# Symphony no.53 in D major: Joseph Haydn or Franz Xaver Richter?



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Who's symphony no.53 in D major do you prefer and or consider to be more musically meritorious?

Joseph Haydn's or Franz Xaver Richter's?

*Haydn* symphony No. 53 in D major _L'impériale_ (1777, with alternative endings)





*Richter* sinfonia in D major, No. 53 (_Trumpet Symphony_) (date unknown)


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

I enjoyed both but I prefer Haydn's for his was full of invention within the Classical sonata idiom that speaks of elegance and imagination; real music.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Btw, Richter's lifetime spans 80 years, covering a wide diversity of idiomatic styles and compositional skills. He was just as instrumental in the development of the symphony as J. Haydn. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz_Xaver_Richter#Early_Symphony

Kemptener Te Deum in D-major (1742):




(his te deum from 1781 sounds more "Classical")
Sinfonia con Fuga in G minor (1760):


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

His sonatas for flute and harpsichord sound more interesting to me than his symphonies:


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

Lol...I hear the theme from the fourth movement of the Jupiter symphony in that Haydn video.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

consuono said:


> Lol...I hear the theme from the fourth movement of the Jupiter symphony in that Haydn video.


Sigh...We talked about that already:



hammeredklavier said:


> Keep in mind that Mozart's very first symphony, (which also contains the Missa pange lingua credo theme 'C-D-F-E'), was written in 1764, whereas J. Haydn's 13th symphony was written just one year earlier, 1763.
> I find this example more striking:
> Michael Haydn Symphony No.28 in C, MH 384 (1784): III. Fugato. Vivace assai
> Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart: Symphony No.41 in C, K.551 (1788): IV. Molto allegro


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

I find both symphonies pleasant. It's clear to me that I prefer the Haydn though, as it includes bold moments such as the development section of the first movement and the fourth variation of the slow movement that in my opinion have no parallel in the Richter symphony.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Allerius said:


> I find both symphonies pleasant. It's clear to me that I prefer the Haydn though, as it includes bold moments such as the development section of the first movement and the fourth variation of the slow movement that in my opinion have no parallel in the Richter symphony.


Wranitzky symphonies also have them. Richter belonged more in tradition of the Baroque binary form, along with C.P.E. Bach, J.A. Hasse in this regard.

*Grand Symphony for the Peace with French Republic Op.31 (1797)*
0:00 The Revolution
4:55 English March
8:32 March of the Austrians and Prussians 
11:19 The Fate and Death of Louis XVI 
14:23 Funeral March 
18:21 English March 
19:20 March of the Allies 
20:42 The Tumult of a Battle 
23:29 The Prospects of Peace 
25:28 Rejoicing at the Achievement of Peace 





*Le Portrait musical de la nature ou Grande Symphonie (1783)*
I. Allegretto - Andante pastorale - Allegretto - Villanella grazioso, un poco adagio : 00:00 
II. Tempo mederno (Allegretto) : 09:40 
III. Allegro molto : 12:44  
IV. Tempo mederno (Allegro molto) : 18:38 - the first movement theme is "recapitulated" in this movement
V. L´inno con variazioni - Andantino -Coro : Allegro con brio - Andantino : 20:59


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

hammeredklavier said:


> Sigh...We talked about that already:


You might have, but I didn't. Sorry, I don't usually plow through your dissertations. TL;DR


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

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


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

^You are evaluating it from the point of view of 2021. Think back to 1777.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

ArtMusic said:


> ^You are evaluating it from the point of view of 2021. Think back to 1777.


Not a terrible piece by any means, I mean. Maybe I'm just a bit tired of people talking like everything J. Haydn did is "inventive", "daring", "cerebral", "ingeniously-developed", etc.
But just to give you an idea what his younger brother and Mozart were writing in 1777~8:





 (13:24 and 14:34)




 (5:32 and 7:15)


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

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


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

> Not a terrible piece by any means, I mean. Maybe I'm just a bit tired of people talking like everything J. Haydn did is "inventive", "daring", "cerebral", "ingeniously-developed", etc.


Nobody really does that, though.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

I think this forum stands as a valuable historical document on the maddest a single person has ever gotten online on the topic of Joseph Haydn.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

consuono said:


> Nobody really does that, though.


