest of us are from your self quoting. 
You are wilfully ignoring historical facts and always quoting the same stuff that does not mean anything except to yourself. Because nobody else shares these preferences, you can "prove" your own opinion easily to yourself all over again (and with the same passage from op.20/2 (where someone already explained that it does not deserve any scorn), a handful of academic church music by Michael and a few odd late pieces by Mozart). Nobody claimed than Joseph wrote stuff like that Mozart mechanical organ fugue. But Mozart also wrote rather different stuff most of the time, it is not the only way to write good music.

Music is almost never semantically obvious. I find the "largo cantabile e mesto" from op.76,5 as "sorrowful" (or whatever you want to call it) as anything by Mozart or Beethoven. And this single movement alone towers way above anything Michael Haydn or all your composers who supposedly were as successful as Haydn (before he was hyped up by idiots like Brahms (who said about the slow movement from #88 that he wanted his 9th symphony to sound like this) could achieve.
Or several of the 7 last words. Or the slow movement from his last symphony that has a very melancholy turn. There are lots of melancholy slow movements, one in the late piano trios was compared to Tristan.

You seem as deaf to this expression, maybe because it is not operatic like Mozart or "churchy" as the rest of us are to the wonders of Michael's Litanies.


----------



## Bulldog

hammeredklavier said:


> As I said, Michael received commissions from other European royal courts such as that of Spain. Gluck had a better position than Mozart, who received only 40% of the salary Gluck did. All you're trying to say is Joseph was popular and highly-regarded at the time, like how Paisello was. And I pointed out how cookie-cutter the Paris and London symphonies are in my previous threads (I'm starting to get tired of quoting myself and others).


I hope you are tired of it. I've been tired of your constant repetition for months now.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Kreisler jr said:


> Not half as tired as the rest of us are from your self quoting.


I'm also tired cause you often sound like you don't examine my points carefully. If you actually did them carefully, I wouldn't need to quote them. Come to think of it; why should I listen to anyone who claims that Bach was "respected rather than admired" through history, and who has such a biased view of the Classical period history that he thinks only stuff like Bangydn's Paris and London symphonies were the great stuff (even though I told them many times of Michael's and Mozart's direct and indirect influences to Beethoven, Berlioz, Schubert, Bruckner through liturgical music).



hammeredklavier said:


> 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

Kreisler jr said:


> Music is almost never semantically obvious. I find the "largo cantabile e mesto" from op.76,5 as "sorrowful" (or whatever you want to call it) as anything by Mozart or Beethoven. And this single movement alone towers way above anything Michael Haydn or all your composers who supposedly were as successful as Haydn (before he was hyped up by idiots like Brahms (who said about the slow movement from #88 that he wanted his 9th symphony to sound like this) could achieve.
> Or several of the 7 last words. Or the slow movement from his last symphony that has a very melancholy turn. There are lots of melancholy slow movements, one in the late piano trios was compared to Tristan.


I feel "solemn dignity" in all those slow movements of Op.76 (also in Op.54 No.2/ii, and the 49th symphony, which is one of my favorites in Joseph Haydn along with 80th/ii), but not real "sorrow". The comparison to Tristan seems rather ridiculous.
Someone put it correctly; Joseph doesn't utilize dissonant harmony in such a way that's really "heart-wrenching", (unlike the development of Michael's MH189/ii, for instance). 
No.6 is my favorite from Op.76; it has this sort of expression 



, which is interesting how it anticipates Beethoven, (but in my view, Beethoven surpassed it).

There are people who make a huge deal about how Joseph modulates to distant tonal areas in the movement, but the way he does it seems slightly "exasperating" to me (like his other slow movements in general).
















(I wouldn't want to sit and listen through all these; I just skip. They remind me of the "student works" of his 40s.)

