# Why does Haydn seem to be out of fashion?



## Barking Spiderz

A while back I came across some article on the most performed composers and works in the world. OK so's he's not exactly ignored but Haydn's performed nowhere near as much as Mozart, LvB, Tchaikovsky and Brahms. Also UK broadcaster Classic FM produces annual lists on listeners faves and this year came up with an ultimate list for it's first 15 years of broadcasting. Only two Haydn works are listed but not one of his symphonies! I'm gobsmacked. Question is, is Haydn a bit out of fashion right now and if so how come?


----------



## science

That's an interesting question. I feel like we are in the early period of a bit of a Haydn revival. Maybe it always feels like that. But the thing is, I hear and read a lot of people wondering why we don't hear his music more often, and that can only lead to listening and performing it more often! 

Perhaps one thing that hurts him is our emphasis on the symphony, and that so many people have a conception of "the symphony" that really began with Beethoven, and Haydn doesn't give them that. But I think we have less concrete expectations for string quartets, and if we paid more attention to that genre, he would gain a little more of the status he deserves.


----------



## Pieck

Can you share a link to the article if it's on the web please?
Actually I thought he is performed very often


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

Yeah, he's played probably everyday on my local radio station, either a symphony, a piano sonata, or a string quartet.


----------



## jurianbai

I think because Haydn influenced many composers after him, and his influenced can be heard in other composer's work. thus making his own music just like a "general" style to classical music, especially in classical era.
yet, if you take into something like Seven last words for string quartet , it is clearly Haydn got some serious pieces.


----------



## peeyaj

I read a similar argument regarding Haydn and Mozart. The argument is * ''Why would anyone listen to Haydn, when they can listen to Mozart, whose musical output is superior than him?''* I partially agree because, frankly, in terms of emotional depth and intellectual vigor, (in internet slang), Mozart always ''pwned'' Haydn. Haydn may be the creator of symphony and string quartet, but his legacy was carried by far better composers such as *Mozart* (symphony), * Beethoven* (symphony, string quartet) and *Schubert* (chamber music).

I'll make a case regarding Haydn and Schubert. There is a debate (in other forums) regarding these two. Also, NYT removed Haydn in Vienna Four in their Greatest Composers list.

Haydn's music, at best can be called ''charming'', ''quirky'' and ''pleasant''. At worst, he is a mediocre composer who will have one symphony with 104 variations, regurgirations and all. Not any on Haydn's 104 symphonies, reached the towering emotional depth and unprecedented vision, of Schubert's Unfinished and Great C-major Symphony. Haydn's music may be charming but it lacks vision and emotion.

In Haydn's String quartets, he was in his top form. The quartets are charming, passionate and ''pretty''. Again, when you compared those in Schubert's monumental, Death and the Maiden quartet, the Rosamunde, the unfinished Quartettsatz, and the volcanic, no. 15; Haydn's quartet's sounds ephemeral. Unlike, Schubert (and Mozart), Haydn doesn't have the ''emotional turmoil and passion'' that makes Schubert's music work.

After all, when you live in a life full of luxury and adulation, you would be not that serious in creating ''emotional'' music. On Vienna Four, Haydn lived the most comfortable life when he died. Mozart, poverty and death at 35, Beethoven going deaf and becoming a hermit, and Schubert, penniless, unknown, ill-ridden with syphillis, died at 31.


----------



## Pieck

peeyaj said:


> I read a similar argument regarding Haydn and Mozart. The argument is ''Why would anyone listen to Haydn, when they can listen to Mozart, whose musical output is superior than him?'' I partially agree because, frankly, in terms of emotional depth and intellectual vigor, (in internet slang), Mozart always ''pwned'' Haydn. *Haydn may be the creator of symphony and string quartet*, but his legacy was carried by far better composers such as Mozart (symphony), Beethoven (symphony, string quartet) and Schubert (chamber music).
> 
> I'll make a case regarding Haydn and Schubert. There is a debate (in other forums) regarding these two. Also, NYT removed Haydn in Vienna Four in their Greatest Composers list.
> 
> Haydn's music, at best can be called ''charming'', ''quirky'' and ''pleasant''. At worst, he is a mediocre composer who will have one symphony with 104 variations, regurgirations and all. Not any on Haydn's 104 symphonies, reached the towering emotional depth and unprecedented vision, of Schubert's Unfinished and Great C-major Symphony. Haydn's music may be charming but it lacks vision and emotion.
> 
> In Haydn's String quartets, he was in his top form. The quartets are charming, passionate and ''pretty''. Again, when you compared those in Schubert's monumental, Death and the Maiden quartet, the Rosamunde, the unfinished Quartettsatz, and the volcanic, no. 15; Haydn's quartet's sounds ephemeral. Unlike, Schubert (and Mozart), Haydn doesn't have the ''emotional turmoil and passion'' that makes Schubert's music work.
> 
> After all, when you live in a life full of luxury and adulation, you would be not that serious in creating ''emotional'' music. On Vienna Four, Haydn lived the most comfortable life when he died. Mozart, poverty and death at 35, Beethoven going deaf and becoming a hermit, and Schubert, penniless, unknown, ill-ridden with syphillis, died at 31.


Actually, he created neither of them.
And comparing Haydn and Schubert in emotional depths is just wrong because they lived in very different eras. In Schubert's era the emphasis was on the emotion, in Haydn's it was on the beauty. It's like comparing Webern and Mendellsohn's and saying that Mendelssohn is so restrained to tonallity.


----------



## toucan

+1

In the XVIIIth century unrestrained displays of sentiment were considered in bad taste and Berlioz seemed vulgar even in the more romantic era he lived in.

But the sentiment is still there in Haydn, the melancholy, as it is in Mozart - and in Bach. All music is of the affect, in the end.


----------



## Art Rock

For me, he really shines in his magnificent string quartets. His symphonies are always pleasant, fun to hear, but ultimately they do not leave any lasting impression on me.


----------



## Toccata

The question posed in the OP is why Haydn seems so underrated in comparison with Mozart (and one or two major composers), as evidenced by frequency of appearance on radio station playlists etc.

The first thing to remember when talking about Haydn in comparison with Mozart is that Mozart, Beethoven and JS Bach are in a league of their own in terms of popular appeal. They probably attract more attention is terms of radio time than is perhaps justified by their underlying greatness, and this bias is almost bound to be exaggerated on a radio station like Classic FM (which is not very sophisticated to put it mildly) than is typical of classical radio stations more generally. There is a much more even spread of composers on the more upmarket BBC’s Radio 3, which is far better source of classical music than CFM.

I acknowledge Haydn's place in music. He was the supposed inventor of the symphony as we know it today, and "father" of the string quartet. However, there is no area of classical music in which he stands supreme. In all genres in which participated he has been surpassed by other composers by substantial margins. This is not just my opinion but that of the majority when judged by the usual criteria.

I have all of Haydn’s works including all of his chamber work, symphonies, piano sonatas, plus loads of other material besides. I have listened to all it of several times over and indeed there was a time when I became quite enthusiastic about Haydn. However, after the dust settled I now find Haydn, while very good in comparison with several other major composers, is quite mediocre in comparison with the best that’s available from the likes of Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert. I would place Schubert above Haydn in the overall pantheon of greatness because Schubert was a pioneer in Lieder and has never been surpassed in that genre, and partly because I think the appeal and quality of Schubert’s finest chamber works and symphonies far exceeds the quality of Haydn’s

To take a few examples, among string quartets Haydn's best is probably Op 76/3 but is no match for Beethoven's best, Op 131, or Mozart's best (possibly "Dissonance"), or Schubert's best, "Death and the Maiden". Haydn wrote nothing to compare with the quality of Mozart's and Schubert's string quintets. Schubert and Beethoven trounce Haydn in the piano trio area. And among symphonies, unless you are a Haydn "nut" nothing of his compares with the quality of Mozart's "Jupiter", Beethoven's 6th, or Schubert's "Great" (among several that could have been selected).


----------



## Webernite

I'd take Haydn's piano sonatas and symphonies over Mozart's. Sure, the _Jupiter_ Symphony surpasses any one of Haydn's, but I think the average Haydn symphony is better than the average Mozart symphony. Haydn's later piano sonatas are substantially better than any of Mozart's, in my opinion. Not to mention that Haydn, next to Beethoven and maybe Prokofiev, is the funniest composer who ever lived.

As a writer of string quartets, perhaps Mozart does surpass Haydn, but not by very much. (Obviously, in the genres of opera and string quintet, Mozart is working on a different plane.)


----------



## Toccata

Webernite said:


> I'd take Haydn's piano sonatas and symphonies over Mozart's. Sure, the _Jupiter_ Symphony surpasses any one of Haydn's, but I think the average Haydn symphony is better than the average Mozart symphony. Haydn's later piano sonatas are substantially better than any of Mozart's, in my opinion. Not to mention that Haydn, next to Beethoven and maybe Prokofiev, is the funniest composer who ever lived.
> 
> As a writer of string quartets, perhaps Mozart does surpass Haydn, but not by very much. (Obviously, in the genres of opera and string quintet, Mozart is working on a different plane.)


You are mainly expressing your personal viewpoint about Haydn, whereas the OP was trying to find out why Haydn seems to get a rough deal compared with Mozart, et al, on radio and elsewhere. That's the question which I attempted to answer.

Regards symphonies, I accept your preferences but if you look at the _The TC 150 Most Recommended Symphonies _ poll, you will see that Mozart trounced Haydn. Mozart had 10 symphonies in the top 150 against Haydn's 7. However, Haydn didn't get a look-in until rank No 32, by which time Mozart had already scored 4 symphonies with two of them in the top 10. Overall, Mozart's weighted score was probably close to being twice that of Haydn's. I think this serves to justiy the point I was making earlier, that Haydn simply isn't popular enough to score over other composers' efforts.

Regards piano sonatas, I prefer Beethoven's or Schubert's piano sonatas to either of Mozart's or Haydn's, and I would guess that this is the case for the majority of people interested in classical music. I would guess that most people (leaving aside the odd Haydn nut, or someone with a pathological hated of Mozart, and there have been at least a few such people on here in the past) would consider the majority of Haydn's to be quite pedestrian affairs, with only a small number grabbing much attention in the musical world at large, with possibly Nos 47, 50, 53, 58, 59 and 60 being of main interest. On the other hand I would guess that a greater number of Mozart's piano sonatas are more popular than Haydn's. My favourites are No 8, 10-14, 16-18. To bear this out, I have not seen much interest on T-C or other boards in the piano solo music of Haydn relative to those of other composers mentioned here, especially Beethoven and Schubert.

One could go on like this into other genres. For example in the area of sacred music Haydn is well beaten by Handel, JSB, and Mozart. Among Masses I prefer Schubert's D 950 to anything produced by all the rest put together, but trying to be more objective I'd say that Mozart beats Haydn in this department by a good margin. Among oratorios, Haydn is well beaten by Handel.

It all demonstrates my point that Haydn is not generally recognised as being supreme in any area, even though he slogged away for donkeys years, had plenty of opportunity to pull off the big one in any genre he liked, and yet finished up being outclassed by much younger talent (Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert) who were either head and shoulders above him in some genres, or better overall by a noticeable margin.

If anyone can name a genre in which a Haydn work rules the roost, please let's discuss it, with evidence of mass appeal or quality, whtever you want.


----------



## Webernite

I agree that if you bring Beethoven and Schubert into it, things looks different. I can't claim that Haydn was the greatest Viennese School composer in any particular genre; but then even Mozart only "rules the roost" in two genres: opera and string quintet. I just don't think Haydn's unpopularity relative to Mozart can be explained by saying that Mozart always wrote much better music. Only a handful of Mozart's works are genuinely out of Haydn's league.


----------



## Argus

Barking Spiderz said:


> A while back I came across some article on the most performed composers and works in the world. OK so's he's not exactly ignored but Haydn's performed nowhere near as much as Mozart, LvB, Tchaikovsky and Brahms. Also UK broadcaster Classic FM produces annual lists on listeners faves and this year came up with an ultimate list for it's first 15 years of broadcasting. Only two Haydn works are listed but not one of his symphonies! I'm gobsmacked. Question is, is Haydn a bit out of fashion right now and if so how come?


His music isn't featured in enough films/advertisements and there have been no biopics made about his life (not that I've heard of anyway). Simple.

Also, why should he be in fashion? He is 'well old'. Mozart, LvB, Tchaikovsky and Brahms shouldn't be in fashion either. It'd be like seeing powdered wigs on the catwalk.

Classic FM isn't a great arbiter for fashion. Try turning the frequency dial to the left a bit till you get to Radio 1 for what's 'in' at the moment, or like Toccata mentioned Radio 3 for what's hip in the classical world.


----------



## Sid James

> Haydn's music, at best can be called ''charming'', ''quirky'' and ''pleasant''. At worst, he is a mediocre composer who will have one symphony with 104 variations, regurgirations and all. Not any on Haydn's 104 symphonies, reached the towering emotional depth and unprecedented vision, of Schubert's Unfinished and Great C-major Symphony. Haydn's music may be charming but it lacks vision and emotion.
> 
> In Haydn's String quartets, he was in his top form. The quartets are charming, passionate and ''pretty''. Again, when you compared those in Schubert's monumental, Death and the Maiden quartet, the Rosamunde, the unfinished Quartettsatz, and the volcanic, no. 15; Haydn's quartet's sounds ephemeral. Unlike, Schubert (and Mozart), Haydn doesn't have the ''emotional turmoil and passion'' that makes Schubert's music work.





> To take a few examples, among string quartets Haydn's best is probably Op 76/3 but is no match for Beethoven's best, Op 131, or Mozart's best (possibly "Dissonance"), or Schubert's best, "Death and the Maiden". Haydn wrote nothing to compare with the quality of Mozart's and Schubert's string quintets. Schubert and Beethoven trounce Haydn in the piano trio area. And among symphonies, unless you are a Haydn "nut" nothing of his compares with the quality of Mozart's "Jupiter", Beethoven's 6th, or Schubert's "Great" (among several that could have been selected).


I largely disagree with these arguments, at least with the overall vibe or tenor of them.

I agree with member jurianbai, Haydn's _Seven Last Words of Christ_ string quartet can be quite a moving and profound work. But yes, it is atypical of Haydn & and an atypical string quartet, being composed for liturgical purposes (& later orchestrated & also made into a choral work).

Then there's the _Symphony No. 49 "La Passione"_ which has all of the darkness, intensity and (yes!) passion that we more commonly associate with Beethoven & Schubert.

& he was a master at effective use of contrast and counterpoint. Listen to some of the London Symphonies, and there are masterful fugal finales in some of them (eg. my favourite, the 99th) which rival those by Mozart & Beethoven.

My question to all the quibblers and negative people is - can you imagine classical music being the same today without there ever being a Haydn? I can't, and given that he taught both Mozart and Beethoven adds weight to the fact that he was one of the most innovative and influential composers of the last 250 - 300 years...


