# ....................



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

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


----------



## Vasks (Dec 9, 2013)

I can't speak for the symphony comparison you did, but I do own the 2 Naxos CDs that have Richter's 12 Grand Symphonies of 1744 and some of them have moments of pleasant surprises and rarely are dull. He was a good composer.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

That's a nice symphony by Richter. That part in the Haydn you don't like sounds good to me. I think Mozart used that device or something similar, but he's not whiny though, of course not.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Phil loves classical said:


> That's a nice symphony by Richter. That part in the Haydn you don't like sounds good to me. I think Mozart used that device or something similar, but he's not whiny though, of course not.


I not just talking about that part. Maybe "lukewarm" or "chatty" are better terms to describe that sort of expressions in general, I don't know. 
Here's another sturm-und-drang symphony by J. Haydn, composed in 1785:








Mozart doesn't quite sound like that in terms of melody and harmony:


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Excellent thread, I enjoyed reading the first post. Both symphonies are great and I think Richter certainly deserves more listening and study.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

This is just another thread to take down Haydn a few notches.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Bulldog said:


> This is just another thread to take down Haydn a few notches.


Sorry about the "negativity", but I feel we really need to re-assess J. Haydn's status as the Father of the symphony and the string quartet. He was merely a good composer, who's been elevated and promoted way out of proportion with the slogans "Haydn (Joseph) and Mozart", "the Father", when in fact he was lacking in certain important aspects compared to even his very own younger brother, and he wasn't really that exemplary a model to Mozart and the others as many people today would have us believe.
https://www.talkclassical.com/54405-haydn-muscular-mozart-22.html#post2035322


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Phil loves classical said:


> That part in the Haydn you don't like sounds good to me.


I'm not saying it's bad. It's nowhere "unbearable" as the endless pomposity of late J. Haydn works, such as Mass in B flat, "harmoniemesse" or the Creation. I can't stand listening to two of the Paris or the London non-stop. It just feels like eating styrofoam. I'm aware Beethoven is sometimes criticized in a similar way, but at least he took these expressions and turned them into something more meaningful (ie. "triumph over tragedy"), imv - it's different from being pompous for the sake of being pompous.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

hammeredklavier said:


> Sorry about the "negativity", but I feel we really need to re-assess J. Haydn's status as the Father of the symphony and the string quartet. He was merely a good composer, who's been elevated and promoted way out of proportion with the slogans "Haydn (Joseph) and Mozart", "the Father", when in fact he was lacking in certain important aspects compared to even his very own younger brother, and he wasn't really that exemplary a model to Mozart and the others as many people today would have us believe.


You have said the above dozens of times in the past. What would get you to stop?


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Bulldog said:


> You have said the above dozens of times in the past. What would get you to stop?


Sorry, it's amazing to me there are people who think J. Haydn is still underrated (as if he's not been elevated enough already)
https://www.talkclassical.com/70553-one-these-underrated-tc.html#post2048972
I also respect your views; I'm just trying to get you see things from a different perspective.



Agamenon said:


> Haydn, the most underrated composer of all times. period.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

hammeredklavier said:


> I also respect your views; I'm merely trying to get you see things from a different perspective.


That's the kind of attitude I find unacceptable. I don't put any members on ignore, but I will ignore your postings in the future.


----------



## Aries (Nov 29, 2012)

hammeredklavier said:


> These symphonies are roughly similar in idiomatic style and formal layout, were composed around the same period, (except J. Haydn has an extra movement in his symphony, although his concluding movement strikes me as a bit "negligible" in terms of content and quality: [18:12~21:00] ).
> J. Haydn's 49th is, in some quarters, considered to be his best sturm-und-drang symphony, but listening to sections like [8:20], I just fail to see how the J. Haydn symphony is better than the Richter.


I don't think the recording is good. These seem better: 
- 



- 






hammeredklavier said:


> (It's hard to describe; the Haydn symphony is an ok piece, but there's something about it that strikes me as a bit "whiny"). The Richter symphony strikes me as more "stylish" in terms of melody and harmony.