Many people do it (often trashing a composer just as good, or better than J. Haydn in the process). These are just the tip of the iceburg:

https://www.talkclassical.com/70545-why-i-believe-mozart-5.html#post2049871



EdwardBast said:


> The Richter has some nice passages but overall it's a poorly focused trifle. Richter has a habit of sequencing the same phrase four times in a row before changing direction, apparently thinking a crescendo will make this repetition interesting. I found that on a first hearing I could often predict four measures in advance exactly how Richter would continue an idea. The phrase structure is not half as interesting as in any movement of the Haydn.





hammeredklavier said:


> *Haydn- more talented than Mozart*
> by Kenneth Woods | Jun 1, 2009
> https://kennethwoods.net/blog1/2009/06/01/haydn-more-talented-than-mozart/
> "In fact, I have yet to come across a single join between phrases or a single harmonic event or a single rhetorical corner in mature Haydn that unfolds in a predictable way. For all that he creates the strongest sense of expectation of any composer who ever lived, he never seems to simply give us what we expect. Simple alternations of 4-square antecedent and consequent phrases are rarer than a hungry fox in a hen house.
> On the other hand, for all we hear of Mozart's divine spark, there are huge stretches of his music that are formulaic and four-square, especially in the orchestral music. For all the wonder that unfolds from it, the opening of the Jupiter Symphony is quite boilerplate. And Mozart did need to sketch- his most perfect works, like the "Haydn" quartets and the Requiem were meticulously sketched. For all that we think of him in terms of elegance and infinite facility, there is plenty of Mozart that is clunkier, more predictable and more formulaic than anything Haydn would ever write."





fbjim said:


> i think it's generally right though, Haydn loves tossing in unexpected developments or surprises (and i don't mean the "surprise" symphony) which can sometimes be clunky but are always at least interesting - for some reason Haydn and not Mozart sometimes gets the "it all sounds the same" tag though.





Clairvoyance Enough said:


> I do prefer the harmony of Mozart's darker pieces, but, again, I find them rhythmically toothless. The finale of his 40th tries to be vicious without abandoning the same elegant phrasing Mozart always employs, which sounds neat in a way, but Haydn's 44th or La Passione actually drives forward with intensity when I listen to it. In any case, I don't base my high opinion of Haydn on the sturm und drang stuff much anyway. I just find the gestures of his material one minute to the next far more interesting. I'm supposed to end up whistling the slow movement of the 27th concerto, but I never do. Bland twinkle twinkle same old.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

consuono said:


> Nobody really does that, though.


Face it. It's a sacrilege to criticize J. Haydn as being "unimaginative", "uninventive", "unable to develop his material", "inflexible in musical thinking", etc, etc.. in the classical music communities today. It's a bit like "certain modern music", where everything is somehow "great" just because the fans today say that they are, no matter how "dry" it sounds.






"Most revealing in this respect are the passages in Berlioz's criticism that compare Mozart to Haydn. For Berlioz, Haydn is manifestly beneath the level of the 'Great Masters'. He is treated as 'outdated' and someone whose 'boring … phrases … have tired rather than interested the public'. In his earlier critiques he takes care to stress the difference between the two: after commenting on Haydn's obsolete style he speaks of Mozart as 'full of passion and gloominess'. But later he tends to amalgamate the two into one entity, embodying all those features of scholarly Classicism that the Romantic spirit of Berlioz had sworn to overcome and to surpass." <
View attachment 130858
>


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

> Face it. It's a sacrilege to criticize J. Haydn as being "unimaginative", "uninventive", "unable to develop his material", "inflexible in musical thinking", etc, etc


It's a big leap from "tired of hearing that everything Haydn did is perfect" to "it's considered blasphemous to criticize Haydn". It's more "blasphemous" to criticize Mozart, actually. If any composer's the center of a "cult", it's Wolfie.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

consuono said:


> It's a big leap from "tired of hearing that everything Haydn did is perfect" to "it's considered blasphemous to criticize Haydn". It's more "blasphemous" to criticize Mozart, actually. If any composer's the center of a "cult", it's Wolfie.


We talked about this already: https://www.talkclassical.com/54405-haydn-muscular-mozart-21.html#post2034682


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

hammeredklavier said:


> We talked about this already: https://www.talkclassical.com/54405-haydn-muscular-mozart-21.html#post2034682


If "we've talked about it already", why are you constantly running it into the ground?


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

hammeredklavier said:


> The J. Haydn symphony is surely not one of his best. (Right?) The inane triadic theme repeated ad-nauseam in the development of the 1st movement strikes me as rather naïve and inflexible. Perhaps it reflects his tendency to "drag things out" with static harmonies (often just slowly circling fifths).