----------



## elgar's ghost

I may be wrong but one thing that may go against Haydn is that there is an occasional whiff of the conveyor belt/comfort zone about him - writing to order for the house of Esterhazy and, later, in response to lucrative external commissions which didn't need Esterhazy's clearance (another day - another symphony, piano trio or string quartet - kerCHING!). He also doesn't do 'sexy' like Mozart or Beethoven - compared to them his works, although smilingly witty, often lack a little - shall we say - flamboyance (surely 'Sturm und Drang' is pushing it in Haydn's case - not every symphony can be written in a major key).

Don't get me wrong, I like what Haydn recordings I've got. Apart from the famous later quartets which really brought out the best in him I think his last six mass settings were among the finest bodies of liturgical work ever written up until then and the slow movements of his piano concertos are gorgeous but I wonder whether he wrote 'within himself' a lot of the time because he knew the work wasn't likely to dry up?

I acknowledge that his style did evolve (especially with his quartets) but it was a conservative and polite evolution compared to the seismic shifts of Mozart and Beethoven and had he written for another 15 years I don't think things would have changed much - even if Haydn had the capability to break on through and go for it he obviously lacked the inclination and/or motivation.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Several interesting points raised but most seem to essentially suggest that “although Haydn was very good, he was second tier when compared with the very best by genre”. But one ought to realise the historical circumstances in which Haydn composed his works, which was rather different when compared with “the best” that many have suggested.

The key, I think, is that Haydn was essentially a subservient employee of one of the wealthiest and most powerful aristocratic families in the Austria-Hungary empire during the age of the Enlightenment. The majority of his symphonies, chamber music, concertos, masses and indeed operas were written for and first performed behind private closed doors in the Esterhazy estates. Even though he was original with many of his works in the sense that he pioneered his own development of the chamber symphony and string quartet, Haydn was no free-artist in the sense that he could simply indulge in artistic endeavours to explore and impress by writing music for the general public (like other composers did) or indeed for a much larger circle of aristocratic listeners (such as Beethoven). Haydn would have been well aware of his employer’s requirements and taste – “you do not **** your boss off with crap he doesn’t like”. 

All that changed dramatically of course, when Johann Peter Salomon (1745-1815), the English businessman, impresario and amateur musician/composer, lured Haydn over to England during his later years. Free from the restrictions of Esterhazy, Haydn wrote many of his greatest – and most popular works – and that is indeed the key. Many of us would pick favourite Haydn works from this period but the two trips to England did not dominate his artistic career in terms of time spent there.


----------



## Webernite

I'm not accusing anyone here of this, but I do think that there's a long-standing prejudice among classical-music fans (and critics) against nearly all music which is cheerful or witty. Again and again I see great musical works dismissed on grounds which basically amount to, "It doesn't sound enough like Rachmaninoff." Very rarely does anyone put forward _musicological_ reasons why, for example, the _Pathétique_ Sonata should be privileged above all the other early Beethoven sonatas, or why Glenn Gould was a nut to call Orlando Gibbons his favorite composer.

It's this kind of Romantic bias which causes some people to be so horrified when they hear Beethoven or Chopin on a fortepiano, even though the pianist is playing exactly the same notes! If everyone got some perspective on the history of music, and realized what a tiny part of it the Romantic movement was, I think then Haydn would get a lot more respect.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

I'm not accusing anyone here of this, but I do think that there's a long-standing prejudice among classical-music fans (and critics) against nearly all music which is cheerful or witty. 

I think there's a long-standing prejudice... especially among younger listeners... against anything that doesn't reek of Romanticist/Modernist angst and tragedy. Mozart and Haydn didn't write many works in a minor key... thus their music must be "lightweight". Seriously, there is a similar prejudice in literature where the angst and emotional heart-worn-on-the-sleeve of the great Romantic poets (Keats, Shelley, Wordsworth, Coleridge, Poe, Baudelaire, Hugo, Holderlin, etc...) are far more appreciated... again by the younger audience especially... that those writers who are witty masters of classical form (Pope, Swift, Byron, Ronsard, etc...)

If everyone got some perspective on the history of music, and realized what a tiny part of it the Romantic movement was, I think then Haydn would get a lot more respect.

Indeed!


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

I read a similar argument regarding Haydn and Mozart. The argument is ''Why would anyone listen to Haydn, when they can listen to Mozart, whose musical output is superior than him?'' I partially agree because, frankly, in terms of emotional depth and intellectual vigor, (in internet slang), Mozart always ''owned'' Haydn.

Yes Mozart was the greater composer... he most certainly does not "own" Haydn. Mozart's symphony 40 (possibly) and certainly symphony 41 "The Jupiter" goes beyond nearly anything Haydn did with the form, but Haydn has a far greater body of symphonies that are quite masterful. I would argue that for the simple reason that Haydn's piano sonatas were written for himself (as opposed to Mozart's commonly written for amateur students) they are far better than Mozart's works in the genre. Mozart has a few magnificent quartets (dedicated to Haydn) but Haydn was an absolute master of the form. And then we have the choral music. As much as I love the Requiem and the Great Mass in C-minor, it might be easily argued that Haydn produced a far greater body of work in the genre: The Creation, The Seasons, Cäcilienmesse, Große Orgelmesse, Missa in tempore belli, Theresienmesse, etc...

Haydn may be the creator of symphony and string quartet, but his legacy was carried by far better composers such as Mozart (symphony), Beethoven (symphony, string quartet) and Schubert (chamber music).

This shows a complete lack of understanding of art. An appreciation of Shakespeare does not negate the ability to also appreciate and admire "lesser" writers. An appreciation of Picasso doesn't demand that Monet, Degas, Van Gogh, Cezanne be thought of only as lesser figures that led to the great achievements of the Spanish Modernist.

I'll make a case regarding Haydn and Schubert.

Haydn's music, at best can be called ''charming'', ''quirky'' and ''pleasant''.

According to whom? According to someone who is employing the standards of the Romantic/Post-Romantic notions of music. These standards run either way. If I employ the standards of Rembrandt, then Picasso and Matisse and Degas are rather laughable. Their drawing is crude. Their sense of space is weak and amateurish. Their mastery of the illusion of solid form is all but non-existent. Turning this comparison on end, however, Rembrandt comes off as a weak colorist at best. He lacks originality and innovation, and his work is too limited by what he sees. You are utilizing a one-sided comparison when looking at Haydn... assuming the goal of music is the expression of some profound emotion, while negating "wit", "charm", "elegance"... "beauty" to some lesser realm.

At worst, he is a mediocre composer who will have one symphony with 104 variations, regurgirations and all.

At worst every composer has their mediocre works. The notion that the symphonies all sound alike or may be reduced to little more than a series of variations can again be true of Schubert or Beethoven as well... to the ear of the person who hasn't really given the work the proper effort. With the exceptions of the few well known tunes I'll admit that Beethoven's piano sonatas and string quartets all blurred together upon my initial listening. To the person who hasn't given the effort, the symphonies of Brahms, Schubert, Schumann, Bruckner, and Mahler might all sound the same.

Not any on Haydn's 104 symphonies, reached the towering emotional depth and unprecedented vision, of Schubert's Unfinished and Great C-major Symphony. Haydn's music may be charming but it lacks vision and emotion.

Again... you are assuming that Haydn's goal was the same as Schubert's. THis is like arguing that Schubert was a bumbling amateur because none of his music ever rises to the level of contrapuntal complexity of Bach's _Art of the Fugue_ or Mozart's finale to the "Jupiter" symphony.

In Haydn's String quartets, he was in his top form. The quartets are charming, passionate and ''pretty''. Again, when you compared those in Schubert's monumental, Death and the Maiden quartet, the Rosamunde, the unfinished Quartettsatz, and the volcanic, no. 15; Haydn's quartet's sounds ephemeral. Unlike, Schubert (and Mozart), Haydn doesn't have the ''emotional turmoil and passion'' that makes Schubert's music work.

Again and again all you can argue is that Schubert was more "emotional"? How so? What exactly makes a work of music "emotional"? It seems to me that all we are talking about is the employment of a minor key and some dramatic contrasts in dynamics. As a painter, conveying "tragedy" is as easy as choosing the right subject, using lots of black and red and great contrasts of light and dark... and voila! The work conveys tragedy or deep emotion... but does that make it better than a picture flowers and a lovely nude rendered in glowing, sensuous colors? You seem to be assuming that there is a hierarchy involved in what the artist conveys... tragedy is inherently greater than comedy, sadness is greater than joy... emotion is greater than intellect or wit. None of this says anything about the merit of the art. A brilliant expression of joy is not inferior to a powerful expression of the tragic.

After all, when you live in a life full of luxury and adulation, you would be not that serious in creating ''emotional'' music. On Vienna Four, Haydn lived the most comfortable life when he died. Mozart, poverty and death at 35, Beethoven going deaf and becoming a hermit, and Schubert, penniless, unknown, ill-ridden with syphillis, died at 31.

Are you 15 or something? This is one of the stupidest fallacies of art... the notion that one must suffer to be an artist. As the poet/translator, John Ciardi suggested, "You don't have to suffer to be a poet; adolescence is enough suffering for anyone." Rich or poor, everyone has their suffering and their moments of joy. The painter Peter Paul Rubens is one of the towering figures of art. He lived what might seem a fantasy life. He was the wealthiest painter in the whole of Europe, sought out by aristocrats everywhere. He lived with his family in a large palatial estate. At age 58 he married a beautiful blonde age 16 whom many called the most beautiful woman in Antwerp. They had an entire brood of children together. He was instrumental in negotiating peace treaties between France, Spain, and England and was knighted in all three of these countries as well as his homeland. But he also watched his first beloved wife die of a slow wasting disease, buried several of his own children, and watched his homeland repeatedly overrun by foreign armies. He certainly understood suffering as well as anyone... as undoubtedly did Haydn. He also understood joy. What if we simply reverse the means of judgment and suggest that Beethoven or Schubert were but mediocre composers because they didn't understand joy? That would be as absurd as the notion that Haydn fails because his music doesn't convey dark emotions of Schubert.


----------



## scytheavatar

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Yes Mozart was the greater composer... he most certainly does not "own" Haydn. Mozart's symphony 40 (possibly) and certainly symphony 41 "The Jupiter" goes beyond nearly anything Haydn did with the form, but Haydn has a far greater body of symphonies that are quite masterful. I would argue that for the simple reason that Haydn's piano sonatas were written for himself (as opposed to Mozart's commonly written for amateur students) they are far better than Mozart's works in the genre. Mozart has a few magnificent quartets (dedicated to Haydn) but Haydn was an absolute master of the form. And then we have the choral music. As much as I love the Requiem and the Great Mass in C-minor, it might be easily argued that Haydn produced a far greater body of work in the genre: The Creation, The Seasons, Cäcilienmesse, Große Orgelmesse, Missa in tempore belli, Theresienmesse, etc...


But I don't think anyone remembers Mozart mainly for his symphonies, sonatas or chamber music. Both him and Haydn can never dream of matching Beethoven or Schubert in those areas anyway. Mozart's best works are his concertos and his operas, and in those 2 areas no one can eclipse him. What work by Haydn can honesly be put on the level of Don Giovanni or Piano Concerto No. 24?


----------



## Couchie

Haydn didn't have a soul. He wasn't a composer, he was an engineer of music. Could no doubt assemble a piece and was highly skilled with the underlying harmony and structure, but his music simply doesn't elicit any of the untranslatable feelings we experience when listening to the great music from the real composers. His music is never witty or charming, it is brutally masochistic.

Today his music is perhaps best admired for its utter irrelevance to the human condition. Computer scientists are very close to developing AI software capable of automatically generating Haydn. I have to argue counter to the OP's original thesis: Haydn is incredibly overexposed as it is, and he is in fact in dire need of relegating from the Beethoven & Mozart circle to the likes of Telemann and Salieri. Haydn should be remembered for only two things: producing perhaps the largest collection of bland music ever written without giving up, and providing Beethoven with the symphonic form.


----------



## tdc

Couchie said:


> Haydn didn't have a soul. He wasn't a composer, he was an engineer of music. Could no doubt assemble a piece and was highly skilled with the underlying harmony and structure, but his music simply doesn't elicit any of the untranslatable feelings we experience when listening to the great music from the real composers. His music is never witty or charming, it is brutally masochistic.
> 
> Today his music is perhaps best admired for its utter irrelevance to the human condition. Computer scientists are very close to developing AI software capable of automatically generating Haydn. I have to argue counter to the OP's original thesis: Haydn is incredibly overexposed as it is, and he is in fact in dire need of relegating from the Beethoven & Mozart circle to the likes of Telemann and Salieri. Haydn should be remembered for only two things: producing perhaps the largest collection of bland music ever written without giving up, and providing Beethoven with the symphonic form.






Are you kidding me? NO soul, not a composer? Oh boy. This thread went suddenly from highly educational and quite stimulating to just plain silly.


----------



## Couchie

tdc said:


> This thread went suddenly from highly educational and quite stimulating to just plain silly.


Fittingly so, the same thing happened in music during the Bach - Haydn transition...


----------



## karenpat

Couchie said:


> Haydn didn't have a soul. He wasn't a composer, he was an engineer of music. Could no doubt assemble a piece and was highly skilled with the underlying harmony and structure, but his music simply doesn't elicit any of the untranslatable feelings we experience when listening to the great music from the real composers. His music is never witty or charming, it is brutally masochistic.
> 
> Today his music is perhaps best admired for its utter irrelevance to the human condition. Computer scientists are very close to developing AI software capable of automatically generating Haydn. I have to argue counter to the OP's original thesis: Haydn is incredibly overexposed as it is, and he is in fact in dire need of relegating from the Beethoven & Mozart circle to the likes of Telemann and Salieri. Haydn should be remembered for only two things: producing perhaps the largest collection of bland music ever written without giving up, and providing Beethoven with the symphonic form.


yikes.  I confess I haven't listened much to Haydn apart from his cello concerto, but based on that alone I certainly wouldn't call Haydn's music cold or mechanic. And not mediocre as someone mentioned upthread.

But this discussion is way over my head already, I have nothing to bring to the table but "subjective experience"


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Couchie said:


> Haydn didn't have a soul. He wasn't a composer, he was an engineer of music. Could no doubt assemble a piece and was highly skilled with the underlying harmony and structure, but his music simply doesn't elicit any of the untranslatable feelings we experience when listening to the great music from the real composers. His music is never witty or charming, it is brutally masochistic.
> 
> Today his music is perhaps best admired for its utter irrelevance to the human condition. Computer scientists are very close to developing AI software capable of automatically generating Haydn. I have to argue counter to the OP's original thesis: Haydn is incredibly overexposed as it is, and he is in fact in dire need of relegating from the Beethoven & Mozart circle to the likes of Telemann and Salieri. Haydn should be remembered for only two things: producing perhaps the largest collection of bland music ever written without giving up, and providing Beethoven with the symphonic form.


Nice one, Couchie. I look forward to more of your opinions of these sorts. I could delete the name "Haydn" from your paragraphs and replace it with "Lady Gaga" and be equally well informed from previously; in other words, nothing.