I wouldn't describe Haydns style as "stylish". His style seems more rural and often a bit dry. What I like about Haydns Symphony No. 49 and other sturm und drang symphonies is the emotional inner turmoil. I think it is one of his best Symphonies.

I don't know Richters symphonies, but his style seems to be more like Mozarts style, more urban and more "stylish".



hammeredklavier said:


> Here's another sturm-und-drang symphony by J. Haydn, composed in 1785:


I think the Symphony No. 83 is considered a Paris symphony. But the 83 isn't my favorite out of them. I like the 82 more and the 85 has a good second movement and Finale.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

> Sorry about the "negativity", but I feel we really need to re-assess J. Haydn's status as the Father of the symphony and the string quartet.


 Unfortunately these threads of yours just make Joseph look better and point up why the others are kinda obscure.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Like all of your threads in this format, this is an arbitrary, pointless, pseudo-critical exercise in personal axe-grinding. You claim the two symphonies are “roughly similar in idiomatic style and layout,” when, in fact, they aren’t remotely similar. You claim Haydn 49 is considered “his best sturm und drang symphony in some circles,” but you cite one anonymous online bozo in support of this assertion. One clown does not a circle make. 

I wish I could say I was surprised to hear you can’t see how the “Haydn symphony is better than the Richter,” but I’ve read your opinions for a couple of years so I’m not. Let me help you out: The Richter has some nice passages but overall it’s a poorly focused trifle. Richter has a habit of sequencing the same phrase four times in a row before changing direction, apparently thinking a crescendo will make this repetition interesting. I found that on a first hearing I could often predict four measures in advance exactly how Richter would continue an idea. The phrase structure is not half as interesting as in any movement of the Haydn. There really is no comparison where quality is concerned. Nearly every Haydn symphony of this era is better than the Richter. Certainly 44, 45, 46, and 47, along with 49, are all vastly better than the Richter.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

EdwardBast said:


> I found that on a first hearing I could often predict four measures in advance exactly how Richter would continue an idea. The phrase structure is not half as interesting as in any movement of the Haydn. There really is no comparison where quality is concerned. Nearly every Haydn symphony of this era is better than the Richter. Certainly 44, 45, 46, and 47, along with 49, are all vastly better than the Richter.


Fair point, but I still maintain that there is something about J. Haydn strikes me as a bit of a "naked emperor" - even in instances of J. Haydn repeating his theme ad-nauseam with bland use of chords and progression of rhythm, we're still supposed to consider it "cerebral", "inventive", "daring", "thoroughly-developed" just because the "J. Haydn cult" says so:



hammeredklavier said:


> Here's another sturm-und-drang symphony by J. Haydn, composed in 1785:


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

EdwardBast said:


> Richter has a habit of sequencing the same phrase four times in a row before changing direction, apparently thinking a crescendo will make this repetition interesting. I found that on a first hearing I could often predict four measures in advance exactly how Richter would continue an idea.


Sure. Who can deny J. Haydn being a master of "surprises", a cheeky "attention seeker" 
















It is as if he's saying "Don't forget me! Remember, it's always *"Haydn (Joseph) and Mozart"*!"


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

hammeredklavier said:


> Fair point, but I still maintain that there is something about J. Haydn strikes me as a bit of a "naked emperor" - even when J. Haydn repeats his theme ad-nauseam with bland use of chords and progression of rhythm, we're still supposed to consider it "cerebral", "inventive", "daring", "thoroughly-developed" just because the "J. Haydn cult" says so:


I think your idol Mozart would be quick to defend his buddy from what you're saying.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Phil loves classical said:


> I think your idol Mozart would be quick to defend his buddy from what you're saying.