I may agree that this is not one of the best Haydn symphonies, but I still like the development section in question. Sometimes it's possible to achieve interesting effects through simple means, and I think that the portion of the development that  starts at around 4:32 here achieves a kind of suspension of the sound space that I find both uplifting and pleasant to hear, even if it's somewhat simple.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

I wish Mozart had learned more about writing piano sonatas from Haydn. :devil:


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

consuono said:


> I wish Mozart had learned more about writing piano sonatas from Haydn. :devil:


https://www.talkclassical.com/70228-does-get-any-better-3.html#post2034062


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

hammeredklavier said:


> https://www.talkclassical.com/70228-does-get-any-better-3.html#post2034062


To quote a commenter there:


EmperorOfIceCream said:


> Yes... Haydn sonatas!


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

consuono said:


> I wish Mozart had learned more about writing piano sonatas from Haydn. :devil:


I agree that Haydn's piano sonatas surpass Mozart's. First, Haydn is a much better conversationalist than Mozart. Second, the last few Mozart sonatas aren't as rewarding as his earlier ones; Haydn's just kept getting better.

On the other hand, Mozart's piano concertos are better than Haydn's by a wide margin. However, I've always been a little disappointed with Mozart's concertos after no. 24.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

^ Oh yeah. Mozart's piano concertos are untouchable, even the earlier less-listened-to ones, I'm finding.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Bulldog said:


> I agree that Haydn's piano sonatas surpass Mozart's. First, Haydn is a much better conversationalist than Mozart. Second, the last few Mozart sonatas aren't as rewarding as his earlier ones; Haydn's just kept getting better.


J. Haydn is better at being "chatty" (with his typically trivial-sounding melodies and harmonies) and his concluding movements are frankly rather "half-baked". We might as well just listen to Kozeluch's instead. Whereas in Mozart, stuff like K.533/ii foreshadows Wagner's Tristan prelude. K.475/457 foreshadows Beethoven, Schubert, Liszt. J. Haydn was not a virtuoso keyboardist.

Stop derailing the thread, Mr. consuono


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

> Stop derailing the thread, Mr. consuono


When it's a ridiculous subject like Richter vs Haydn there's no place to go but off the rails.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

consuono said:


> When it's a ridiculous subject like Richter vs Haydn there's no place to go but off the rails.


What's so ridiculous about it? It's the J. Haydn cultist dogma that's far more ridiculous in classical music communities today.



hammeredklavier said:


> Btw, Richter's lifetime spans 80 years, covering a wide diversity of idiomatic styles and compositional skills. He was just as instrumental in the development of the symphony as J. Haydn.
> 
> Kemptener Te Deum in D-major (1742):
> 
> ...


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

hammeredklavier said:


> Not a terrible piece by any means, I mean. Maybe I'm just a bit tired of people talking like everything J. Haydn did is "inventive", "daring", "cerebral", "ingeniously-developed", etc.
> But just to give you an idea what his younger brother and Mozart were writing in 1777~8:


I know what you mean. Haydn was no virtuoso when it came to the piano. His concertos were fine but no way near Mozart's rigor. Likewise with his operas. Having said that, Haydn was the anthesis of Classicism, the man behind the Classical sonata on theme and variations, the SQ, the Viennese four movement symphony and so forth. His was a long period of development over his long career. He is one of my top five favorite great composers.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

This is Haydn's finest piano concerto. I love it.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

^ I think it sounds as delightful and perhaps more suited on the harpsichord:


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

consuono said:


> It's a big leap from "tired of hearing that everything Haydn did is perfect" to "it's considered blasphemous to criticize Haydn". It's more "blasphemous" to criticize Mozart, actually. If any composer's the center of a "cult", it's Wolfie.


I think Bach is more universally loved than Mozart.


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

Bulldog said:


> I agree that Haydn's piano sonatas surpass Mozart's. First, Haydn is a much better conversationalist than Mozart. Second, the last few Mozart sonatas aren't as rewarding as his earlier ones; Haydn's just kept getting better.
> 
> On the other hand, Mozart's piano concertos are better than Haydn's by a wide margin. However, I've always been a little disappointed with Mozart's concertos after no. 24.


No. 27 is as great as any of his other concertos, and No. 25 isn't far behind.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

ORigel said:


> No. 27 is as great as any of his other concertos, and No. 25 isn't far behind.


I wish I enjoyed them as much as you do.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

ORigel said:


> I think Bach is more universally loved than Mozart.


Perhaps, it really doesn't matters because Bach and Mozart are the few musical elite Gods.


----------