----------



## Toccata

In my attempt to try to answer the OP, I feel that my comments about Haydn may have come over far more negatively than I intended. To clear up any possible misunderstanding perhaps I could first mention that in the recent “Top 25 Composers” Poll I placed Haydn at the No 5 spot which is three places higher than he eventually reached (No 8) at the end of the Poll. Thus, I rate Haydn very highly indeed, much higher than most other members of this Board who voted in that Poll.

I was actually trying to answer the OP, which is why Haydn gets a relatively poor showing on some radio station play lists, and whether this is because he is going out of fashion. I don’t think that this key issue has been addressed, except by me and possibly Argus. Most of the comments are merely observations concerning whether or not people like Haydn, together with some astonishingly frank admissions by some that they don’t know what they’re talking about, having heard next to nothing of Haydn’s oeuvre.

The main point I was trying to make is that CFM (the UK radio station specifically mentioned) tends to focus on glitzy snippets of well-known pieces, from a narrow range of composers, and hence its play lists hardly do justice to the underlying quality of the other composers’ standing judged more objectively. A better balance is achieved on the BBC’s Radio 3. 

Secondly, I was also suggesting that that there seems to be an inherent bias in radio station play lists anywhere (and no doubt in other situations too) in favour of the better-known composers generally compared with those further down the hierarchy.

Third, Haydn had such a long career that he was almost bound to have written a lot of material that isn’t very great, especially given the circumstances of his paid employment and the constraints imposed upon him to produce music on demand for a narrow audience. If you write 106 symphonies, they cannot all be masterpieces. 

Fourth, despite Haydn’s overall greatness, one or more of Mozart, Beethoven, JSB, or Schubert eclipse him to varying degrees in every area of music he wrote. Whereas each of these can lay claim to being supreme in at least one major genre, Haydn cannot, and this tends to diminish his standing somewhat in the media. 

I do not wish to be associated with any of the juvenile comments that attempt to rubbish Haydn’s contribution to music on the basis that he lived in relative luxury and had better health than Beethoven, Mozart or Schubert, or that he wrote less emotional music than, say, Schubert. For reasons set out by others, these comparisons are naïve and completely invalid in assessing the worth of Haydn.


----------



## Elgarian

The topic was about fashionability rather than 'who is best?', wasn't it? The obsession with 'who is best?' inevitably triggers a pointless merry-go-round, in which intuitively held opinions are selectively rationalised to provide a spurious justification for personal taste. I don't want to go down that road.

I'm at present working my way through Haydn's symphonies for the first time in my life (having stupidly dismissed them till now, in my ignorance, as sterile and formulaic). I am amazed by them. I'm amazed by how much variation can be produced within what I previously thought of as the limitations of the classical format. They're full of delights. He invariably finds ways of springing little surprises that raise a smile and lift the mood. Overwhelmingly, the impression I have from them is life-affirming. I must have listened to about 50 of the symphonies during the last couple of months, and I can't think of another composer (except perhaps Mozart, in the piano concertos) who could sustain that intensity of focus. He never bores me. I always look forward to the next one. I've no interest in deciding which is 'best' because each one is a journey of delight in itself.

As for whether he's in or out of fashion: I suppose it depends on how you measure it. Hyperion don't seem to think he's unfashionable: they've recently re-released their (incomplete) series of symphonies on period instruments, conducted by Roy Goodman, at bargain prices and I'm steadily buying them up. Brilliant released a big Haydn box only a few years ago, including Fischer's (highly-regarded) cycle of the symphonies. Minkowski has just released a live set of the London symphonies on period instruments. This doesn't seem to me like a composer out of fashion, whatever Classic FM might think. And certainly he doesn't _feel_ out of fashion here and now, for me. There's nothing stuffy or second-rate about him that I can detect. His music seems very alive, bang up to the mark, and as uplifting, fascinating, and life-enhancing as I could reasonably hope for.


----------



## peeyaj

I humbly admit my mistakes regarding my comments regarding the music of Haydn. Please accept my apologies concerning my juvenile assertions on Haydn's standing as a great composer. Perhaps, it is just my current obsession on Herr Schubert's music, and the passionate fervor in my mind, that I made those childish and immature comments. I agree that Haydn is a great composer, perhaps I am not just deeply exploring his music. Honestly, with the exception of his last few symphonies, the liturgical music and quartets, I've only scratched the surface of his large output.

My apologies again in mentioning the lives of these great composers. Perhaps, I'm just born a romantic and highly value those tragic lives. I should never have mention those awful things. I agree Stlukesguildohio, in that respect. Appreciation of art should never base on the lives of people rather the worth of the work.

I'm feeling remorseful. I felt I owe Haydn a favor.. I'm going to explore his music today. Again, a heartfelt apology to everyone.

Btw, in regards to Stlukesguildohio question.. I'm 19 years old.


----------



## Barking Spiderz

Webernite said:


> I'm not accusing anyone here of this, but I do think that there's a long-standing prejudice among classical-music fans (and critics) against nearly all music which is cheerful or witty.


I agree on the one hand something like Mahler's 9th is regarded as a monolithic work of deep emotion yet Johann Strauss II's waltzes and polkas seem to be considered to have about as much depth as a Justin Bieber song.

Back to my OP, go to www.instantencore.com and they've come up with a list of the most performed composers in the world in 2010. Mozart tops it with way over 3,000 performances. Haydn is 900 plus. As I said not eactly ignored but clearly he clocks in at only 30% of WAM's tally.


----------



## emiellucifuge

In the end I think it all comes down (as argued rather well by St Luke) that people approach all of music from a singular perspective. This perspective varies widely but in this day people seem to have adopted the romantic idiom as their own. All works of music are viewed through this 'looking glass' and therefore obscures and prohibits a balanced view.

The intention and purpose of art changes over time much as everything human does. Politics, science, philosophy. They are all interlinked. It is vitally necessary to approach art from a well-informed perspective with a good idea of the historical and philosophical context.

You cant compare German Baroque to Italian Baroque (well... not really?) You cant compare music written during the Renaissance (the renaissance of all human thought and liberation from the church), to music written during the Enlightenment. Nor can you compare Serialism to Minimalism. 
Well at least not with any use.


----------



## Webernite

I'm actually still not convinced one way or the other as regards Haydn vs. Schubert. I see Schubert as considerably less reliable, less sure of himself than Haydn. Even in his later years, he depended heavily on musical models written by Beethoven and Mozart (the Quintet, the Octet and the A major Sonata are all specifically modeled on other works, for example). He was still taking music lessons at the time of his death. I don't agree with whoever called him a "gifted amateur," but he was certainly shakier than Haydn, and of course less influential.

Edit: And I know he died young! Unfortunately we can only judge composers on the works they actually wrote.


----------



## Argus

People overthink some things.

Where is Haydn's Eine Kleine Nachtmusik, Fur Elise, Hungarian Dances or Romeo and Juliet? What's his one piece that has garnered massive media exposure? I'll tell you where. He hasn't got one, thus his lessened popularity on Classic FM. Beethoven and Tchaikovsky, in particular have loads of little soundbytes from their works that are perfect for extraction.



emiellucifuge said:


> Nor can you compare Serialism to Minimalism.


War's over, dude. Minimalism won. The notes are free.


----------



## Chris

They say Haydn is death at the box office and I confess I'm part of the problem. I would go to a concert that was part Haydn but not all, or even mainly, Haydn. I like his music but I don't want a whole evening of him.

As many have said in this thread, Haydn is......OK


----------



## World Violist

I actually think is on the rise in popularity, isn't he? I mean, Naxos has basically been recording his complete works, tons of pianists have lately been recording his sonatas, his string quartets have always been almost as popular as Mozart's and Beethoven's. Sure, he'll likely never be anywhere near as popular as those two or several others, but he still seems popular. Still grossly underrated, but there are many composers who are worse so.


----------



## Toccata

Webernite said:


> I'm actually still not convinced one way or the other as regards Haydn vs. Schubert. I see Schubert as considerably less reliable, less sure of himself than Haydn. Even in his later years, he depended heavily on musical models written by Beethoven and Mozart (the Quintet, the Octet and the A major Sonata are all specifically modeled on other works, for example).


That's your choice but among the composers I most admire I would certainly not regard Schubert's compositional talents as in any way unreliable. I would agree that not all of his works are masterpieces. This can hardly be the case for someone who started so early, wrote so much, and died so young in very sad circumstances. On the whole, however, I find Schubert's work quality to be high or exceptionally high. This is all the more amazing since much of his output was unedited by him except some pieces for which he had received a commission and found time to check through. Most of it was written and then largely put aside until it was discovered decades later. Schubert's best works are among the supreme masterpieces of music, and there are enough of them to give him a deserved top rank among the very best, as evidenced for example in the recent Top 25 Composers poll, where he came fourth, well ahead in terms of points of Brahms and Wagner in fifth/sixth place respectively.

Regards your comment about Schubert's alleged dependency on Beethoven and Mozart for musical models, this is incorrect. It's well known that Schubert developed his own style and was certainly no slave to either Beethoven or Mozart in his compositional technique. His style is expansive (rather as in Mozartian fashion) and nothing like Beethoven's. Schubert is so obviously different from either of these masters. He helped move the goalposts away from Classicism to Romanticism more fully than did Beethoven, who really stuck pretty closely to Classical principles of composition throughout much of his career, albeit tinged with growing amounts of "Romanticism" along the way.

Schubert is certainly the nearest and dearest composer to me. I would say that Schubert was the most naturally gifted composer of the whole lot, but very sadly let down by shortage of years in which to develop his potential to its full. It's his melodic gifts which tower above all others. Melody cannot be leaned or taught. You either have this gift or don't. Most people don't but Schubert had it in super-abundance. Beethoven struggled in this department and used other techniques to compensate for lack of it.

Much as I admire Haydn, I doubt that he could ever have written anything quite so beautiful as Schubert's String Quintet in C major, even if he had been around at the same time in history. This work one of the most marvellous pieces of music ever written in any genre. Nor do I think that could Haydn have written anything quite so phenomenol as Schubert's Unfinished Symphony, or such a magnificent piece as Schubert's C Major "Great", or a piano sonata with such overwhelming beauty, majesty, warmth and poetry as D 960. Haydn was highly gifted but you need a God-like quality to compose material to this standard. Very few others achieved this standard of music writing.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Chris said:


> They say Haydn is death at the box office and I confess I'm part of the problem. I would go to a concert that was part Haydn but not all, or even mainly, Haydn. I like his music but I don't want a whole evening of him.
> 
> As many have said in this thread, Haydn is......OK


A whole evening of his oratorio _The Creation_, especially amongst Christians, can't be that bad, can it?


----------



## Webernite

Toccata said:


> That's your choice but among the composers I most admire I would certainly not regard Schubert's compositional talents as in any way unreliable. I would agree that not all of his works are masterpieces. This can hardly be the case for someone who started so early, wrote so much, and died so young in very sad circumstances. On the whole, however, I find Schubert's work quality to be high or exceptionally high. This is all the more amazing since much of his output was unedited by him except some pieces for which he had received a commission and found time to check through. Most of it was written and then largely put aside until it was discovered decades later. Schubert's best works are among the supreme masterpieces of music, and there are enough of them to give him a deserved top rank among the very best, as evidenced for example in the recent Top 25 Composers poll, where he came fourth, well ahead in terms of points of Brahms and Wagner in fifth/sixth place respectively.
> 
> Regards your comment about Schubert's alleged dependency on Beethoven and Mozart for musical models, this is incorrect. It's well known that Schubert developed his own style and was certainly no slave to either Beethoven or Mozart in his compositional technique. His style is expansive (rather as in Mozartian fashion) and nothing like Beethoven's. Schubert is so obviously different from either of these masters. He helped move the goalposts away from Classicism to Romanticism more fully than did Beethoven, who really stuck pretty closely to Classical principles of composition throughout much of his career, albeit tinged with growing amounts of "Romanticism" along the way.
> 
> Schubert is certainly the nearest and dearest composer to me. I would say that Schubert was the most naturally gifted composer of the whole lot, but very sadly let down by shortage of years in which to develop his potential to its full. It's his melodic gifts which tower above all others. Melody cannot be leaned or taught. You either have this gift or don't. Most people don't but Schubert had it in super-abundance. Beethoven struggled in this department and used other techniques to compensate for lack of it.
> 
> Much as I admire Haydn, I doubt that he could ever have written anything quite so beautiful as Schubert's String Quintet in C major, even if he had been around at the same time in history. This work one of the most marvellous pieces of music ever written in any genre. Nor do I think that could Haydn have written anything quite so phenomenol as Schubert's Unfinished Symphony, or such a magnificent piece as Schubert's C Major "Great", or a piano sonata with such overwhelming beauty, majesty, warmth and poetry as D 960. Haydn was highly gifted but you need a God-like quality to compose material to this standard. Very few others achieved this standard of music writing.


You make quite a persuasive case. I'll have to think about this some more. :tiphat:


----------



## peeyaj

Toccata said:


> That's your choice but among the composers I most admire I would certainly not regard Schubert's compositional talents as in any way unreliable. I would agree that not all of his works are masterpieces. This can hardly be the case for someone who started so early, wrote so much, and died so young in very sad circumstances. On the whole, however, I find Schubert's work quality to be high or exceptionally high. This is all the more amazing since much of his output was unedited by him except some pieces for which he had received a commission and found time to check through. Most of it was written and then largely put aside until it was discovered decades later. Schubert's best works are among the supreme masterpieces of music, and there are enough of them to give him a deserved top rank among the very best, as evidenced for example in the recent Top 25 Composers poll, where he came fourth, well ahead in terms of points of Brahms and Wagner in fifth/sixth place respectively.
> 
> Regards your comment about Schubert's alleged dependency on Beethoven and Mozart for musical models, this is incorrect. It's well known that Schubert developed his own style and was certainly no slave to either Beethoven or Mozart in his compositional technique. His style is expansive (rather as in Mozartian fashion) and nothing like Beethoven's. Schubert is so obviously different from either of these masters. He helped move the goalposts away from Classicism to Romanticism more fully than did Beethoven, who really stuck pretty closely to Classical principles of composition throughout much of his career, albeit tinged with growing amounts of "Romanticism" along the way.
> 
> Schubert is certainly the nearest and dearest composer to me. I would say that Schubert was the most naturally gifted composer of the whole lot, but very sadly let down by shortage of years in which to develop his potential to its full. It's his melodic gifts which tower above all others. Melody cannot be leaned or taught. You either have this gift or don't. Most people don't but Schubert had it in super-abundance. Beethoven struggled in this department and used other techniques to compensate for lack of it.
> 
> Much as I admire Haydn, I doubt that he could ever have written anything quite so beautiful as Schubert's String Quintet in C major, even if he had been around at the same time in history. This work one of the most marvellous pieces of music ever written in any genre. Nor do I think that could Haydn have written anything quite so phenomenol as Schubert's Unfinished Symphony, or such a magnificent piece as Schubert's C Major "Great", or a piano sonata with such overwhelming beauty, majesty, warmth and poetry as D 960. Haydn was highly gifted but you need a God-like quality to compose material to this standard. Very few others achieved this standard of music writing.


