# Haydn Symphony Series Part 1: 1-10



## Ramako

The origin of this idea: I've been wanting to discuss all of Haydn's symphonies for a while, and thinking of how to do it; considering there are so many of them, a single thread could not possibly hope to cover all of them. Basically, it seems to me that a lot of people newly approaching Haydn's symphonies find the number of them daunting, and so hesitate to dip in beyond the more famous ones. So I want to make a series of threads, going through the symphonies basically in sets of 10 (I shall have to fit A&B in somewhere), and people can vote for their favourites within the thread groupings (a single poll can't take 104 options ). Hopefully if this goes well and enough people take an interest these threads can become a 'TC guide to Haydn symphonies' .

So these first ten are mostly quite obscure. The most famous are definitely the 'times of day' set, numbers 6-8, and I must say these are probably my favourites here. They were the first symphonies Haydn wrote on coming into Esterhazy's service, and they are designed to please his new orchestra, by giving each of the individual players a chance to shine. To do this, Haydn borrows from the old baroque ripieno concerto form (for example Bach's 3rd Brandenburg concerto). Movements that stand out for me in this set are the first movement of number 6 and the last movement of number 7. I haven't compared them in detail, but in general I prefer Adam Fischer to Trevor Pinnock. I must say that some of the other symphonies in these first ten really do not grab my attention compared to later ones, but 6-8 are not all that is good here by any means. Notable is number 5, which is in Sonata di Chiesa form (like his more famous later symphonies 22 and 49), and to my ears the first movements of numbers 4 and 5 are outstanding, and symphony 1 is quite good too, especially considering it is believed to actually be his first symphony.

Here is the Hoboken numbering (on the left) against what is believed to have been the actual order of composition at the moment (on the right).

1. - 1.
2. - 4.
3. - 17.
4. - 5.
5. - 14.
6. - 18.
7. - 19.
8. - 20.
9. - 23.
10. - 7.

This is a good site, and is where I got my chronologies from:

http://www.haydn107.com/index.php?id=21&lng=2

Happy Haydn!


----------



## clavichorder

I have voted. My favorite of all the early ones is probably number 5 in A major, there is a freshness to it. Numbers 1 and 2 have a very high level of wit and charm, and somehow the steam has been lost/altered with the next 2 symphonies, though they have something in their own right. 1 is pure charm and 2 is a little more complex without losing much, and some very nice major minor stuff in the 2nd and 3rd mvts of 2.

5, it has a nice if easy going slow intro, but the bubbling joy of the fast part that follows is unrivaled in the earlier Haydn. See 6:54 for the change:





The titled ones, I don't find them as interesting on the whole, but I like them. I voted for 6 and 8, because they are different and yet still interesting.

I know 9 and 10, 9 has an upstart beginning.

Thanks for the website! That should be interesting.


----------



## realdealblues

I guess I will spend the weekend with Papa Haydn re-visiting these symphonies before I make my decision.  I want them all fresh in my head before choosing a favorite.


----------



## Badinerie

Im not afraid to go with the popular vote on this one. 6, 7, and 8 all the way!


----------



## neoshredder

From what I heard, 7 is really good.


----------



## clavichorder

I am listening to 7 for the first time in a while. I am enjoying it quite a bit, especially when all the interesting, almost concerto like material starts going around in the fast section.

The three titled ones are a bit longer, and they are almost like concerti in a way. There are segments that are more simple than would have been acceptable in the context of the tightness of the 1st three symphonies, and other segments that are quite a bit more elaborate.


----------



## neoshredder

I need to get into this listening club. Will listen to Haydn tomorrow.


----------



## Arsakes

FACT: First 10 Haydn symphonies are better than first 20 Mozart Symphonies!
First 4 symphonies look more as violin concertos (without violin focus) though.

#1,4,6,7,8 & 10


----------



## KenOC

Ramako, just voted. In future installments, could you list the years with the symphonies? Since the numbering doesn't follow the actual order of composition very well, that would be helpful IMO.


----------



## ProudSquire

> FACT: First 10 Haydn symphonies are better than first 20 Mozart Symphonies!


Even if it were meant to be a joke, I still don't understand what does it have to do with this thread.
I don't seem to recount the author of the thread asking for a comparison between Haydn's symphonies and Mozart's symphonies. Maybe I missed something, because I seem to recall that Haydn wrote his first symphony around the age of 27 and Mozart at age 8, but by age 27, Mozart had written up to the 'Linz' symphony (No.36). So, I don't see your point.

Back to the topic of the thread! I actually enjoy No. 7, and 4 quite a lot, the rest are wonderful and they each have their own distinct charm.


----------



## Ramako

KenOC said:


> Ramako, just voted. In future installments, could you list the years with the symphonies? Since the numbering doesn't follow the actual order of composition very well, that would be helpful IMO.


Good idea - will do!


----------



## neoshredder

I picked 1, 6, 7 Are we ready to go to Symphonies 11-20 yet?


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Arsakes said:


> FACT: First 10 Haydn symphonies are better than first 20 Mozart Symphonies!