I respect you and other people's appreciation for his style, but again; I just don't want to hear things like;
"Joseph's style is just how a Classical period composer is supposed to sound. It was normal for a composer at that time to churn out 200 symphonies and string quartets.",
"Joseph invented everything in Classicism before Mozart came along."
"Michael's work is hopelessly old-fashioned, cause he wrote a lot of counterpoint and liturgical music.",
etc, any more.
Sorry, I've been rather sick of the "Joseph Haydn cultist dogma" elsewhere. 
I still think Michael has more "essence"; as I've said many times before, he breaks free from the "Doctrine of the Affections", with far more expressive fantasy, with gradations of "chill" in use of harmony. (Compared to Missa sancti Hieronymi alone, for instance, Joseph's harmonies are just plain; how can anyone consider a composer so plain in use of harmony as "towering way above the others" is beyond my comprehension, if you ask me.) 
And maybe people should question if their preference in the Classical period is really diverse if they detest entire major genres (ie. liturgical music). And I don't think those people's opinions (on the period) warrant serious consideration on my part.


----------



## Phil loves classical

^ I might've missed it before but show me some sorrow in M. Haydn. I'm just curious. I'm hoping you could let the music speak for itself.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Phil loves classical said:


> ^ I might've missed it before but show me some sorrow in M. Haydn. I'm just curious. I'm hoping you could let the music speak for itself.


All the music I cited in the above post (Dies irae from the Requiem, the credo from Missa sancti Leopoldi, the slow movement from string quintet in G, the Qui tollis from Missa sancti Nicolai Tolentini, etc).


----------



## Phil loves classical

^ For me the string quintet movement is contemplative, which I still like better than anything else by him. The others seem more devotional and solemn. The Dies Irae strikes me as stormy and dramatic.


----------



## mmsbls

Let's focus on the thread topic and keep personal comments off the forum. If you're unhappy with how someone else posts, please ignore them or report posts.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Phil loves classical said:


> ^ For me the string quintet movement is contemplative, which I still like better than anything else by him. The others seem more devotional and solemn. The Dies Irae strikes me as stormy and dramatic.


I think you're now trying to disagree for the sake of disagreeing, just to win an argument. But it should be obvious for anyone who is familiar with common practice traditions to see which of the two uses harmony more effectively to "express". (Of course the "cultists" won't see or deny even if they see.) 
Why did Schubert weep after a visit to Michael's grave (not Joseph's) and wrote about the experience to his (Schubert's) brother? 
"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. . . .)""

But who thought Joseph expressed "sorrow" through his music? Nobody.
If we were to say these don't express sorrow, why not also say, Mozart's requiem or ""Ach, ich fühl's" or the slow movement of his K.551 symphony also don't express "sorrow":





 (13:06)
























4:28





3:00


----------



## Phil loves classical

It's ok, I don't aim to convince you. But that is how those pieces by Michael come across to me. But as for this, what I quoted earlier:


hammeredklavier said:


> Who thought Joseph expressed "sorrow" through his music? Nobody.


H.C. Robbins Landon has described Joe's Symphony 49 as "dark-hued, sombre - even tragic."

I don't really care even if Haydn didn't write that symphony or any works of that emotion sorrow. I find enough I can enjoy from Haydn (Joseph) without that 1 emotion.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Phil loves classical said:


> H.C. Robbins Landon has described Joe's Symphony 49 as "dark-hued, sombre - even tragic."


This is how I think of those modern "experts", btw:


hammeredklavier said:


> It's interesting to note though, all the "testimonies" about the supposed "innovation" of Joseph Haydn come from the 20th century as "second-hand" (such as those of Donald Francis Tovey and H. C. Robbins Landon), and NOT from the 18th century, the actual period when the supposed "innovation" was taking place.





hammeredklavier said:


> Btw (like Donald Francis Tovey**, H. C. Robbins Landon**, etc; I believe one of these even claimed "Mozart said that he learned how to write a string quartet from J. Haydn")


----------



## Phil loves classical

^ That's an interesting topic. You think composers' contemporaries judged their music more accurately? Check this out on Bach.