I wholeheartedly agree. And the songs! The whole 600 of them.. Treasure and marvellous gems!

Schumann, Brahms, Wolf and Mahler may have wrote Lieder, but they cannot achieve the brillliant and magnificent quality of Schubert's songs. Having listened to Winterreise sung by Mr. Bostridge is the most transcedental experience I ever had.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Personally, I feel no need to think in terms of Schubert vs Haydn. I love them both. If forced to choose between the two, I would quite likely go with Schubert for the simple reason that I am enamored of his lieder... but Haydn has such a wealth of marvelous music... symphonies, quartets, choral works... and is such an important figure in terms of the development of the symphonic and quartet forms that I cannot help but recognize his brilliance.

I have experienced an evening of Schubert's _Winterreise_ performed live... and Haydn's _Creation_ performed live... and both were marvelous experiences.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Another thought comes to mind in relationship to Haydn and Mozart. A good majority of the classical music listening audience has more than a passing familiarity with a good number of Romantic era composers. Off the top of my head I could easily name 50 or more composers of the era: Schumann, Chopin, Schubert, Berlioz, Wolf, Weber, Tchaikovsky, Mussorgsky, Rimsky-Korsakov, Brahms, Mahler, Bruckner, Richard Strauss, etc... As a result of this, most classical music listeners have the ability to make comparisons... to recognize how Brahms fares within the music of the era as a whole... where he differs, where he fits in...

How true is this of the "classical era" for most classical music listeners? Mozart and Haydn are virtual anomalies. We've been told they are to reigning giants of the classical era... but beyond Mozart and Haydn... and early Beethoven... how many composers of this period are most classical listeners familiar with... I mean truly familiar with as more than a mere name? Michael Haydn, C.P.E. Bach, Hummel, Salieri, Josef Myslivecek, Gluck, Giovanni Battista Pergolesi, who else? Looking at this list of classical-era composers on Wikipedia I'm embarrassed to admit to just how few names I've even heard of:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Classical_era_composers

Certainly this is not true of the Romantic era... or Modern and Contemporary composers... or even the Baroque (which has become my current area of exploration). As has already been stated, approaching the music or art of other eras solely from the viewpoint of the Romantic era greatly skews the achievements of other times and places.


----------



## science

Schubert v. Haydn is tough for me. Both have good arguments on their side. 

In the string quartets and symphonies, I would definitely take Haydn, though Schubert wrote some great ones. In perhaps all other genres that I can match up (I can't compare their choral works), I think I would take Schubert: certainly in solo piano and all chamber music except string quartets. 

Schubert has an unfair advantage in solo piano, coming after Beethoven and having more advanced instruments to work on. Maybe he should have those advantages in string quartets and symphonies, but I would still take Haydn. I love, love his string quartets, whereas I only respect and enjoy Schuberts; on symphonies, truly it's a draw, but Haydn has so many and such a diverse set.


----------



## Toccata

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Another thought comes to mind in relationship to Haydn and Mozart. A good majority of the classical music listening audience has more than a passing familiarity with a good number of Romantic era composers. Off the top of my head I could easily name 50 or more composers of the era: Schumann, Chopin, Schubert, Berlioz, Wolf, Weber, Tchaikovsky, Mussorgsky, Rimsky-Korsakov, Brahms, Mahler, Bruckner, Richard Strauss, etc... As a result of this, most classical music listeners have the ability to make comparisons... to recognize how Brahms fares within the music of the era as a whole... where he differs, where he fits in...
> 
> How true is this of the "classical era" for most classical music listeners? Mozart and Haydn are virtual anomalies. We've been told they are to reigning giants of the classical era... but beyond Mozart and Haydn... and early Beethoven... how many composers of this period are most classical listeners familiar with... I mean truly familiar with as more than a mere name? Michael Haydn, C.P.E. Bach, Hummel, Salieri, Josef Myslivecek, Gluck, Giovanni Battista Pergolesi, who else? Looking at this list of classical-era composers on Wikipedia I'm embarrassed to admit to just how few names I've even heard of:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Classical_era_composers
> 
> Certainly this is not true of the Romantic era... or Modern and Contemporary composers... or even the Baroque (which has become my current area of exploration). As has already been stated, approaching the music or art of other eras solely from the viewpoint of the Romantic era greatly skews the achievements of other times and places.


Your post prompted me to have a look at my collection of "Classical" composers, from early Galante through to transition Classical/Romantics, as listed in the Wiki article to which you refer. It's nice to see the "Classical" period sub-divided a bit more into into its main constituent periods.

As you say, there are hundreds of these composers. I confess to being unfamilair with many of them. But I do have works by over 50 of those listed across the whole period covered. I set out below the names of the composers by ere/style using the Wiki lists, and a rough figure showing how many hours of each of their works I have. In many cases, it's no more than 2-3 works, amounting to less than thirty minutes. In a few cases I have everything they wrote, or nearly everything with no signifiacnt omissions. Otherwise the number of hours of their music, without duplication, is shown in brackets.

 Early Galante	

Sammartini	(1)
Scarlatti D	(4)

 Early Classical/ later Galante	

Abel	(less than 30 mins)
Arne	[(5)
Bach C P E	(5)
Bach W F	(less than 30 mins)
Boyce	(1)
Gluck	(less than 30 mins)
Mozart L	(1)
Pergolesi	(2)
Soler	(1)
Stamitz J	(2)

 Mid Classical	

Anold S	(less than 30 mins)
Bach J C	(2)
Bach JC F	(less than 30 mins)
Boccherini	(3)
Cimarosa	(1)
Dittersdorf	(1)
Dussek	(1)
Gossec	(less than 30 mins)
Haydn J	(almost complete except opera)
Haydn M	(4)
Myslivecek	(1)
Neefe	(less than 30 mins)
Paisiello	(less than 30 mins)
Stamitz C	(less than 30 mins)
Vanhal	(1)

 Late Classical	

Cherubini	(1)
Clementi	(2)
Dussek	(1)
Kraus	(2)
Mozart W A	(almost complete, except some very early works)
Salieri	(3)
Soler	(1)
Wesley S	(less than 30 mins)

 Classical/Romantic transition	

Beethoven	(complete except for a few missing WoO and Hess)
Berwald	(1)
Crusell	(less than 30 mins)
Czerny	(less than 30 mins)
Donizetti	(1, opera highlights only)
Field	(1)
Hummel	(3)
Kuhlau	(less than 30 mins)
Meyerbeer	(less than 30 mins)
Pagannini	(2)
Ries	(less than 30 mins)
Rosetti	(less than 30 mins)
Rossini	(4, opera highlights only)
Schubert	(almost complete, except some early fragments)
Spohr	(4)
Weber	(7)
Wranitsky	(less than 30 mins)

Among those who don't get so much attention on this Board, there is a lot of very good material by: Arne, C P E Bach, Michael Haydn, Field, Spohr, Hummel, Clementi, Weber.


----------



## Rasa

The classical era lasted 15 years. The romantic a 150. That alone explains why we're familiar with more romantic composers then classical ones.


----------



## Toccata

Rasa said:


> The classical era lasted 15 years. The romantic a 150. That alone explains why we're familiar with more romantic composers then classical ones.


Which 15 years would they be for the Classical era?


----------



## Pieck

classical era lasted for 15 years?? wasnt it from 1750 till 1803? and romatic era from 1803 to 1920 top?


----------



## Toccata

Pieck said:


> classical era lasted for 15 years?? wasnt it from 1750 till 1803? and romatic era from 1803 to 1920 top?


Not according to Rasa. It lasted only for a period of 15 years, and I've been awaiting clarification of which 15 years it was, as I'm anxious to correct my records.

Pending this clarification, it would appear that I may have labouring under a complete delusion for decades, that the Classical era lasted from about 1750 to 1825, or possibly from as early as 1730 if so called "early classical" is included, associated with the likes of CPE Bach and Pergolesi.

If I am wrong, then I'll be happy to concede that at long last I have learned something useful from this Board.


----------



## scytheavatar

The earliest you can define the end of the classical period as far as I know is 1805, when Beethoven's Symphony no 3 was debuted. But anyone trying to define when the Romantic era begun is being pretentious since the classical-romantic translation was gradual and the like of Beethoven and Schubert can only be considered as composers of both eras.

In any case I fail to understand why people must insist on putting Classical era composers on the same level as Romantic era composers. I think it's hard to deny that the Romantic era is the golden era of Western classical music, where creativity is the most fertile, where most masterpieces are written and the tools that the composers had in that era far exceeds those in the classical era.


----------



## science

I'm not naturally an "era-comparing" guy, but I guess if you press me I'll take the Romantic period over the Classical period.

That doesn't mean I think Haydn best works enjoy the level of popularity that I think they deserve. Romantic, classical, whatever - his string quartets are among the most enjoyable and interesting ever written. And several of his symphonies belong high on that list too.


----------



## Elgarian

scytheavatar said:


> In any case I fail to understand why people must insist on putting Classical era composers on the same level as Romantic era composers. I think it's hard to deny that the Romantic era is the golden era of Western classical music, where creativity is the most fertile, where most masterpieces are written and the tools that the composers had in that era far exceeds those in the classical era.


Free verse isn't superior to the sonnet merely for having more space and freedom available to it. But as I said in my earlier post, I don't understand why it should be necessary to think in these competitive terms at all. If, when listening to one Mozart's finest piano concertos, or Haydn's most delectable symphonies, I found myself thinking, 'ah, but this is so much less creative than Mahler or Bruckner', then I would know _for certain_ that I wasn't listening with the attention or sensitivity that it requires.


----------



## World Violist

scytheavatar said:


> In any case I fail to understand why people must insist on putting Classical era composers on the same level as Romantic era composers. I think it's hard to deny that the Romantic era is the golden era of Western classical music, where creativity is the most fertile, where most masterpieces are written and the tools that the composers had in that era far exceeds those in the classical era.


When I'm listening to Haydn piano sonatas or a Mozart opera or anything of Bach, I don't think for a split-second "Oh, this is far lesser than Tristan" or anything like that. It's a different time and a different kind of music, and I don't see how they can be qualitatively compared. It's like comparing apples to eggs; you can say the egg is better because one can do more with it, but the apple is a different thing altogether.


----------



## Guest

I think that calling one era better than another is ridiculous on anything other than a personal level. What about literature? Is anybody going to tell me that "The DaVinci Code" is better than "A Tale of Two Cities?" The period something is created has nothing to do with whether it is better than another. Tallis' Spem in Alium is one of the most sublime pieces I have heard, and it is neither Classical nor Romantic. As WorldViolist said, the comparison is simply wrong. I love the Romantic period. But not because I think it is better than other periods. I also am in awe at Bach. His Mass in B Minor is one of the crowning achievements of the choral repertoire, in my opinion.


----------



## emiellucifuge

emiellucifuge said:


> In the end I think it all comes down (as argued rather well by St Luke) that people approach all of music from a singular perspective. This perspective varies widely but in this day people seem to have adopted the romantic idiom as their own. All works of music are viewed through this 'looking glass' and therefore obscures and prohibits a balanced view.
> 
> The intention and purpose of art changes over time much as everything human does. Politics, science, philosophy. They are all interlinked. It is vitally necessary to approach art from a well-informed perspective with a good idea of the historical and philosophical context.
> 
> You cant compare German Baroque to Italian Baroque (well... not really?) You cant compare music written during the Renaissance (the renaissance of all human thought and liberation from the church), to music written during the Enlightenment. Nor can you compare Serialism to Minimalism.
> Well at least not with any use.


----------



## Kieran

scytheavatar said:


> In any case I fail to understand why people must insist on putting Classical era composers on the same level as Romantic era composers. I think it's hard to deny that the Romantic era is the golden era of Western classical music, where creativity is the most fertile, where most masterpieces are written and the tools that the composers had in that era far exceeds those in the classical era.


Music shouldn't be put in a box like this because the goal of the composer isn't to write "classical" or "romantic", but to fulfil their brief. According to your measure, Beethoven was a lesser composer when his work was clearly classical than he was when his work veered towards Romanticism. "Romantic" and "Classical" are just journalistic terms, but eventually they're too narrow and become meaningless.

If you stuck a gun in my mouth and asked me to choose, I would much prefer music composed before the authors became too self-obsessed, too neurotic, too caught up in "expressing themselves", which probably means I'm much more moved by the "Classical" period, until one thinks of Chopin, who apparently veered backwards in time and away from the so-called Romantic musical terminology...


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Scanning the list of "classical era composers" on Wikipedia I discover I have music by more than a few:

*Domenico Scarlatti*
*Giovanni Battista Pergolesi*
Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach
*Christoph Willibald Gluck*
Leopold Mozart 
*Joseph Haydn*
Michael Haydn
Josef Mysliveček
Carl Stamitz
Antonio Salieri
W.A. Mozart
Joseph Martin Kraus
Franz Krommer
Jakub Jan Ryba
*Ludwig van Beethoven*
*Johann Nepomuk Hummel*
Niccolò Paganini
Carl Maria von Weber
*Gioachino Rossini*
Saverio Mercadante
Gaetano Donizetti
*Franz Schubert*

... however, there are but few that I have more than one disc by (in bold) and of these Scarlatti must surely be seen as more Baroque than classical, while Weber, Beethoven, Hummel, Paganini, Rossini, and certainly Schubert are as much or more Romantic than Classical composers. Ultimately, my collection of music of the classical era is dominated by 4 composers: Mozart, Haydn, Gluck, and early Beethoven. THis is not true of my collection of Romantic era music where I have literally dozens of composers by whom I have at least 3 or 4 discs:

Beethoven
Schubert
Schumann
Chopin
Berlioz
Bizet
Rossini
Wolf
Wagner
Brahms
Tchaikovsky
Mussorgsky
Rimsky-Korsakov
Rachmaninoff
Richard Strauss
Mendelssohn
Alkan
Verdi
Puccini
Offenbach
Bruckner
Mahler
Johan Strauss
Max Bruch
Grieg
Dvorak
Hahn
Faure
Zemlinski
Scriabin
etc...

Just off the top of my head.

And the same (albeit to a lesser degree) is true of my Baroque collection:

J.S. Bach
Handel
Vivaldi
Alessandro Scarlatti
Domenico Scarlatti
Biber
Buxtehude
Sweelinck
Lully
Rameau
Monteverdi
Schutz
Zelenka
Couperin
Hasse
Telemann
Purcell
etc...

Again off the top of my head.

Considering how few classical composers (outside of Mozart and Haydn) are even discussed here, I doubt that my collection is all that unique and the others have explored the classical era in depth prior to their dismissal. Hell, even poor Gluck rarely gets mentioned... and yet he is surely a towering figure... responsible for remaking opera into what most of us think of as opera after the abuses of the form under the castrati.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

In any case I fail to understand why people must insist on putting Classical era composers on the same level as Romantic era composers. I think it's hard to deny that the Romantic era is the golden era of Western classical music, where creativity is the most fertile, where most masterpieces are written and the tools that the composers had in that era far exceeds those in the classical era.