FACT: Mozart and Haydn don't have a chance when it comes to the spellbinding, powerful symphonies of CPE Bach and JM Kraus.


----------



## KenOC

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> FACT: Mozart and Haydn don't have a chance when it comes to the spellbinding, powerful symphonies of CPE Bach and JM Kraus.


FACT: Uh...


----------



## neoshredder

KenOC said:


> FACT: Uh...


Yes fact. CPE Bach is the king of 'Sturm und Drang' Symphonies.


----------



## clavichorder

Well Coag and others who are saying Mozart<Haydn<CPE Bach/JM KRAUS, I have this to say about your FACTS.

Your OPINIONS are Wrong.

But not without some merit. Haydn is good and has some good traits that Mozarts don't have, and vice versa, but its nice to see Haydn getting support. Same exact thing to be said for CPE Bach and JM Kraus.

And as much as I don't think its necessary for Mozart to be "dethroned" from his seat of greatness, I equally don't like it when anybody says bad things about CPE Bach, who is great.

Edit: *Wait a minute! We can't turn this innocent thread into a battle of greatness this or that...I'm too stubborn to delete what I just wrote, as it was the perfect recycling of Coag's signature statement.*


----------



## KenOC

clavichorder said:


> Your OPINIONS are Wrong.


Could you please be more direct and less wishy-washy? 

BTW I love your Bacon quote.


----------



## clavichorder

Pleased to see the love for symphony number 1 and that someone at least likes number 5 like me.


----------



## clavichorder

KenOC said:


> Could you please be more direct and less wishy-washy?


You can thank our friend COAG for that, its an old thing.

Edit: the Bacon quote is very inspiring to me yes, even though I know very little about the man and his work.


----------



## Novelette

I like this project a lot. I've listened to Haydn's symphonies over and over again, but I'll admit that I haven't listened so intently that I could distinguish many of the symphonies.

I know most of the 40's, 60's, 70's, and 80's. I know all of the 90's and 100's. It's going to be wonderful revisiting each symphony intensively and reading everyone's seasoned opinions of each.

There is so much joy in Haydn's music. It always disappointed me that Tchaikovsky wrote about Haydn as being a second-rate composer, whose output consisted only of trifles and aesthetically pleasing works. Sorry, Pyotr, but exposure to his oeuvre would have revealed a very sophisticated musical mind at work, and the "trifles" of which you speak brimming with subtle genius indicative of a true master's hand!


----------



## Novelette

Thank goodness for both Haydn and CPE Bach. Titans of the early [properly] symphonic tradition, those two.


----------



## Novelette

As for Haydn's first 10 being better than Mozart's first 20, how do you mean? Do you like Haydn's orchestration better, or perhaps his treatment of rhythm?

It would be interesting to listen to do exactly that, compare Haydn's first ten to Mozart's first ten [for the sake of evenness, and then proceed to 11-20 for both, etc.], point out respective weaknesses and strengths, and compare notes, according to our tastes.

It's difficult to compare two composers like that, as their particular styles are quite different, despite the similarity of tonal treatment. While I personally prefer Haydn's symphonies to Mozart's too, that's only a matter of taste, and there really can't be any denying that Mozart was a tremendous master of symphonic treatment, and a tremendous composer generally.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

I voted for number 9 if anyone was wondering.


----------



## KenOC

Schumann on Haydn: "...an old family friend whom one receives gladly and respectifully but who has nothing new to tell us."


----------



## neoshredder

That's because all his music is about being happy and content with life. I prefer more anger in my Symphonies. Thus CPE Bach shows more of that. I can only listen to Haydn so long before I want to go to something else.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

clavichorder said:


> You can thank our friend COAG for that, its an old thing.


Where are my royalties? :scold:


----------



## Novelette

Neoshredder, I can totally relate with wanting more turbulence in your symphonies. The cheer in most of Haydn's music quickly gets old.

Honestly, the tonal possibilities are far greater in the minor key than in the major key, or at the very least, in alternating heavily between minor and major keys. Forays into the relative key are fine and all, but a more creative excursion into a remote key creates a far more compelling work, if well treated.


----------



## clavichorder

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Where are my royalties? :scold:


Is one 'like' enough?


----------



## neoshredder

Novelette said:


> Neoshredder, I can totally relate with wanting more turbulence in your symphonies. The cheer in most of Haydn's music quickly gets old.
> 
> Honestly, the tonal possibilities are far greater in the minor key than in the major key, or at the very least, in alternating heavily between minor and major keys. Forays into the relative key are fine and all, but a more creative excursion into a remote key creates a far more compelling work, if well treated.


Yeah like in Schubert's late work is a great example of that. Nonetheless, a little Haydn cheer once in a while is alright for me.


----------



## Novelette

I'm finally starting this project of listening to each of Haydn's symphonies carefully.

The way I most like to listen to music is to read the score as I'm listening to it. Thank goodness for IMSLP! I figure I'll go through five a day.


----------



## Novelette

Okay, I have to admit to being very impressed with these ten symphonies. I have listened to them off and on for years, but not so intensively as the past two days.