'Bach's church compositions are always more artificial and laborious, but by no means of such effect, conviction, and reasonable reflection as the works of Telemann and Graun.' Johann Adoph Scheibe

https://www.bach-cantatas.com/Other/Contemporary.htm

Supposedly Mozart himself would say he learned to write the string quartet from Haydn (which I'm wildly speculating meant Joseph). Joseph is credited as the inventor of the string quartet genre, but not in the ensemble itself.

https://www.nytimes.com/1988/08/14/arts/music-what-haydn-taught-mozart.html


----------



## Eclectic Al

One by-product of this thread is that it is prompting me to go back to various pieces by Joseph. I have just revisited Symphony 49: it's still great, and definitely expressive of sorrow in various places.

As a side-comment, I don't really buy the distinction that a piece may be solemn or sorrowful as though they are in opposition. They are different types of thing (ontologically), so a piece of music can be solemn with the solemnity clothing sadness, or it can be solemn with the solemnity clothing more triumphant feelings, say (eg in a coronation march). Solemnity and sorrowfulness are not alternatives.

I am very much into a sense of emotion being controlled in music. That's why I find Brahms much more emotionally affecting than Tchaikovsky, perhaps (- a pressure cooker gets to a higher temperature than a pan without a lid). Similarly, I find various stately movements in Handel's Concerti Grossi extraordinarily sad, although it may be more common to call them solemn. Shocked-faced people processing at a funeral are more affecting to see than those crying nearby (whatever their inner feelings may be). Solemn pieces can be among the most riddled with sadness (funeral marches, anyone?).

Hence, I find the first movement of Haydn's Symphony 49 deeply sorrowful and also quite solemn, In the second and fourth movements I feel a kind of desperation in more "positive" gestures, which also smacks to me of sadness. (Jolliness in various places (say also in Prokofiev) sometimes feels like it wouldn't really bear close scrutiny and is expressive of other feelings being repressed or fought against or denied or whatever. I think Prokofiev's 7th Symphony is underrated. Take the end of the last movement: do you play the jolly bit or not? That's a choice, but even if you do it's clearly not jolly in the context.)

It may be that there is an academic view that the theories of Haydn's time suggested that emotions "ought" to be expressed in a certain fashion, and one can understand what the composer was intending by whether they followed the accepted form, with some doing so more properly than others. Perhaps Michael Haydn followed the rule book more than Joseph in this regard. I wouldn't know, and it is of little interest to me as a listener.

Oh, now you've got me going back to the Trauer symphony: which is also still great. Definitely some sadness kicking around, but what delightful grace and tenderness in the 3rd movement. It's not sad as such, but it can bring tears. You can imagine him sitting in a chair and thinking back to a time in his childhood, maybe with a long-dead parent - not sad as such, but definitely printed in sepia. Or you can if you're into nostalgia. The final movement here seems more genuinely celebratory then in La Passione. He may have been mourning, but he's pretty much got over it by the end.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Phil loves classical said:


> ^ That's an interesting topic. You think composers' contemporaries judged their music more accurately? Check this out on Bach.
> 'Bach's church compositions are always more artificial and laborious, but by no means of such effect, conviction, and reasonable reflection as the works of Telemann and Graun.' Johann Adoph Scheibe
> https://www.bach-cantatas.com/Other/Contemporary.htm


G. Sarti criticized Mozart's dissonance quartet. But I think because Schubert was an important figure in Western classical music, his views may carry more weight.