No... its quite easy to deny that the Romantic era represented some "golden age" when you are not approaching everything else from the point of view of that "golden age" and its values and standards. As much as I love Brahms, Wagner, and Richard Strauss, there is no way that they eclipse Mozart... let alone J.S. Bach or Handel. This very quote is inane. Its rather like the fan of Impressionism declaring that its impossible to deny that Impressionism was the greatest period and a "golden age" of painting... as if the Baroque (Rembrandt, Rubens, Vermeer), the Renaissance (Michelangelo, Titian, Bruegel) the Romanticists (Goya, Turner, Delacroix) Modernism (Picasso, Matisse, Klee) did not have their own towering figures. The very notion of a "golden age" limits the ability of the individual to appreciate anything beyond the standards and values central to that age.


----------



## Webernite

Yeah, I think it's a bit silly trying compare different musical periods. (Though if I had to say what was the "golden age" of music, I think I'd stick my neck out and say the Renaissance.) As for the question of how long the classical period lasted, isn't the whole point of the _The Classical Style_ - one of the most famous of all books about music - that Beethoven became _more_ classical as he got older? And that therefore the classical period really lasted from 1750 to 1827, when Beethoven died, or even to 1828, when Schubert died?


----------



## Efraim

peeyaj said:


> I humbly admit my mistakes regarding my comments regarding the music of Haydn. Please accept my apologies concerning my juvenile assertions on Haydn's standing as a great composer. Perhaps, it is just my current obsession on Herr Schubert's music, and the passionate fervor in my mind, that I made those childish and immature comments. I agree that Haydn is a great composer, perhaps I am not just deeply exploring his music. Honestly, with the exception of his last few symphonies, the liturgical music and quartets, I've only scratched the surface of his large output.
> 
> My apologies again in mentioning the lives of these great composers. Perhaps, I'm just born a romantic and highly value those tragic lives. I should never have mention those awful things. I agree Stlukesguildohio, in that respect. Appreciation of art should never base on the lives of people rather the worth of the work.
> 
> I'm feeling remorseful. I felt I owe Haydn a favor.. I'm going to explore his music today. Again, a heartfelt apology to everyone.
> 
> Btw, in regards to Stlukesguildohio question.. I'm 19 years old.


Bravo! Being able to recognize our mistakes is one the greatest things. - As to Stlukesguildohio, he is smart, indeed.


----------



## Pieck

Webernite said:


> Yeah, I think it's a bit silly trying compare different musical periods. (Though if I had to say what was the "golden age" of music, I think I'd stick my neck out and say the Renaissance.) As for the question of how long the classical period lasted, isn't the whole point of the _The Classical Style_ - one of the most famous of all books about music - that Beethoven became _more_ classical as he got older? And that therefore the classical period really lasted from 1750 to 1827, when Beethoven died, or even to 1828, when Schubert died?


or to 1829 when Gossec died? (I had to continue the row)


----------



## Il Seraglio

Webernite said:


> Yeah, I think it's a bit silly trying compare different musical periods. (Though if I had to say what was the "golden age" of music, I think I'd stick my neck out and say the Renaissance.) As for the question of how long the classical period lasted, isn't the whole point of the _The Classical Style_ - one of the most famous of all books about music - that Beethoven became _more_ classical as he got older? And that therefore the classical period really lasted from 1750 to 1827, when Beethoven died, or even to 1828, when Schubert died?


How does he try to account for that? The 9th symphony is set to a poem by Schiller that concerns the universal brotherhood of man. That's very romantic as far as I can see. Robespierre would have been proud.

And the late string quartets and sonatas are awash with romantic expressiveness and regularly break the classical sonata-slow movement-minuet-rondo form.


----------



## Toccata

Webernite said:


> ...As for the question of how long the classical period lasted, isn't the whole point of the _The Classical Style_ - one of the most famous of all books about music - that Beethoven became _more_ classical as he got older? And that therefore the classical period really lasted from 1750 to 1827, when Beethoven died, or even to 1828, when Schubert died?


At this rate, the Classical period started in 1813 if it ended in 1828, according to an earlier post (15 year life). There must have been a total vacuum in between circa 1750 and 1813, with various would-be composers picking their noses and whistling in the wind. Mozart and Haydn are figments of the imagination.

I'm not sure that Charles Rosen went quite as far as suggesting that Beethoven became more "classical" as he got older. That would be like suggesting that someone had become more Catholic than the Pope. I think that Rosen was saying that, looking at Beethoven's compositional techniques, he remained largely wedded to the classical model. But that's not to deny that Beethoven allowed himself the privilege of incorporating some of the traits of Romanticism as he aged, a process which Beethoven did not initiate but which had already begun (eg with Weber).

It's more likely that Schubert did more than Beethoven to advance Romanticism, via his lieder and Schubert's later symphonies and possibly too his late piano sonatas. The Romantic process wasn't to mushroom more fully until Schumann came along as the "herald of a new poetic age".

Rosen's opinion about Beethoven assumes that one takes any notice of what he had to say on the matter, and I gather that he didn't actually have any musicological credentials per se, which is quite an amusing situation if correct. Very many previous discussions on this tired old issue always bring up Rosen's name, and most people seem to accept that what Rosen said is valid as regards the technicalities of Beethoven's style remaining within the Classical mould.


----------



## Efraim

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Yes Mozart was the greater composer... he most certainly does not "own" Haydn...


etc.



> This shows a complete lack of understanding of art. An appreciation of Shakespeare does not negate the ability to also appreciate and admire "lesser" writers....


etc.



> According to whom? According to someone who is employing the standards of the Romantic/Post-Romantic notions of music. These standards run either way. If I employ the standards of Rembrandt, then Picasso and Matisse and Degas are rather laughable. Their drawing is crude. Their sense of space is weak and amateurish. Their mastery of the illusion of solid form is all but non-existent. Turning this comparison on end, however, Rembrandt comes off as a weak colorist at best....


etc.



> At worst every composer has their mediocre works. The notion that the symphonies all sound alike or may be reduced to little more than a series of variations can again be true of Schubert or Beethoven as well... to the ear of the person who hasn't really given the work the proper effort. With the exceptions of the few well known tunes I'll admit that Beethoven's piano sonatas and string quartets all blurred together upon my initial listening. To the person who hasn't given the effort, the symphonies of Brahms, Schubert, Schumann, Bruckner, and Mahler might all sound the same. .


etc.



> Again and again all you can argue is that Schubert was more "emotional"? How so? What exactly makes a work of music "emotional"? It seems to me that all we are talking about is the employment of a minor key and some dramatic contrasts in dynamics. As a painter, conveying "tragedy" is as easy as choosing the right subject, using lots of black and red and great contrasts of light and dark... and voila!


etc.



> This is one of the stupidest fallacies of art... the notion that one must suffer to be an artist...


etc., down to the last word.

Thanx, I wouldn't have been able to write it so well.

True, the romantic bias is still lingering on. E.T.A. Hoffmann wrote that Haydn's is the music before the Fall of man. Perhaps he did not intend to imply that Haydn's music is naïve or childish, but later musicians did. Berlioz is said to have walked out when they started to play Haydn, Schumann wrote something like "Haydn is a charming old relative, we like to listen to his anecdotes but there is nothing to learn from him" etc. Hoffmann's comment is witty but in fact it is a nonsense; Haydn's music is nothing less sophisticated than anybody else's.

Haydn was criticized for his Masses: they are too joyful. He answered: "Since God has created me with a joyful heart, He will forgive me for worshipping Him with a joyful heart". Goethe, when he heard that, wept…

Wagner declared that Haydn gave up his independence as an artist, but himself was several years later astonished, when he played on the piano with his future wife Haydn's symphonies, how they are excellent and perfect.

Moreover, there is a big optical illusion as to the basically tragic tone, heroism and loftiness of the later musicians. In fact the dark hues are rather rare in the output of the most "mournful" composers. Among the hundreds of Mozart's works there is but a handful in such a mood: the Fantasy in c, the Piano concerto in d, the String Quintet in c, the Adagio and Fugue in c and of course de Requiem. What else? (By the way, among his 41 symphonies only two are in a minor key, that is, 5 %, while Haydn wrote 11 in minor out of 107, more than 10 %; string quartets: Mozart: 2 of 23, Haydn: 11 of 58. Piano sonatas: Mozart: 2 of 17, Haydn: 7 of 62.) - Schubert wrote over 1000 works, so that the last two string quartets, the string quintet, three or four of the piano sonatas, the Unfinished Symphony and a few other are, arithmetically speaking, an infinitesimal minority. Same thing for Beethoven: 6 or 7 of the piano sonatas, four string quartets, two symphonies (5th and 9th) - what else is so much tragic, melancholic or "serious", out of some 150 works? What could be more crammed with exuberant vitality than Brahms' double, violin and B flat piano concertos, or even the 3d movement of the 4th symphony? Even Chopin is not always tearful, as far as I know his music. Bruckner is invariably lofty and bumptious but I don't think that he is deeper or better for that than Haydn. Debussy, Stravinsky or Anton Webern have nothing to do with sorrow or darkness. And so on.

For this very reason, when some big man says (I forgot who this was, probably a great pianist) that Bach's Well Tempered Clavier is the Old Testament of music and Beethoven's 32 piano sonatas the New, this sounds very well but means nothing. All of Beethoven's sonatas are good but the majority of them are no tremendous masterpieces, first and foremost not the two of the opus 49, which were published by Beethoven's brother, only to trigger off an outburst of anger of the composer…


----------



## Bill H.

To me, there is nothing in art criticism sillier than the idea of using the works from a composer of one era as a stick to beat over the head of another composer's works of a different time. Especially when the implied "superior" composer is from a later era. That may not be the intent of some of the arguments here, but they sure come across that way to me. Taken to a logical end, I'm willing to say that Schoenberg has important things to say, but not necessarily (by this logic) that his works are going to be more popular, "heavier" and greater than Bach or Josquin. 

There probably is a popularity/fashion deficit for Haydn, but not necessarily among musicians, who revere his work. Or among people who listen carefully for the way he balances emotion and structural rigor, even as he constantly "breaks" all the rules he is supposedly credited with establishing with regard to sonata form, etc. He is one of the greatest composers who rewards careful, not casual, listening. I recall no less a musician as Simon Rattle once saying that he thought Haydn the one great composer of the past that he would most want to sit down and have a conversation with. 

And Mozart was a pretty good fan of Franz Josef, which tells me enough. 

I'll only say in my own personal case that Haydn is one of the composers I always end up coming back to as means to refresh my spirit and a belief in the great gifts passed down to us from the Enlightenment, but which seem as a whole to be less and less appreciated in this day and age.


----------



## Webernite

Il Seraglio said:


> How does he try to account for that? The 9th symphony is set to a poem by Schiller that concerns the universal brotherhood of man. That's very romantic as far as I can see. Robespierre would have been proud.
> 
> And the late string quartets and sonatas are awash with romantic expressiveness and regularly break the classical sonata-slow movement-minuet-rondo form.


I think the argument is that, although he had _some_ Romantic traits, such as those you mention, he never wrote a movement structurally similar to Schumann or Chopin. He kept to sonata form, and was apparently hostile to the chromaticism that characterized Spohr and which was to characterize Chopin, Wagner and Mahler (and indeed Brahms). He wrote no character pieces, no salon music, and excelled in genres that the neighbouring generation of Romantics were not so good at: the piano sonata, string quartet and symphony. Even in the _Hammerklavier_ Sonata, he develops themes in a way that is still essentially Haydnesque, rather than, say, Chopinesque. He broke many classical conventions, but the point is that breaking classical conventions is not the same as following Romantic ones. (It's often overlooked that Bach broke just as many conventions as Beethoven, and yet we still see him clearly as a Baroque composer.)

That explains why Rosen thinks that Beethoven was not really a Romantic - but what about the idea that he actually got more classical with age? Well, Rosen's argument seems to be that many of the early-ish works of Beethoven - the Variations Op. 34, the Quintet Op. 16, the first piano sonatas - are written _not_ in the style of Haydn and Mozart, but in the then contemporary style of Hummel, Weber and others. All Beethoven's later works, on the other hand, are structurally much nearer to Haydn and Mozart, even though not as restrained. And so, for Rosen, Beethoven's career represents a turning away from the fashionable style of his own time (circa 1805), and a return to the older, classical principles of the 1780s, but with a personal twist.

At least, this is how I interpreted the book!


----------



## Webernite

Toccata said:


> Rosen's opinion about Beethoven assumes that one takes any notice of what he had to say on the matter, and I gather that he didn't actually have any musicological credentials per se, which is quite an amusing situation if correct. Very many previous discussions on this tired old issue always bring up Rosen's name, and most people seem to accept that what Rosen said is valid as regards the technicalities of Beethoven's style remaining within the Classical mould.


It's true that Rosen never did get a degree in music, to my knowledge any way. But he finished at Julliard when he was 11, has had a loooong career as a concert pianist, and taught at both Harvard and Oxford. He seems to have met just about every important musical figure living since 1940, and is generally pretty widely respected, even by people who don't agree with everything he says. _I_ don't agree with everything he says, but I'm in agreement with him (and with you!) on whether Beethoven was a Romantic.


----------



## Efraim

Efraim said:


> ... there is a big optical illusion as to the basically tragic tone, heroism and loftiness of the later musicians. In fact the dark hues are rather rare in the output of the most "mournful" composers. Among the hundreds of Mozart's works there is but a handful in such a mood: the Fantasy in c, the Piano concerto in d, the String Quintet in c, the Adagio and Fugue in c and of course the Requiem. What else? [...] - Schubert wrote over 1000 works, so that the last two string quartets, the string quintet, three or four of the piano sonatas, the Unfinished Symphony and a few other are, arithmetically speaking, an infinitesimal minority. Same thing for Beethoven: 6 or 7 of the piano sonatas, four string quartets, two symphonies (5th and 9th) - what else is so much tragic, melancholic or "serious", out of some 150 works? ...


Sorry to indulge in quoting and completing myself.

If you like emotionally high-pitched music, you can find among Haydn's works not less of this kind than in other composers' oeuvre; but while Mozart's, Beethoven's, Schubert's "serious" compositions are famous, Haydn's are buried in hundreds of other pieces the majority of which are light entertaining music.

So you have:

5 or 6 string quartets: 
in D minor from Op. 9 (chronologically his very first true, meaning sonata-structured, SQ); 
in C and g, perhaps also f, from Op. 20; 
f sharp and D from Op. 50; the last movement of Op. 76 No 1; 
the piano sonatas in b and c; 
symphonies like No 26, 44, 49, 83;
Salve Regina (there are two; I mean that in G minor);
Il Ritorno di Tobia (an oratorio; quite long and not easily "getting in").

Once I had the last movement of Op. 76 listened to by a big music fan; he guessed: Dvorak? no, Rachmaninov? Brahms?...