These are the very essence of "correct" Classical proportions. Trills usually on the upbeat, wonderful modulations, and even some unexpected syncopation [the latter especially in the wonderful andante of the Fourth Symphony]. I have to admit that Haydn's Minuets usually bore me, because there's so little variety in them. In the last 30 symphonies, the minuets become very interesting, but not in these early works.

I've always felt that Haydn's strengths lie in his slow movements. Sometimes they are filled with the most touching sentimentality, with an emotional depth subtly revealed.

What has always interested me about Haydn's early works is how he seems to have to grope his way to a new style in those uncertain years. I can imagine the difficulty after the complexity of the Baroque faded from popular taste and the Gallant Style became increasingly popular--the uncertainty of how to proceed, what musical idioms were to take hold, what level of complexity to be adopted, how much of counterpoint to be abandoned. It seems to me that the man we should thank mostly for pioneering musical style in this era is CPE Bach, whose style influenced Haydn so heavily.

Onward to the next ten symphonies!


----------



## Novelette

Also, I wasn't very original in my voting.

3 and 7.


----------



## Tristan

I'm not familiar with a lot of Haydn's symphonies. But the Symphony No. 2's second movement is home to a recurring motif in Haydn's music, that I've noticed.


----------



## clavichorder

Novelette said:


> Also, I wasn't very original in my voting.
> 
> 3 and 7.


You know, 3 is actually a really good symphony. I kind of overlooked it.

Ah yes, I remember that the development section of the 1st mvt. is overall really nice. I like the part when it slowly stalls its way into C major for the main theme.


----------



## Plato

Don't you think that the opening of 6 is just great, as well as its third movement? I am really in love with this symphony!


----------



## Pugg

Symphony 6 in D major - "Le Matin"
Symphony 7 in C major - "Le Midi"
Symphony 8 in G major - "Le Soir"


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock

I haven't heard all 10 but I've heard some of the non- 6-8 symphonies and I think that 6-8 would be the best in this category (not to take away anything from the other symphonies). I prefer no. 7 in the set, because of its emotive, baroque-like slow movement and its contrast with the rest of the symphony.


----------



## Haydn man

HaydnBearstheClock said:


> I haven't heard all 10 but I've heard some of the non- 6-8 symphonies and I think that 6-8 would be the best in this category (not to take away anything from the other symphonies). I prefer no. 7 in the set, because of its emotive, baroque-like slow movement and its contrast with the rest of the symphony.


I would agree that No.7 is my favourite of the early symphonies


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock

Haydn man said:


> I would agree that No.7 is my favourite of the early symphonies


The Adagio makes it take the cake, in the rest of the movements it is as stellar as 6 and 8 imo.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

I liked all 10 but liked 6-8 more.


----------



## Pugg

Still standing by my firs choice.


----------



## Vesteralen

Interesting. Well, I shouldn't be surprised that this has been attempted before. The chronological numbering is subject to opinion of course, and not all scholars agree on it - so I'll still exercise my right to make my own list. No laws broken, I guess.

And, as is probably clear from my own thread on the topic - #6 is my favorite of this group. That does seem to agree with the consensus on this poll.

But, though #8 comes next on my list of favorites, I would put #5 and #9 ahead of #7. I know 6-8 are often considered as a group together, because that seems to be the way they were composed. But, I don't find them equally interesting myself.


----------



## Pugg

Vesteralen said:


> Interesting. Well, I shouldn't be surprised that this has been attempted before. The chronological numbering is subject to opinion of course, and not all scholars agree on it - so I'll still exercise my right to make my own list. No laws broken, I guess.
> 
> And, as is probably clear from my own thread on the topic - #6 is my favorite of this group. That does seem to agree with the consensus on this poll.
> 
> But, though #8 comes next on my list of favorites, I would put #5 and #9 ahead of #7. I know 6-8 are often considered as a group together, because that seems to be the way they were composed. But, I don't find them equally interesting myself.


You know the score, so many people so many choices.


----------



## Vesteralen

Pugg said:


> You know the score, so many people so many choices.


Absolutely. It's always been my POV here that most of us, including myself, can only really state our personal preferences. Very few of us are in a position to categorically declaim "greatness".

Personally, I never look to someone else to tell me what I should like. But, I do think hearing others' opinions, especially when expressed with an understanding of their own limitations, makes for an interesting interchange.


----------



## Pugg

Vesteralen said:


> Absolutely. It's always been my POV here that most of us, including myself, can only really state our personal preferences. Very few of us are in a position to categorically declaim "greatness".
> 
> Personally, I never look to someone else to tell me what I should like. But, I do think hearing others' opinions, especially when expressed with an understanding of their own limitations, makes for an interesting interchange.


 Healthy view, on the other hand, there are a few _I do_ trust.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

Pugg said:


> Symphony 6 in D major - "Le Matin"
> Symphony 7 in C major - "Le Midi"
> Symphony 8 in G major - "Le Soir"


Three very good early symphonies of Haydn.


----------



## Brahmsian Colors

2 and 6 are my only faves here


----------