Phil loves classical said:


> Supposedly Mozart himself would say he learned to write the string quartet from Haydn (which I'm wildly speculating meant Joseph). Joseph is credited as the inventor of the string quartet genre, but not in the ensemble itself. https://www.nytimes.com/1988/08/14/arts/music-what-haydn-taught-mozart.html


I seriously doubt the validity of this claim though. Can it also be claimed that Mozart invented the modern piano concerto, clarinet trio, clarinet quintet, piano quartet? Also, I hear more Michael Haydn than Joseph Haydn in Mozart's Haydn quartets;
for example:








Mozart had written a good string quintet, K.174 (1773), in Salzburg even before he came to Vienna and met Joseph. Do quintets and quartets require totally different techniques to compose?


hammeredklavier said:


> I'm seriously inclined to think Joseph doesn't reach his "maturity" probably until Op.54 (1788), since *his struggle to be expressive* with harmony and counterpoint in the earlier works such as Op.20 (published in 1774) is just way too much.





hammeredklavier said:


> For example, the slow movements of Op.20 (published in 1774); the style of dissonance feels "lukewarm", I don't hear much difference between those and 6 Quartets (1764) by Georg Christoph Wagenseil (1715~1777) in this regard.


We could discuss this particular topic ("to what extent Joseph was an inventor") further in https://www.talkclassical.com/27585-haydn-s-true-place-3.html#post2085342


----------



## hammeredklavier

Eclectic Al said:


> I am very much into a sense of emotion being controlled in music. That's why I find Brahms much more emotionally affecting than Tchaikovsky, perhaps (- a pressure cooker gets to a higher temperature than a pan without a lid).


I think there is a difference between "controlling emotions" and "having sense and skill to use harmony expressively."


----------



## Eclectic Al

hammeredklavier said:


> I think there is a difference between "controlling emotions" and "having sense and skill to use harmony expressively."


I'm sure that's true.

However, when it comes to "having sense and skill to use harmony expressively" I guess that can only be judged by asking listeners. Whether music is expressive surely cannot be judged by looking at its form in a score; it can only be judged by listening and experiencing (or not experiencing) that something is being expressed. If a lot of people think music is expressive then I guess it is. A posteriori you could then look at the piece and theorise about why, but the reality is in the experience of the people, not in the theory.

Of course, your theory might be good, and you could test that by predicting that a certain form in the score is likely to create a particular effect on a listener, and then finding out if listeners respond as predicted. If they don't then the theory is falsified; if they do, you feel a bit more confident about it.

You can theorise endlessly, for example suggesting that apples might fall from trees, but that pears should not on some theoretical basis. However, if the world continues to deny your theory by routinely depositing pears on the ground then that's more convincing than your theory.

A lot of people still seem to think that J Haydn is pretty good.


----------



## fbjim

hammeredklavier said:


> This is how I think of those modern "experts", btw:


Historical research on general trends and influence in music are likely to be *more* accurate from a) years after they took place, as long-term trends in music can be nearly impossible to identify while they are happening, and b) from the era when musicology actually became an active field of study.

Like, obviously nobody at the time said "Wow! The Op. 20 Haydn quartets are extremely influential works in what we consider the archetypical style of classical string quartets!" because that's not something you can say except in retrospect.*

This does not mean musicologists are incapable of error, but I'd like serious reasons as to *why* there was some kind of blatant ahistorical agenda-driven attempt to elevate Joseph Haydn (who, as stated before, was extremely famous and well-regarded in his time), versus the more likely case that music historians got this correct.

*a modern example: historical views on the late 1970s in popular music would have James Taylor as one of the major figures in music, and Kraftwerk as a weird irrelevance. Modern views have James Taylor as a minor figure and Kraftwerk as extraordinarily important because we have a better idea of how music developed past the late 1970s.


----------



## Phil loves classical

hammeredklavier said:


> Also, I hear more Michael Haydn than Joseph Haydn in Mozart's Haydn quartets;
> for example:


It's not that similar to me, plus the bass pattern is quite basic in both. There's no doubt in my mind that Mozart wouldn't want to copy something so basic and fundamental.