- - The problem of underrating Haydn and some other composers is not only one of taste, bias or preconception. In my youth I had almost no bias concerning Haydn but there was simply no means of knowing him, I could not possibly run across anything he wrote: in those years he was never, never played either in concert or on the radio. There were LP records, but you could never see them in the show-windows nor were they discussed in the press. Today you can hear plenty of Haydn on the radio, but usually not the best of him, and usually not in a fortunate interpretation.

(Same thing for Hummel. If you happen to overhear on the radio a Hummel-opus in the pure classical tradition, it can hardly suggest you the idea of ordering, say, his tremendous sonata in F sharp minor or his Fantasies for piano.)

- - Here we have come to a further problem. Haydn is far more sensitive to interpretation - "reading" - than the other great composers. I have about 30 recordings of Brahms' Piano Quintet (a sheer madness, I admit); almost all of them are acceptable and as to the "meaning", to the basic character of this work, as to whether they reveal its qualities, there is no really significant difference between them but only one of quality. On the contrary, I had had, for example, for long the whole cycles of the Opp. 17, 50 and 76 of Haydn (altogether 18 SQs) by the Tatrai Quartet, a most respected ensemble, when I was already a big Haydn fan, but I found them uninteresting, almost dull, till I got the first two by Festetics Quartet and Op. 76 by the Mosaiques. By now the whole Op. 50 is a peak in my eyes. As to the Piano sonata in b, it is by far the best served by Alfred Brendel.

- Problem No x+1: as a rule, Haydn's works got silly nicknames. I can't see any difference of seriousness between Mozart's and Haydn's Symphony in G minor (Haydn's No 83). But since Haydn's is called "The Chicken", it is killed before you begin listening to it. Same thing concerning Mozart's last symphony. I suspect it was directly influenced by Haydn's No 82 but Mozart's is nicknamed Jupiter and Haydn's - _The Bear_. The aforementioned SQ Op. 50 No 6 has been even more ill-treated: it is called _The Frog..._. Absolutely stupid. The frog is a trifling little thing, while this quartet is a giant, huge in purpose and esthetical value, by no means less monumental and serious than the most of Beethoven's.


----------



## Toccata

Webernite said:


> It's true that Rosen never did get a degree in music, to my knowledge any way. But he finished at Julliard when he was 11, has had a loooong career as a concert pianist, and taught at both Harvard and Oxford. He seems to have met just about every important musical figure living since 1940, and is generally pretty widely respected, even by people who don't agree with everything he says. _I_ don't agree with everything he says, but I'm in agreement with him (and with you!) on whether Beethoven was a Romantic.


Yes, I agree with you. I wasn't criticising Rosen's credentials, but simply pointing out something I read somewhere a while back that he was a self-appointed musicologist. Having read Rosen's books (or as much as I could follow) I switched "sides" ages ago from initially considering Beethoven to being primarily a Romantic to remaining fundamentally a Classicist. Apart from the Pastoral Symphony, there is nothing programmatic or poetic about any of Beethoven's works. The Eroica includes a lot more drama and emotion than was previously considered "acceptable" but that alone doesn't make it "Romantic".

I'm certainly not including you here but many classical newbies (and a few others besides, it seems) do not understand Romanticism in music. They glibly assume that its main feature was the expression of emotion, which they see in Beethoven but less so in Mozart and far less so in Haydn, and hence regard Beethoven as the first main Romantic. They point to works like the "Eroica" and the "Pastoral" symphonies and say these must be Romantic. This is inconclusive. To the true Romantics their chief aim was literary expression, conveying the power of words and poetry through music. It had different forms of expression, Schubert through his lieder which for the first time involved songs about personal feelings, Wagner and Liszt through clear narratives, and Schumann through poetic beauty. The combination of literature and music then converged into a sense of spontaneity and freedom, moving away from fixed rules of expression into a far more open and free-flowing process of attempting to capture the essence of beauty.

Beethoven had very little if anything to do with any of that. His music was carefully engineered down to the last note, which followed well-established patterns and clear developments. He seldom relied on any inspiration alone to guide his artistry, but relied far more on hard work pouring over draft and draft to get it right according to the rules. He did a very splendid job through all manner of inventions and clever devices to create variety and a strong sense of dynamism, but nevertheless he remained a classicist to the bitter end, albeit a very novel one especially concerning his late SQs.

Schubert, on the other hand, was far more poetic in style and application than Beethoven ever was. Romanticism suited Schubert because this is where his comparative advantage resided, with his almost unparalleled ability to translate poetry and words into music, and his enormous gift of being to create melody without resorting to rules. That's why we see long flowing, expansive works from Schubert, with fascination excursions into distant keys, but subtly returning to tonic and sometimes more dramatically, and on the journey taking us through some emotional swirls and upheavals. Schubert's genius in these areas is just as great as Beethoven's in others.

When we consider that Beethoven was 25 when he published his Opus 1 piano trios, by that age Schubert had already entered his "mature" stage and had written works of very much higher quality: 8 Symphonies, many classy chamber works including the Piano Quintet ("Trout"), several high quality piano sonatas, various outstanding works for piano duet, the Wanderer Fantasy, several Masses, and of course many hundreds songs and a splendid song cycle. His talent was incredible.


----------



## peeyaj

@Tocatta

Again, I agree..

@would-have been Schubert's doubters

*If Beethoven died at Schubert's
age…*

What would Beethoven's
legacy have been had he, like Schubert, died at the age of 31?

He'd probably be remembered as an iconoclastic virtuoso
pianist who showed great
promise as a composer.

He would have written one very odd symphony, at once experimental
and almost mockingly
conservative. His one rather academic set of string quartets would (and still does) suffer by
comparison with Haydn 's nearly contemporary set, Op. 76. (Haydn
would have outlived Beethoven by nearly a decade.) His most
memorable contribution to theliterature would have been two delightful piano concertos and
several adventurous (albeit rather prolix) piano sonatas; judging by what would have
been his last works - the
Sonatas Op. 26 and 27-
Beethoven seemed to have been on the verge of abandoning sonata-form entirely. (Opus 26
has not a single sonata-form movement.)

All the works that define
Beethoven as an heroic musical colossus wouldn 't exist.

*Now, for Schubert's first 31
years…*

Of course, it was Schubert, not Beethoven, who died at that early age. To restate what I 've written
elsewhere in BSR (a letter in response to Robert Zaller's review of Ignat Solzhenitsyn playing Schubert), my most poignant alternate reality in music history is the landscape that might exist today if Schubert
had been granted a normal lifespan. No other composer's death left such a gaping hole in a
world that might have been.

Consider what Schubert
accomplished by the time of his death in 1828:

• A long string of chamber music masterpieces, capped by
the incomprehensibly beautiful C Major String Quintet;

• Six settings of the Mass, the last two of which are among the jewels of the choral literature;

• Hundreds of songs;

• Many piano sonatas,
capped by three enormous ones written in the space of a month
or two during his last illness;

• And, of course, the Eighth
and Ninth Symphonies.

*In his last few years, Schubert, the great melodist, grappled with the problem of filling up large stretches of musical time. He did it with long stretches of obsessively repeating rhythms, never more successfully than in the Ninth.*

-Dan Coren


----------



## Couchie

Schubert was raised by Salieri on Mozart. Schubert was initially hostile to Beethoven's emotional breadth, criticizing:


> "eccentricity in music, which is due almost wholly to one of our greatest German artists; that eccentricity which joins and confuses the tragic with the comic, the agreeable with the repulsive, and heroism with howlings…"


He of course pulled a total 180 on this a few years later and came to worship Beethoven, and it was in this maturation that Schubert produced all of his masterpieces. If Beethoven had died at 31, Schubert would have produced an entirely different oeuvre much more heavily based in the Classical Italian style. You _certainly_ wouldn't have gotten your prized Unfinished Symphony.


----------



## peeyaj

Couchie said:


> Schubert was raised by Salieri on Mozart. Schubert was initially hostile to Beethoven's emotional breadth, criticizing:
> 
> He of course pulled a total 180 on this a few years later and came to worship Beethoven, and it was in this maturation that Schubert produced all of his masterpieces. If Beethoven had died at 31, Schubert would have produced an entirely different oeuvre much more heavily based in the Classical Italian style. You _certainly_ wouldn't have gotten your prized Unfinished Symphony.


As if Schubert did not write his two best know Lieder: Gretchen Am Spinnrade and Erlkönig in his teens, no?

The Lieder is a unique contribution of Romanticism in 19th century classical music. The early to mid-1820's is the transition of Classical to Romantic era, certainly, Schubert was bridging those gaps, more so, than Beethoven. Schubert's Unfinished Symphony written in 1822, was described as the first ''true romantic'' symphony (not Eroica), because of its forward looking harmony, it's sonority and emphasis in melodic development.

But we can't argue that who is the ''greater'' composer. Certainly Beethoven is a spirit of larger caliber and the greater composer. Not in much of Beethoven's output was ''far better'' than Schubert's though. Beethoven's weakness and Schubert's strength: melody. Beethoven struggled setting Erlkönig in music, he put it aside. But Schubert did it in 19!

In then, we come to the whole point of my first post. Dan Croen was arguing that '' at the age of 31, Schubert have written a much significant output and contribution in music, than Beethoven, when he is 31 years old''. But you know your history right? Beethoven lived for 50 years and have written those brilliant symphonies, glorious piano sonatas and great string quartets..


----------



## Larkenfield

_Why does Haydn seem to be out of fashion?_

Haydn seems out of fashion because he's too positive, inventive and constructive. He should have beaten his wife or she should have beaten him to make his life appear more neurotic and interesting... He should have cheated at billiards or had some vice like Beethoven drinking too much and having a bad liver... Haydn's ignored for rising above his limitations and being a man of benevolent goodwill; but that's a modern-day prescription for failure, rejection and disappointment... Poor Haydn! No marvelous Piano Sonata goes unpunished.


----------



## Manxfeeder

Larkenfield said:


> _Why does Haydn seem to be out of fashion?_
> 
> Haydn seems out of fashion because he's too positive and constructive. He should have beaten his wife or she should have beaten him to make his life appear more neurotic and interesting...


You do have a point. The world, at least the American world, seems to celebrate the voyeurism of entering into a person's personal life over their overall accomplishments. I remember reading a biography of Mahler from soon after he died, and it made him sound like he was a normal person with a normal life, concentrating on his musical accomplishments. Then Alma comes along with her memoirs, and now that we know all his foibles, whether real or not, suddenly he's interesting.

Of course, Haydn did have a vexing wife, which does make him sympathetic. But it doesn't have much to do with his music except for the pieces she used for curling her hair.

I will say that as long as there are scenes on TV and the movies requiring a string quartet to play for a soiree for the ultra rich, Haydn will always be in fashion, because that's what they play.


----------



## Razumovskymas

--------his wig!


----------



## flamencosketches

While Haydn may have been out of fashion 8 years ago when this thread was started, I would say he is very in vogue now. Every string quartet in the game right now is releasing Haydn CDs. Pianists are starting to record his piano sonatas. We could use some new recordings of his symphonies, but otherwise I would say Haydn is on the come-up.

Not that they are similar composers by any means (or not by much anyway), I think Handel and Vivaldi are beginning to see their days in the sunshine too. 

This raises a further question for all of you: Do you think Haydn's Operas will ever undergo a "Renaissance" like what's going on with Vivaldi's operas? He wrote many of them, and I've never heard of a single one of them being produced in the past 200 years. As I have heard none of them, I can not comment on their quality or their deservedness to be revived in any case, but it would surely be interesting to see. Perhaps a young conductor rediscovers a lost Haydn opera, produces it, and it sees huge acclaim in HIP circles, and all of a sudden the rest of Haydn's operas are reevaluated, and he comes to be seen as an operatic composer in the same league as Mozart...? This would totally shake up the way we all perceive this man and his music, I think. 

Of course, this is all hypothetical, and I highly doubt Haydn's operas are anything special anyway. But what if...?


----------



## vtpoet

Larkenfield said:


> He should have beaten his wife or she should have beaten him to make his life appear more neurotic and interesting...


Haydn's wife liked to use his manuscripts to curl her hair. Wouldn't you say that was worse than beating him? Also, if memory serves, Haydn took up a lover in London and I think his London Piano Trios were written with her in mind (but I could be wrong about that latter assertion).


----------



## Bulldog

flamencosketches said:


> This raises a further question for all of you: Do you think Haydn's Operas will ever undergo a "Renaissance" like what's going on with Vivaldi's operas? He wrote many of them, and I've never heard of a single one of them being produced in the past 200 years. As I have heard none of them, I can not comment on their quality or their deservedness to be revived in any case, but it would surely be interesting to see. Perhaps a young conductor rediscovers a lost Haydn opera, produces it, and it sees huge acclaim in HIP circles, and all of a sudden the rest of Haydn's operas are reevaluated, and he comes to be seen as an operatic composer in the same league as Mozart...? This would totally shake up the way we all perceive this man and his music, I think.
> 
> Of course, this is all hypothetical, and I highly doubt Haydn's operas are anything special anyway. But what if...?


Listen to them; then you'll have an informed opinion.

If Vivaldi's operas a worth a renaissance, so are Haydn's.


----------



## vtpoet

flamencosketches said:


> This raises a further question for all of you: Do you think Haydn's Operas will ever undergo a "Renaissance" like what's going on with Vivaldi's operas?


I doubt it. I listen to all of them, on occasion, just to switch things up. While the music, in certain ways, is head and shoulders above his peers, Haydn seems to have lacked the same feel for drama that even lesser composers, like Salieri, possessed. He was better suited to "set pieces" I think (like Schubert) and that comes out in Masses, The Creation and The Seasons.


----------



## paulbest

*seem to be out of style*
Or is it, 
*Why Haydn's music does not move the masses of TODAYS classical music fans?*

maybe it is because folks are realizing Mozart offers everything Haydn offers X's 1000.
*Haydn's late great symphonies*
*so sublime, so divine*


----------



## flamencosketches

Bulldog said:


> Listen to them; then you'll have an informed opinion.
> 
> If Vivaldi's operas a worth a renaissance, so are Haydn's.


I'm more interested in vaguely entertaining conjecture than informed opinions at this stage 

Once I come to terms with Vivaldi's operas, Haydn comes next. I actually really like what I've heard of the Vivaldi operas. He was a great writer for the voice (and so was Haydn).


----------



## KenOC

Haydn is not out of fashion. It's just that you seldom see him around for an obvious reason.


----------



## Woodduck

KenOC said:


> Haydn is not out of fashion. It's just that you seldom see him around for an obvious reason.


Well, hey, those string quartets are, like, outta sight!


----------



## paulbest

Woodduck said:


> Well, hey, those string quartets are, like, outta sight!


another 100 years, Haydn's compositions will be nothing more than ,,,museum pieces.
How he ever survived this long , beats me.


----------



## Woodduck

paulbest said:


> another 100 years, Haydn's compositions will be nothing more than ,,,museum pieces.
> How he ever survived this long , beats me.