Go through this thread, if you haven't already (page 19 ~ to the end):
https://www.talkclassical.com/54405-haydn-muscular-mozart-19.html#post2034349


hammeredklavier said:


> I think Mozart's attitude toward Joseph was in fact more "respect" rather than "admiration"


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

hammeredklavier said:


> Go through this thread, if you haven't already (page 19 ~ to the end):
> https://www.talkclassical.com/54405-haydn-muscular-mozart-19.html#post2034349


The most concrete thing I saw was:
"His [CPE Bach's] influence on Joseph Haydn, W.A. Mozart, and even Ludwig van Beethoven was freely acknowledged, and it is interesting that, having influenced Haydn, Bach later allowed himself to be influenced by the younger composer, *just as Haydn later influenced and was influenced by Mozart*.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Phil loves classical said:


> The most concrete thing I saw was:
> "His [CPE Bach's] influence on Joseph Haydn, W.A. Mozart, and even Ludwig van Beethoven was freely acknowledged, and it is interesting that, having influenced Haydn, Bach later allowed himself to be influenced by the younger composer, *just as Haydn later influenced and was influenced by Mozart*.


J. Haydn's influence or whatever it is; it's frankly only as significant as J.C. Bach's. 
Take a look at:


hammeredklavier said:


> Rather, I think, a question we really need to ask ourselves at this point is, -"how much did Mozart actually care about Joseph deep down?"





hammeredklavier said:


> I think even if the bassoon-fart symphonist never existed it wouldn't have affected Mozart in any significant way.





hammeredklavier said:


> The fact remains that there's not a single work in Joseph Haydn that inspired Mozart as much as Michael's C minor requiem did.


Listen to this:




And notice the feeling of "all voices acting as if they're fighting to converge on home, with an absolute thirst for the tonic and the resolution". 
J. Haydn just can't "do it" no matter how hard he tries; it's way above his pay-grade. So instead we have sad excuses like the dragged-out "Seven last words of christ", or 



 .

I feel bad about having offended Bulldog and other members, but I for one will be the one to take the courage to say "NO" to a cult, when there is one.


hammeredklavier said:


> there's no reason all of Joseph's baryton trios should be recorded (even though it's so hard to find a baryton player today), while his own younger brother's 20 litanies still languish in obscurity.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

hammeredklavier said:


> ...
> I feel bad about having offended Bulldog and other members, but I for one will be the one to take the courage to say "NO" to a cult, when there is one.


A Haydn cult. That's insane. :lol: But you can say no to it by not listening to Haydn. Problem solved. Just throw on some Masonic Funeral Music or the fugue for two pianos and enjoy life.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

consuono said:


> Just throw on some Masonic Funeral Music or the fugue for two pianos and enjoy life.


Again;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;


hammeredklavier said:


> No seriously, I'm not even kidding:
> 
> M. Haydn MH.155:
> 
> ...


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

consuono said:


> A Haydn cult. But you can say no to it by not listening to Haydn.


I say again; there's no reason all of Joseph's baryton trios should be recorded (even though it's so hard to find a baryton player today), while his own younger brother's 20 litanies still languish in obscurity.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess (Aug 30, 2015)

hammeredklavier said:


> I say again; there's no reason all of Joseph's baryton trios should be recorded (even though it's so hard to find a baryton player today), while his own younger brother's 20 litanies still languish in obscurity.


Maybe you should ask the music companies to record his brother's works?


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

Johnnie Burgess said:


> Maybe you should ask the music companies to record his brother's works?


Pardon me if I suspect that hammered's interest is less in advancing the work of Michael than it is in taking swipes at Franz Joseph.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

consuono said:


> Pardon me if I suspect that hammered's interest is less in advancing the work of Michael than it is in taking swipes at Franz Joseph.


There was a time I talked nicely about all these issues. No one cared. Everyone just kept talking like Michael never existed; "It was Joseph who did everything; built all the foundation before Mozart came along.. Remember, it's always "Haydn (Joseph) and Mozart" when it comes to 18th century Classicism". So I realized I had to challenge the "Haydn (Joseph) Hegemony".



Alydon said:


> Michael Haydn will never equal his more famous brother





Musicophile said:


> Michael Who? (sorry, couldn't resist).


Think about it. Why would I say:



hammeredklavier said:


> I also happen to agree with:
> https://theresia.blog/2019/03/rediscovering-michael-haydn-an-interview-with-david-wyn-jones/
> "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."


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

> So I realized I had to challenge the "Haydn (Joseph) Hegemony".


There isn't any such thing. Mozart's the Great Hegemon from that era.


----------