This is kind of striking between Haydn's and Mozart's quartets, which I saw here:

https://academic.oup.com/ml/article/97/4/575/3072292









(a) Haydn, String Quartet in E flat major, Op. 33 No. 2/ii, bb. 1-6; (b) Mozart, String Quartet in E flat major, K. 428/iii, bb. 1-6

starts 24:50 not sure if the time stamp works





starts 7:25


----------



## hammeredklavier

^those are generic Classical period minuet rhythmic style. I'm sure if that author hears Michael's music he'll rethink his views. (sounds like one of those "typical" "experts" who only examine the music of Joseph and Mozart)

Michael Haydn string quintet in G major MH.189 (1773)




Mozart string quartet in G major K.387





Michael Haydn string quintet in G, MH 189 (1773) : 



 [ 0:49 ~ 1:06 ]
Mozart string quartet in E flat, K.428 (1783) : 



 [ 0:49 ~ 1:14 ]

Also look at the style of chromaticism in the MH189 minuet (Joseph just doesn't sound like this):




Give me one minuet by Joseph that sounds like:




 (1786)

Michael Haydn string quintet in C, MH187 (1773)




 (1:06)
Mozart string quartet K.387




Mozart string quartet K.458 





"Symphony No. 23 (Michael Haydn)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symphony_No._23_(Michael_Haydn)
The third movement was at first mistaken by Köchel for a work of Mozart's. Mozart did in fact copy out the first 45 measures of it (Simon Sechter completed the score of the finale). Some time afterwards, he wrote his String Quartet in G major, K. 387, with a finale that is also a fugato and also begins with a theme consisting of four whole notes first stated by the second violin."









Btw, when it comes to works like K.427, K.626 (and a host of other vocal works), sharing of language between Joseph and Mozart is virtually nonexistent. I think it's Joseph who tried to imitate Mozart (but failed) in the final decade of the 18th century.









 (revised in 1802)

Try answering my question (from a previous post): "Does writing a string quartet require totally different techniques from writing a string quintet, in the 18th century idiom?"

Michael Haydn MH.189 



Mozart K.533 






hammeredklavier said:


> (think of Mozart K.543/iv)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (think of Mozart K.550/i)





hammeredklavier said:


>


----------



## hammeredklavier

fbjim said:


> I'd like serious reasons as to *why* there was some kind of blatant ahistorical agenda-driven attempt to elevate Joseph Haydn (who, as stated before, was extremely famous and well-regarded in his time), versus the more likely case that music historians got this correct.


So you're saying we're all supposed to blindly worship this Joseph guy as the Father God Almighty of the Symphony, String Quartet, Sonata-form, the Maker of Classicism just cause those "experts" of dubious authority have told us to? 
If Joseph really created a "sensation" with Op.20, and sent a "shockwave across Europe" in the late 18th century in an unprecedented scale as those experts claim, -the composers themselves would have talked about it in their letters. 
Also, I'm actually finding the comparisons of Joseph Haydn to Tristan and Brahms in this thread genuinely hilarious.
Michael Haydn, Brahms, Wagner; none of these guys composed like 
https://www.talkclassical.com/71012-haydns-joseph-vs-michael-14.html#post2094344
https://www.talkclassical.com/71012-haydns-joseph-vs-michael-11.html#post2091506
these at the age of 40. Come on, people, please wake up!


----------



## Phil loves classical

hammeredklavier said:


> ^those are generic Classical period 3/4 time minuet rhythmic style. I'm sure if that author hears Michael's music he'll rethink his views. (sounds like one of those "typical" "experts" who only examine the music of Joseph and Mozart)
> 
> Michael Haydn string quintet in G major MH.189 (1773)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mozart string quartet in G major K.387
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Michael Haydn string quintet in G, MH 189 (1773) :
> 
> 
> 
> [ 0:49 ~ 1:06 ]
> Mozart string quartet in E flat, K.428 (1783) :
> 
> 
> 
> [ 0:49 ~ 1:14 ]
> 
> Also look at the style of chromaticism in the MH189 minuet (Joseph just doesn't sound like this):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Give me one minuet by Joseph that sounds like:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (1786)
> 
> Michael Haydn string quintet in C major MH187 (1773)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (1:06)


Seems to me you avoided talking about the notes. They're the exact same dyads, and used same notes in same placement within the opening bars. The rhythm is the least similar.