Stick around 100 years and see whether string quartets are still playing Haydn and orchestras are still not playing Pettersson.


----------



## paulbest

Yeah they'll still be Playing Haydn's chamber,,,as its so easy to play,,,and even w/o polish, the chamber players can pull Haydn off with little practice,,,The folks won't know,whats a good, ave, crummy performance. 
Its music,,,beats sitting at home in front of the TV,,and the concert is free. No you will not hear Pettersson in 100 yrs,,at that time orchestras will only look for the easy things to play,,,like Beethoven's symphonies which they have been playing since high shool. 
As funds won't be there tom pay high virtuoso , the only ones able to pull offa Pettersson symphony with success.
Which is why you will never hear a Chicago, Cleveland, New York perform a Pettersson, No funds, not enough high quality orchestra members. 
These orchestras play only middle of the road works, like Tchaikovsky Bruckner and Mahler
Music
any orchestra can perform, with no difficulty.


----------



## Woodduck

paulbest said:


> Yeah they'll still be Playing Haydn's chamber,,,as its so easy to play,,,and even w/o polish, the chamber players can pull Haydn off with little practice,,,The folks won't know,whats a good, ave, crummy performance.
> Its music,,,beats sitting at home in front of the TV,,and the concert is free. No you will not hear Pettersson in 100 yrs,,at that time orchestras will only look for the easy things to play,,,like Beethoven's symphonies which they have been playing since high shool.
> As funds won't be there tom pay high virtuoso , the only ones able to pull offa Pettersson symphony with success.
> Which is why you will never hear a Chicago, Cleveland, New York perform a Pettersson, No funds, not enough high quality orchestra members.
> These orchestras play only middle of the road works, like Tchaikovsky Bruckner and Mahler
> Music
> any orchestra can perform, with no difficulty.


Excuses, excuses...

You never seem to know when you're losing.


----------



## samm

paulbest said:


> Yeah they'll still be Playing Haydn's chamber,,,as its so easy to play,,,and even w/o polish, the chamber players can pull Haydn off with little practice,,,The folks won't know,whats a good, ave, crummy performance.
> Its music,,,beats sitting at home in front of the TV,,and the concert is free. No you will not hear Pettersson in 100 yrs,,at that time orchestras will only look for the easy things to play,,,like Beethoven's symphonies which they have been playing since high shool.
> As funds won't be there tom pay high virtuoso , the only ones able to pull offa Pettersson symphony with success.
> Which is why you will never hear a Chicago, Cleveland, New York perform a Pettersson, No funds, not enough high quality orchestra members.
> These orchestras play only middle of the road works, like Tchaikovsky Bruckner and Mahler
> Music
> any orchestra can perform, with no difficulty.


You seem to never learn. I'm going to return later today and somewhere on the next few pages you'll be backpedaling and then doing another u-turn.

Where have you picked up this idea that popularizing less-performed composers is achieved by dreaming up reasons to dismiss composers in the standard repertoire? And by repeatedly uttering falsehoods?

There has certainly been a hardening conservatism among the classical audiences since the growth of truly popular music. Consider as an example this quote from Wikipedia:



> In 1928, the Flonzaley Quartet played the String Quartet No. 1 at their farewell New York concert between works of Beethoven and Brahms, and it was greeted enthusiastically.


This is in reference to the string quartet by the now relatively obscure, and rather avant-garde, Erwin Schulhoff. Examples like this can be multiplied for other composers of the time. Instead popular history has chosen to record all the scandals and succès de scandales and riots and audience rejections.

I don't know why you keep harping on about Pettersson as though he's some sort of genius above all else. His symphonies aren't that great. Plus, any half decent orchestra can tackle them. You need to get real.


----------



## Art Rock

samm said:


> You need to get real.


Don't hold your breath....


----------



## MrMeatScience

flamencosketches said:


> Do you think Haydn's Operas will ever undergo a "Renaissance" like what's going on with Vivaldi's operas? He wrote many of them, and I've never heard of a single one of them being produced in the past 200 years.


We had a performance of Armida -- Haydn's last opera, I think -- conducted by Rene Jacobs (whose Mozart is incredible) put on at the Theater an der Wien last year. I wasn't there, but it got mixed reviews.


----------



## paulbest

Art Rock said:


> Don't hold your breath....


Art Rock can smell a Iconoclast from miles away,,
hehe
*Standard Repertoire*
= Your grand- daddy's music.

1928!. WEll of course Beethoven was pop music back then as he is today. What do you think the abbreviation *pop* stands for? ASk google *What is the most pop classical music composer?* , 
answer *Beethoven*. 
WE all had, back in the late 1950's, those thick 33 LP's, Beethoven/Krips LP sets, every hosehold had at least 1 copy. 
When we were growing up, we thought classical music and Beethoven were 
one and the same thing.
WE had heard about Mozart, but it was always *Beethoven The King of Classical*.

As kids, we could only name one composer, that is all we knew. and that meant we knew something about classical music. 
The opening to the 3rd, 5th, , we would play that part over and over,,,until the LP's became so scratched, we used them as frisby's, flying saucers. 
Don't ask me to give my assessment in 2 words or less, about Beethoven's music as a whole.

His violin concerto is a fine concerto, perhaps his finest work, other than his 3rd symphony and ,,is it the 5th or ,,,no its the 6th symphony I found to be *less problematic*. 
So hey that's 3 ENTIRE works from Beethoven where I feel he made success start to the finale. 
Not bad, 3 out of 400/ 
Mozart has many early works, which none are real *duds*,,,well some would say they won;'t set off fireworks, that's for sure. 
Mozart's 5 VC's could be placed safely in the deep vaults,,,
oh wait here comes Hillary Hahn to save the 5 VC's from being cast into the bottomless eternal vaults. 
*They are masterpieces,,shame on you PB, for dissing, OUR Mozart*.

So what are we going to do with,,,Beethoven's music,,,next 100 years?. …
*Play it again sam*
*Boss, the triple concerto?*
*No, not THAT one, never ask that Q ever again...anything but the triple*.
I was so happy to have the LP /Triple with Oistrakh. ,,,Never listened to it, but as a avid collector of all things Oistrakh, made my collection proud and near complete. The Triple as you know, is the *black sheep* of Beethoven's late works. 
I could write a book on why Beethoven is YOUR grand daddy's composer. As I say, instinctively, I sensed not to go near the stuff.

had I gone down the Beethoven road,,,surely I may not have come this far in making major discoveries in modern era music. .
Along with Beethoven, many others I avoided as well, as *your grand daddy's composer*. 
Now that I have made significant new discoveries, I know now, looking back, the road I am on, is the one *less traveled*. 
Modernists are unique, we know we are different from the others. We know who we are, and we know who they are.

We live for music that speaks to our LIVING souls. 
Dead forms will not give us life, beauty, true living art.

My Q is, why do you hate us, for expressing our truest thoughts and beliefs?
Why? 
What are you trying to protect, to preserve? 
Standards? 
Your set of standards, which our musical forms will not fit into. You can not force a round peg into a square hole. 
We only, ONLY love our music which speaks of living forms, Beauty must be redressed in new clothes which dazzles and enervates. Gives us meaning in a meaningless world. 
Have your concerts. 
WE have our CD collection, And staop asking us to donate to your FM *classical music* stations. Voice for propaganda. 
We ain't giving a dime,,,even if I were a millionaire.

250 recordings of Beethoven's symphonies, 
Ridiculous.


----------



## Guest

samm said:


> You seem to never learn. I'm going to return later today and somewhere on the next few pages you'll be backpedaling and then doing another u-turn.
> 
> .


That's part of his charm. One never knows for sure what he'll come up with next. A bit like Beethoven in that respect. Oops, I shouldn't have mentioned that name. It'll get him going again.


----------



## flamencosketches

MrMeatScience said:


> We had a performance of Armida -- Haydn's last opera, I think -- conducted by Rene Jacobs (whose Mozart is incredible) put on at the Theater an der Wien last year. I wasn't there, but it got mixed reviews.


Is there much tradition of Haydn operas being put on in Vienna, even in his heyday? I believe many of his operas were staged in Esterháza, and seldom revived beyond an initial run.


----------



## vtpoet

flamencosketches said:


> Is there much tradition of Haydn operas being put on in Vienna, even in his heyday? I believe many of his operas were staged in Esterháza, and seldom revived beyond an initial run.


Oh jeez, and I just read a liner note on this very subject a couple months ago. Memory...... If you want, I can dig it up, but the particular opera I was listening to was one that Haydn wrote quickly and for an occasion at Esterhaza, and that was cancelled, so he produced the opera in Vienna (I think). Was it L'Incontro? At any rate, Mozart attended the performance and its thought that Haydn's opera was a direct influence on Figaro and Cosi because Haydn anticipated the multi-part finales that make Mozart's later operas so famous. While Haydn's finales aren't as time-stoppingly beautiful and intricate as Mozart's, they're still damned impressive.


----------



## MrMeatScience

Most of the ones I'm aware of were premiered at Esterháza. There were a few that had performances in the 1780s in Vienna, but beyond that I couldn't say -- maybe a Haydn specialist can chime in. They're not common here these days, for sure, although Theater an der Wien likes doing unusual repertoire so they do revive them on occasion. We had _Il mondo della luna_ with Harnoncourt maybe 10 years ago or so?


----------



## vtpoet

MrMeatScience said:


> Most of the ones I'm aware of were premiered at Esterháza. There were a few that had performances in the 1780s in Vienna, but beyond that I couldn't say -- maybe a Haydn specialist can chime in. They're not common here these days, for sure, although Theater an der Wien likes doing unusual repertoire so they do revive them on occasion. We had _Il mondo della luna_ with Harnoncourt maybe 10 years ago or so?


I once met the "Haydn Specialist of Specialists" H.C. Robbins Landon. He was much taller than me, a man of girth, and with a decidedly upper crust British presence. I asked him: "Why, when you could have written about Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, Bach, or any other number of composers, did you write a multi-book biography on Haydn?"

I was hoping he would reveal something about a love for Haydn that only a great biographer of Haydn could reveal: an insight, a biographical note, a revelatory perspective. Instead, he looked at my 19 year old self like i was an idiot.

He said: "For the money."

Period. Then he went on mingling with the more respectable and upper-crust crowd.


----------



## Woodduck

vtpoet said:


> I once met the "Haydn Specialist of Specialists" H.C. Robbins Landon. He was much taller than me, a man of girth, and with a decidedly upper crust British presence. I asked him: "Why, when you could have written about Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, Bach, or any other number of composers, did you write multi-book biography on Haydn?"
> 
> I was hoping he would reveal something about a love for Haydn that only a great biographer of Haydn could reveal: an insight, a biographical note, a revelatory perspective. Instead, he looked at my 19 year old self like i was an idiot.
> 
> He said: "For the money."
> 
> Period. Then he went on mingling with the more respectable and upper-crust crowd.


:lol: Good for Landon! Unlike your 19-year-old self, he understood the implicit question, "Why would anyone waste his time writing about Haydn when there are superior and more interesting composers one could write about?"


----------



## vtpoet

Woodduck said:


> :lol: Good for Landon! Unlike your 19-year-old self, he understood the implicit question, "Why would anyone waste his time writing about Haydn when there are superior and more interesting composers one could write about?"


Yeah, and he still meant it.  He did it for the money. Nothing wrong with that, by the way.


----------



## vtpoet

Woodduck said:


> :lol: Good for Landon! Unlike your 19-year-old self, he understood the implicit question...


I should add, incidentally, that my 19 year old self understood perfectly well what he was asking and it wasn't in the least implicit.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Woodduck said:


> :lol: Good for Landon! Unlike your 19-year-old self, he understood the implicit question, "Why would anyone waste his time writing about Haydn when there are superior and more interesting composers one could write about?"


In_ Mozarts Last Year_ Landon merely says he decided to devote his life to Haydn. He also acknowledges Mozart as a superior composer.

Never could quite understand it myself since he writes beautifully about Mozart who, as a biographer's subject - must be more lucrative than dear old papa Haydn.


----------



## vtpoet

stomanek said:


> In_ Mozarts Last Year_ Landon merely says he decided to devote his life to Haydn.


Yes, I don't suppose he would write that he'd decided to devote his life to money; but given my own interaction with him, and listening to him at the time, I think that's what it really boiled down to. And again, that's not to take away from his accomplishments and the good work he did. I still laugh about it and am grateful for his honesty. Some of my 19 year old naïvety and idealism fell away. And here I thought he had a special love for Haydn and his music! No, only for the money. I his attitude revealed itself when, a few years later, he sloppily endorsed the six forged Haydn Sonatas.



> " Delighted to have found such an important addition to the oeuvre, Robbins Landon gave the story to BBC Music Magazine, The Times and the BBC Television News.
> 
> He explained that the sonatas were important for several reasons: they were written when Haydn was in a creative ferment; they were intended for the hammer-flugel (a forerunner of the pianoforte) rather than the harpsichord; and the "pregnant pauses" and "surprise modulations" of the work suggested, in Robbins Landon's view, that Haydn was beginning "to search for a new musical language".
> 
> What the reports failed to mention was that neither the media outlets concerned nor Robbins Landon had carried out checks on the manuscripts or had even seen the originals. They had relied on photocopies. "


https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ob...sic-obituaries/6646024/HC-Robbins-Landon.html

The episode bespeaks a familiarity with Haydn that is flatly perfunctory. I mean, his praise for the pieces is the kind of pro-forma scholar-ese that's found throughout his "praise" of Haydn.


----------



## Woodduck

vtpoet said:


> I should add, incidentally, that my 19 year old self understood perfectly well what he was asking and it wasn't in the least implicit.


So you _meant_ to question Landon's taste and judgment?

Oh, to be 19 again! :tiphat:


----------



## vtpoet

Woodduck said:


> So you _meant_ to question Landon's taste and judgment?


So what you're saying is...

Is that you Cathy Newman? You're beginning to make me feel like Jordan Peterson:






No. Like I wrote (see above): "I was hoping he would reveal something about a love for Haydn that only a great biographer of Haydn could reveal: an insight, a biographical note, a revelatory perspective."


----------



## Woodduck

vtpoet said:


> So what you're saying is...
> 
> Is that you Cathy Newman? You're beginning to make me feel like Jordan Peterson:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. Like I wrote (see above): "I was hoping he would reveal something about a love for Haydn that only a great biographer of Haydn could reveal: an insight, a biographical note, a revelatory perspective."


Well, glad to hear it. When _I_ was 19 I would probably have meant to question his taste and judgment.


----------



## vtpoet

Woodduck said:


> Well, glad to hear it. When _I_ was 19 I would probably have meant to question his taste and judgment.


No, I loved Haydn. It was the whole reason I was there. His response, valuable though it was, wasn't the one I was expecting or looking for. 

I was hoping he'd give me even more of a reason to love Haydn, though $money$, I must admit, is a good one.


----------



## flamencosketches

^It sounds to me like his response was not altogether serious...


----------



## vtpoet

flamencosketches said:


> ^It sounds to me like his response was not altogether serious...


No, he was serious. Besides, why _shouldn't_ he be taken seriously?


----------



## PlaySalieri

vtpoet said:


> Yes, I don't suppose he would write that he'd decided to devote his life to money; but given my own interaction with him, and listening to him at the time, I think that's what it really boiled down to. And again, that's not to take away from his accomplishments and the good work he did. I still laugh about it and am grateful for his honesty. Some of my 19 year old naïvety and idealism fell away. And here I thought he had a special love for Haydn and his music! No, only for the money. I his attitude revealed itself when, a few years later, he sloppily endorsed the six forged Haydn Sonatas.
> 
> https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ob...sic-obituaries/6646024/HC-Robbins-Landon.html
> 
> The episode bespeaks a familiarity with Haydn that is flatly perfunctory. I mean, his praise for the pieces is the kind of pro-forma scholar-ese that's found throughout his "praise" of Haydn.


Thanks for the telegraph article. I didnt even know he had died so long ago.

He really did get egg on his face with those "Haydn" sonatas. Luckily the bulk of his career was already behind him - but still - as a Haydn authority how can one explain this? Is it possible that a man who spent 60 years on Haydn scholarship had little if any connection with the music?


----------



## flamencosketches

vtpoet said:


> No, he was serious. Besides, why _shouldn't_ he be taken seriously?


Because Haydn is not exactly a money maker. There are not vast swaths of money to be made in writing a biography of Haydn that one cannot obtain in Mozart scholarship. I would think many other composers would have been a more profitable choice.


----------



## jegreenwood

I suspect that within - say - a given year, a listen to Haydn more than any other composer. (In some years Bach would beat him.) 
To a great extent, that's because he wrote so much music, but obviously I like his imagination and the classical style. When I try to define my enjoyment, it comes down to the feeling that he enjoyed music for music's sake.

Haydn does not rank among my top 5 composers, but he is in the 6-10 group.


----------



## MrMeatScience

flamencosketches said:


> Because Haydn is not exactly a money maker. There are not vast swaths of money to be made in writing a biography of Haydn that one cannot obtain in Mozart scholarship. I would think many other composers would have been a more profitable choice.


I don't know that this is true. Sure, a Haydn book isn't going to sell as many copies with the general public, but in Austrian academic circles at least, a lot of these things are funded by government cultural grants, and when it comes to getting those, often times the trick is to identify a niche that needs filling. If there was a dearth of good Haydn biographies before (I've no idea) and you were a top-shelf scholar, that could get you a pretty penny. I've a friend who's just managed something similar and gotten a hefty grant to write a biography of a well-known composer's early years (prior to all their major compositions). I wouldn't say it's likely to fly off the shelves, but it's paid the bills regardless.


----------



## vtpoet

stomanek said:


> Luckily the bulk of his career was already behind him - but still - as a Haydn authority how can one explain this? Is it possible that a man who spent 60 years on Haydn scholarship had little if any connection with the music?


Yeah, I don't know. That's all speculation, but one can't help thinking that the glibness with which he appraised the sonnets is _awfully_ revealing. I mean, it didn't take long for *real* (I suppose) experts to dismantle the forgeries. For all we know, a fair chunk of his biographies may have been, if not ghost written, largely the result of interns and assistants. They're huge books. And that's not to condemn him, but one does begin to wonder just how familiar he was with Haydn's music.


----------



## PlaySalieri

flamencosketches said:


> *Because Haydn is not exactly a money maker.* There are not vast swaths of money to be made in writing a biography of Haydn that one cannot obtain in Mozart scholarship. I would think many other composers would have been a more profitable choice.


quite - nobody goes into classical music seriously thinking they are going to make big money. Im sure that, for example, Jane Glover's excellent book "Mozart's Women" was purely a labour of love and dedication to the subject. A dry monumental biography on Haydn doesn't exactly draw the crowds but rather gathers dust over the decades.

And Robbins Landon has written very nicely about Mozart. He probably made much more out of "Mozart's Last Year" than he did the Haydn biography.

It looks like the exposure of a wine authority who mistakes a cheap spanish red for a quality french claret.

Maybe Haydn's sonatas are pretty much the same all the way for Landon and the fakes sounded like they could be Haydn.

If some sonatas from Mozart's middle period were found - I'm fairly sure even I could spot them out as fakes if they were not genuine - just from the quality of them.


----------



## vtpoet

stomanek said:


> A dry monumental biography on Haydn doesn't exactly draw the crowds but rather gathers dust over the decades.


Right, but I think the mistake 'ya'll' are making is in thinking the books are where the money is. I met and spoke with Landon because he was the keynote speaker at a series (Coventry Gardens?) discussing Haydn's "The Creation"---and that included a full performance of 'The Creation' along with some performances of Bach & Mozart . How much do you suppose he was paid or that gig? I'll bet it was at least a mid to high 5 figure sum. These days that would probably be a low six figure sum. The money wasn't in the books. The money was in being a Haydn expert (who couldn't tell forgeries from the real thing--just sayin').


----------



## shangoyal

Primarily because he is overshadowed by LvB and Mozart. Those two have been celebrated forever, performed and recorded so much for decades. And listeners can only take in so much. I think LvB and Mozart pretty much did all you could do in the classical and early Romantic style. 

Haydn's music is great, but he is only appreciated by those who have time and inclination enough to venture past two towering composers.


----------



## Guest

I think the short answer why Haydn seems to be "out of fashion" (to use the term in the thread title) is that it's always been like this, ever since shortly after the time he died on 1809.

Whilst much revered in his own day, especially during his time spent in London, and after returning to Vienna for his last compositions, Haydn became lesspopular than Mozart and Beethoven, and was almost forgotten during the 19thC. This was partly because other kinds of music became more popular and displaced old style "classical" to some extent, and partly because there was a preference for music by Mozart and Beethoven from that period.

Haydn's fortunes turned somewhat in the early 20th, with the revival ofinterest in "classical" forms, but he has continued largely to remain in shadowof Mozart and Beethoven. Possibe reasons for this are given below.

One factor is that Haydn's compositions are not sufficiently differentiated from those of Mozart. There is a large overlap in the types of work they wrote, using basically the same kind of compositional approach. The difference is that, on the whole, the public have generally preferred Mozart's music, presumbly because they think it better on the whole in various ways.

Another factor in Mozart's favour is that he wrote several operas, many of which have been long term favourites. Haydn wrote some operas some but the opposite is true as regards their success. Several of Mozart's operas are so famous that this must have been a major factor propelling him ahead of Haydn in the public's estimation.

Additionally, I think that the classical music public have probably bought into the super-hero image of Mozart: as a "child prodigy", his extensive European travels, his very sharp skill at memorising music quickly (e.g. Allegri's Miserere), his Papal Award, and his very unfortunate early death in somewhat mysterious circumstances. Haydn's life by comparison was far more hum-drum and less glitzy, having lived most of it as a servant issome far-off place a long way from Vienna.

And then there's Beethoven. He, of course, wrote tons more music in much the same "classical" tradition as Mozart and Haydn, but with the exception of only one opera to his credit. Beethoven's style is sufficiently differentiated from Mozart's as to make it worthwhile adding by the average punter. In addition, there is the personal factor working in Beethoven's favour, regarding his deafness which might have added a further source of mystique and appeal to some of his fans. 

In summary, there's enough superb music to listen from the classical era with the combination of works by Mozart and Beethoven. To someone with limited ambitions to become familiar with all there is in classical music, Haydn is more dispensable than either Mozart or Beethoven, save possibly for a few really outstanding works that Haydn composed.

I happen to like Haydn a great deal, and have most of his works. I'm just looking at the situation from the perspective of people who may probably have a lesser interest in classical music than I have, and no doubt many others here too.


----------



## Guest

I'm not sure what it means to be "Out of fashion." Aside from Mozart's dominance in the popular culture, I have the impression that Haydn commands a similar level of respect and attention from people who are deeply engaged in classical music. The fact that he lived so much longer than Mozart and produced more mature works means it is harder to sustain the "complete editions" that get so much attention (record labels pulled the plug on several complete symphony projects).


----------



## Bulldog

Given that Haydn solo piano, chamber, concertos, symphonies, and various sacred choral works are frequently recorded, I'm convinced that Haydn is not out of fashion.


----------



## Gallus

According to Bachtrack, Hadyn was the 7th most performed composer in 2017. Hardly out of fashion...


----------



## Woodduck

Haydn isn't really out of fashion, but he's less loved than Mozart and Beethoven, and so gets less concert time. Chamber musicians don't neglect him, and he's certainly well-represented on recordings, which are presumably listened to by somebody (me, on occasion, and with pleasure).

However, most music of the Classical period is out of fashion, and has been since its own day. It has benefited from the "early music revival" and the HIP movement, but almost, it seems to me, as a side effect of the greater enthusiasm for resuscitating forgotten music of the Baroque and playing it in a more authentic way. Considering all periods of music, Classicism's sensibility - its gracefulness, lightness, elegance, wit, clarity, and balance, virtues which don't automatically save it from lapsing into mere prettiness and frivolity - is probably least attuned to ours, and it's mainly those composers able to realize the style's potential for greater passion and deeper expression - mainly Mozart and Beethoven, occasionally others - who have escaped time's grim reaping and remained relevant to a broad audience through the ages. 

Haydn exhibits all the virtues of Classicism and adds to them an inexhaustible inventiveness, but his music is almost entirely lacking in pain - the darker shading which can move as well as delight. Every quality he possesses, he possesses in greater abundance than most composers. It's what he lacks that limits the general interest in him, to the extent that it does.


----------



## Larkenfield

Reports of Haydn's demise in the concert halls has been greatly exaggerated with the BBC performances being only one small example: https://www.bbc.co.uk/music/artists/c130b0fb-5dce-449d-9f40-1437f889f7fe

Just because some of you think he's out of fashion and not worth listening to, doesn't mean that others do. His excellence has outlasted his demise, nor were Mozart and Beethoven the only others from the classical era worth listening to, with Beethoven as a bridge to the Romantics.

Look up the number of Haydn performances on YouTube. Out of fashion and forgotten? No intelligent interest? It doesn't appear that way to me, though it may appear that way in one's isolated living room.


----------



## Clouds Weep Snowflakes

I have th agree wioth the OP, Haydn is severely underrated, you have to try out his piano concertos, really good!
Then again, Vivaldi was almost completely forgotten after his death, till the Baroque revive; last century; maybe a Haydn revival in the next few decades?


----------



## vtpoet

It suddenly occurred to me that maybe we're talking about Micheal Haydn and not Joseph Haydn. Are we talking about M Haydn? If so, yes, he has gone somewhat out of fashion. But his choral works are really astonishing.


----------



## Larkenfield

Ahhh, Haydn... vital and melodic, positive, inventive, constructive, healthy of body and mind, full of abundant good will, refined and sophisticated, beautiful homophonic writing characteristic of the Classical era... No wonder Mozart was crazy about him:


----------



## Larkenfield

Haydn is still actively played, particularly his marvelous symphonies and strings quartets. I doubt that he's been forgotten. I think he's a marvel because of his independence that led him to discover many creative ideas on his own through his own self-reliance. Here are some of his many concert performances for the rest of 2019 in the UK, as many as 5 on one day, and lord knows how many have been scheduled in Europe for the remainder of the year. I believe Haydn is doing just fine and not out of fashion unless the fashion is shorts and Birkenstocks:

https://bachtrack.com/find-concerts/country=united-kingdom;composer=haydn

Played with great flair by Marie-Elisabeth Hecker & Radio Kamer Filharmonie:






Wonderful!


----------



## KenOC

In the US, among major orchestras, Haydn seems alive and well on the concert stage. In the 2016-17 season, the latest I have, he was programmed 64 times for 132 separate concerts, mostly his symphonies and trumpet and cello concertos.


----------



## Rogerx

Seeing OP dates from 2011 makes me smile.


----------



## hammeredklavier

.


----------



## KenOC

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


----------



## hammeredklavier

.


----------



## Larkenfield

The views of one composer commenting on another composer are often contradictory over a lifetime or perhaps dismissive or even harshly negative and critical though sometimes positive. Such comments can be interesting but I believe they need to be taken with a grain of salt because composers with a strong identity are essentially competitive with each other, perhaps unconsciously, in how to do the music right. And I believe that Schumann was right the first time in his comments about you-know-who who is one of the most often played today by many of the world's greatest pianists, more than Schumann, more than 170 years after his own death in France. So it might be said that he was proven wrong later about you-know-who, and Liszt also had negative things to say about the pathology of the man's later works, but it doesn't matter because the music is strong enough to stand on its own.... What I enjoy about Haydn is his sense of good will and his fundamental earthiness that can be heard and felt. He wrote to be accessible and uplifting to the spirit and was direct in expressing his feelings. It is heart-warming to read how much he was admired and beloved in his lifetime. I believe that's still true today and he's one of the truly inspired craftsmen in music. What he wrote sounds so solid and beautifully crafted.... These composers' comments about other composers, some childish and petty, are famous, legendary, and have often been proven wrong in hindsight... Their opinions could be as far off base as the average person in the street who knows nothing:

https://www.classicfm.com/discover-music/latest/composer-insults/debussy/


----------



## christo131

*Have to agree 100% with this post.*



Webernite said:


> I'd take Haydn's piano sonatas and symphonies over Mozart's. Sure, the _Jupiter_ Symphony surpasses any one of Haydn's, but I think the average Haydn symphony is better than the average Mozart symphony. Haydn's later piano sonatas are substantially better than any of Mozart's, in my opinion. Not to mention that Haydn, next to Beethoven and maybe Prokofiev, is the funniest composer who ever lived.


I agree and often find there's more complexity of design in his use of sonata form than Mozart's.


----------



## hammeredklavier

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


----------



## hammeredklavier

christo131 said:


> I agree and often find there's more complexity of design in his use of sonata form than Mozart's.


J. Haydn's concluding movements also generally tend to be unsatisfactory compared to his contemporaries', especially in the late piano sonatas, symphonies.


















He never wrote a piano sonata with outer movements as extensive and elaborate as Mozart's K.497


----------



## RogerWaters

My local symphony just performed symphony 49, not one of my favourites, but goes to show he is alive and kicking even in obscure backwaters like... Canberra Australia.


----------



## Phil loves classical

hammeredklavier said:


> I find that aspect of J. Haydn quite exaggerated as well.
> 
> Often, classical music enthusiasts tend to go too far with their obsession with "thematic/motivic development" and overrate composers who simply like to "drag things out":
> 
> ^Whenever I listen to the example above, I think in my mind; "why not repeat it once or twice more in other keys if it sounds so good"?
> 
> This section from J. Haydn's Mass in E flat
> 
> 
> 
> anticipates Beethoven's funeral march, but it's essentially repeating the same material ad-nauseam in different registers without great sense and skill of thematic variation and contrapuntal devices.
> Whereas Mozart's early Catholic music shows much more sophistication in terms of development:


Wow, Hammered, you requoted yourself 4 times in that one post alone! I admire your dedication to prove your points. I almost wish I could see it your way.


----------