I do agree with those 2 examples above, that the similarity to Mozart is uncanny. I stopped reading after the comparison in chromaticism. That small bit in MH 189 is really not anything worth pointing out to me.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Eclectic Al said:


> Of course, your theory might be good, and you could test that by predicting that a certain form in the score is likely to create a particular effect on a listener, and then finding out if listeners respond as predicted. If they don't then the theory is falsified; if they do, you feel a bit more confident about it.
> You can theorise endlessly, for example suggesting that apples might fall from trees, but that pears should not on some theoretical basis. However, if the world continues to deny your theory by routinely depositing pears on the ground then that's more convincing than your theory.


Tell me what's so expressive about this, if you're so confident about its expressivity:







Eclectic Al said:


> A lot of people still seem to think that J Haydn is pretty good.


Again, "mere-exposure effect".


----------



## fbjim

Very true, people who are exposed to Haydn's music seem to like it. Weird how that works


----------



## Phil loves classical

hammeredklavier said:


> So you're saying we're all supposed to blindly worship this Joseph guy as the Father God Almighty of the Symphony, String Quartet, Sonata-form, the Maker of Classicism just cause those "experts" of dubious authority have told us to?
> If Joseph really created a "sensation" with Op.20, and sent a "shockwave across Europe" in the late 18th century in an unprecedented scale as those experts claim, -the composers themselves would have talked about it in their letters.
> Also, I'm actually finding the comparisons of Joseph Haydn to Tristan and Brahms in this thread genuinely hilarious.
> Michael Haydn, Brahms, Wagner; none of these guys composed like
> https://www.talkclassical.com/71012-haydns-joseph-vs-michael-14.html#post2094344
> https://www.talkclassical.com/71012-haydns-joseph-vs-michael-11.html#post2091506
> these at the age of 40. Come on, people, please wake up!


Speaking for myself, I don't listen to experts telling me to worship Joseph. I just worship him because I hear something in his music that you obviously don't. Other than that 1 quintet, I feel everything has been done better by Mozart. If you want to blame someone for stealing the spotlight from M Haydn, I think the biggest culprit is Mozart.


----------



## RogerWaters

The idea that people only like Joseph because of some 'exposure effect' is absurd.

I investigated Joseph's music for myself and loved it. I also investigated Michael's music and I don't love it. Are you suggest some unconscious bias is programming me to like Joseph's music more based on perceiving his grater conventional 'status' (which you argue, further, is foisted on us)?

Do any academics or musicologists of good repute make similar claims: that, in fact, Joseph's influence on Classical music is overblown and his appeal the result of power as opposed to ability?

If not, this is crack-pot, tin-foil hat stuff.


----------



## Phil loves classical

This thread (among a few others on M Haydn) made me appreciate Joseph more, really. The arguments for Michael's superiority fell short to my ears. I don't feel I really missed out all these years, having tasted a fair sample of it.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Phil loves classical said:


> Other than that 1 quintet, I feel everything has been done better by Mozart.


A case can be made that everything Joseph Haydn did was bettered by Beethoven. But no, you can't say the same for Michael; 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 [Post #145].
(I can also discuss the "exchanges" Michael has in this work with Mozart's K.260, K.262, K.337, btw).

And the sense of "serenity and innocent piety" Michael has in the Missa (sancti Leopoldi) and vesperae for equal voices was something not done by Joseph and Mozart.
What you're saying is like "since we have Bach's concertos, we have no need for Vivaldi's" (this may or may not be the right analogy). Maybe some people just need to _broaden their horizon_ in the Classical period, to realize that Bangydn's bangy Londons aren't the only good stuff.
When I realized the merit of Michael's music, it was such a relief from the "generic sound" of [3 Hilarious Examples of Rhythmic Ingenuity in Lesser-known Haydn Symphonies]. It became clear to me why Joseph himself thought Michael was better than him in this regard.



Phil loves classical said:


> If you want to blame someone for stealing the spotlight from M Haydn, I think the biggest culprit is Mozart.


Except it's Joseph Haydn who is always (rather unfairly) recognized as the "great inventor". I wouldn't say any of these composers is "overrated" in musical value; it's the "history distortions" that bother me the most. Besides, it's always Joseph Haydn fans who object (on TC and elsewhere) whenever I say "Michael should be mentioned alongside Joseph and Mozart". And in case you haven't noticed, I've also quoted this on several occasions: "This might seem a rather uninspiring thing to say but Michael Haydn's music has a thorough competence of technique as well a real sense of theatre (in the broadest sense) that is reflected in Mozart's music. One of the many unfortunate legacies of nineteenth-century biographical writing is the excessive focus on the Wunderkind Mozart and the Incomparable Genius Mozart. In Salzburg, if not throughout his life, Mozart was writing in a lingua franca and many of the features of that language are to be found in Michael Haydn too. That Mozart recognized Michael Haydn's mastery is suggested by a letter he sent to his father from Vienna, asking for the latest symphonies of Michael, so that he could perform them in that city."

I hate to say it, some people are just really "dedicated Joseph Haydn fans". (Other people who ignore my posts about Joseph's "shortcomings" in Op.20 cause they believe in his "infallibility" are also "suspects" as well.) They value stuff like Bangydn's Londons more than anything in the period. ("I have a special soft spot for Haydn's symphonies where Mozart's, despite any technical brilliance they possess, leave me cold." -RogerWaters) I've heard Eclectic Al saying that he has no interest in the 18th-century stylistic expressions of "contrapuntal dissonance". Kreisler jr has a low opinion of Bach's contribution to music. I don't think I'm the one who doesn't "think outside the box" regarding these matters, in the context of the Classical period composers.



Phil loves classical said:


> Speaking for myself, I don't listen to experts telling me to worship Joseph. I just worship him because I hear something in his music that you obviously don't.


Face it, Joseph Haydn has been sort of "shoved down our throat" by textbooks and school teachers endlessly telling us "Haydn and Mozart", "Haydn and Mozart", "Haydn and Mozart", (it almost seems like a propaganda slogan). Michael never gets this level of exposure. Many people who would potentionally be interested in Michael's music never get to know it. Fabulin was glad that I informed him of Michael Haydn, and Level82rat encouraged me for doing it.



Phil loves classical said:


> I don't feel I really missed out all these years, having tasted a fair sample of it.


Isn't it biased to think a Joseph Haydn work requires 20 listenings or more to be appreciated whereas a Michael Haydn work deserves only 1 listening? I've listened to Michael Haydn for a long time, but I didn't realize all the things about his music at first. Maybe people just need time and effort to get used to his expressions.


----------



## Phil loves classical

^ Personally I do feel a lot of Michael's music is generic, but maybe unfairly because I've already listened to Mozart's, who obviously drew from Michael. But I can say neither Mozart nor Beethoven can replace Haydn's wit. That trait in his music can't be explained by no amount of posting clips and making claims. It's not the bassoon farts or effects. Michael just doesn't have wit. I can follow his thought process too readily, and he doesn't really transcend the style usually. Where I feel he does, Mozart's already onto that device, and does him better.

That's a short summary of how I feel between the 2 Haydns. Not much else for me to continue this thread on.


----------



## fbjim

"Schoolteachers and textbooks?" I've never read a music textbook, and which schools have people teaching about Mozart and Haydn, let alone the history of classical music? I think the one thing I remember that got taught was the Circle of Fifths, or something.

What is galling is that you are consistently invalidating the tastes of all people who like Haydn's music. There is nothing wrong with disliking an acclaimed composer. But when you start going "You don't actually like Haydn, you only think you like him because Donald Tovey (???)", or "You can't claim to be objective unless you've listened to both Joseph and Michael equally"*, and more or less claim that you only trust the opinions of people who dislike Haydn- what you are doing isn't stating a preference, it's stating that people who disagree with you are mentally deficient.

There is nothing wrong with disliking Haydn. If you think Haydn sounds like crap, that's fine. But when you accuse everyone who likes Haydn of irrationality, that their brains are poisoned by bias, that they are sheep who believe everything Donald Tovey says- that's toxic.

*And I realize this may go against the rules on talking about posting styles, but I'm going to be frank- I'm tired of every single thread about a certain composer (and even threads not about said composer) devolving into unreadable nonsense because of the actions of a single user. 
*

*Thought experiment. Can I objectively decide that Bach was better than John Cage if I haven't listened to Bach and John Cage equally?


----------



## hammeredklavier

fbjim said:


> "Schoolteachers and textbooks?" I've never read a music textbook, and which schools have people teaching about Mozart and Haydn, let alone the history of classical music? ...


These are basically my thoughts on the topic:

"Due to various circumstances and factors, composer [A]'s scores were better distributed, and music was better known than other composers' of his time;
and the so-called "experts" (such as Donald Francis Tovey, and Charles Rosen, or others who only rely on secondary sources) keep telling you as if composer [A] was the only "real pioneer" in his time. 




And the same people who've been indoctrinated by the so-called "experts" about the alleged significance of composer [A] tell other people about composer [A].
So the "rumor" spreads like a "snow-ball effect". "Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth" may not be the best analogy, but it's similar in effect.
There's nothing wrong with liking a composer, but if the fandom gets people to believe "distorted history", then that's a problem. It usually tends to give certain composers too much credit; causing certain others to get "flatlined".
I don't think we should pretend like the famous composers were some kind of the "Chosen Ones". They're simply the "best hits" widely known to people, much like hits in other genres such as rock, jazz, pop, etc. Artists of the past who have been forgotten due to various circumstances and factors (ex. lack of exposure) of their time can always be re-assessed and re-evaluated today based on the merit of their work and newly-discovered facts about their influence." -hammeredklavier {Thread <How do important composers get flatlined?>, Post #33}
"I'm not suggesting any of the fore-mentioned composers are "overrated" or "overappreciated" or that people are "stupid" here. But we still got to give the lesser-known composers "credit where is due". For example, there's a valid reason why, in terms of musical linguistics, Mozart derived more from composers other than Joseph Haydn. But people today are "indoctrinated" into thinking Joseph Haydn was the most important, for him. -this somehow builds an "illusion" in the back of our minds; _"Joseph Haydn must have always written great music, because he was the "Father""._ 
To me, this is a result of "history distortion". (I'm not saying Joseph Haydn is a poor composer) I just don't think it's fair for the other composers, who've been "flatlined" in the process. I'm sure there are numerous other cases like this in the history of classical music." -hammeredklavier {Thread <How do important composers get flatlined?>, Post #36}

We could maybe discuss this particular topic in more depth in another thread, <Haydn's true place in music history - once lost, now regained>, if any of us wants.


----------



## Bulldog

hammeredklavier said:


> Face it, Joseph Haydn has been sort of "shoved down our throat" by textbooks and school teachers endlessly telling us "Haydn and Mozart", "Haydn and Mozart", "Haydn and Mozart", (it almost seems like a propaganda slogan).


Nobody shoves any composer or music down my throat; your throat may vary. Speaking of shoving, you're the one who has been trying to shove Haydn's little brother down everyone's throat for months now.


----------



## Art Rock

We've already had 239 posts on this subject. It should be clear by now that there will be no changes in position any more, and continuing the 'discussion' will only increase irritation levels further. I'm closing the thread.


----------

