# Why I don't like Haydn - and why he is a underrated composer.



## JamieHoldham (May 13, 2016)

Before I make people angry - I don't hate Haydn, there are several pieces by I him I think are extremely original and fantastic in every way.. but I simply don't listen to him very much at all, and I think there are sadly alot of people that think the same.....

My theory for this is not just people and I dislike his music because of opinion - but rather Haydn was too good. He mastered the Gallant Classical era style of music, and pushed it in some ways which laid the foundation for Mozart and every other composer in the classial era after him. What I am getting at is his mastery of the "classical era" form makes his music seem dull and unpredictable, yet there are loads of original and maginificent pieces out there that I have yet to discover, and I hope it sparks mine and many others interest in the works of one of the most influential and important composers of all time.

Rant over.

I hope others can understand my point of view, I think it is fairly accurate.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

I'm skeptical that mastery of form makes for dull music.


----------



## Nevum (Nov 28, 2013)

I understand. Haydn is great, but the more your discover other composers, the less impressive he is. Mozart is A+++ and Haydn is a solid B.


----------



## Chronochromie (May 17, 2014)

Haydn is very different from Mozart, not in any way a lesser version of him.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

OP: Thank you for being assertive and not haydn your opinions.


----------



## Friendlyneighbourhood (Oct 8, 2016)

There are some very excellent Under-appreciated works in those symphonies and string quartets. He done some clever and sometimes humourous things!


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Friendlyneighbourhood said:


> There are some very excellent Under-appreciated works in those symphonies and string quartets. He done some clever and sometimes humourous things!


Yup! The two composers with the greatest musical sense of humor/humour: Beethoven and his teacher, Haydn.


----------



## Mal (Jan 1, 2016)

JamieHoldham said:


> ... there are several pieces by I him I think are extremely original and fantastic in every way.. but I simply don't listen to him very much at all....
> 
> I hope others can understand my point of view...


I don't! You say you don't like him, and then say he has composed several pieces that are "original and fantastic in every way". How can you not like someone who has composed such pieces?

I don't like it that much of the Haydn pushed out by record companies is dull, partly because the artists/marketers should have left it on the shelf, and partly because they are happy to push out any old inferior performances to make money. The critics are often in league with the artists/marketers so it makes it very difficult to find what is actually "original and fantastic in every way".

If you are start digging, you might find more than several pieces are amazing! I recommend getting a good comprehensive guide that recommends a selection of "the best" Haydn pieces - like "Third Ear" and Rob Cowan's "Guiness 1000". Or find articles like this that might get you past the dull:

http://www.classicfm.com/composers/...ranking-haydn-symphonies/#Jaax30MebsPPJdL7.97


----------



## Friendlyneighbourhood (Oct 8, 2016)

hpowders said:


> Yup! The two composers with the greatest musical sense of humor/humour: Beethoven and his teacher, Haydn.


I think Kagel and Ligeti's humour is more exciting personally, but composers that can seamlessly go between seriousness and humour so well as Beethoven, Haydn, Ligeti, Kagel etc get my approval!


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

I have not pursued either Haydn or Mozart but moved on to Beethoven, Mendelssohn and Mahler among others.


----------



## Friendlyneighbourhood (Oct 8, 2016)

Florestan said:


> I have not pursued either Haydn or Mozart but moved on to Beethoven, Mendelssohn and Mahler among others.


You more of a romantic then?


----------



## bioluminescentsquid (Jul 22, 2016)

I'll admit that I, too, find Hadyn boring. 
But don't give up before you try Giovanni Antonini's Hadyn 2032 series!


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

When I first heard several of Haydn's works, I was surprised that he was generally rated so highly. I read Goulding's book (Classical Music: The 50 Greatest Composers...), and he put Haydn at #5. I realized that his ratings were simply a way to get newcomers to listen to classical composers and some of their works, but he roughly based his ratings on expert opinions so clearly many thought Haydn was a top composer.

From that time onward I have heard much more of Haydn's output, and he has steadily risen in my opinion. I find his symphonies, string quartets, and much vocal music (The Creation, The Seasons, and many Masses) to be extraordinary. I adore his cello concertos and his Sinfonia Concertante. I find other concertos and piano sonatas less enjoyable, but overall, his output is first class.

Looking at the thread TC's 50 Greatest Composers List, Haydn is rated 7. As I mentioned, Goulding places him at 5. I think he is clearly top 10 but probably not top 3-4 so he seems to be rated about right by my view. I can understand that you do not listen to Haydn much, but I'm not sure I understand what you mean when you say you dislike him.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

...the more you discover other composers, the less impressive he is.

That is absolute nonsense. Or rather, it may be true for you, but not everyone else. I would suggest that having discovered and explored a rather sizable array of composers across history... from the Middle Ages to the present... Haydn remains more than impressive to me. He may have composed no single symphony to equal Mozart's Jupiter (and how many others have?) but he composed 104 symphonies... a sizable number of which equal a majority of Mozart's symphonic output. He virtually invented or at least solidified the string quartet and composed an incredible wealth of beautiful examples of this musical form. Most would place him with Beethoven... and perhaps Shostakovitch and a couple of others... among the finest composers of the string quartet. I am a huge Mozartian; I place Mozart second only to Bach in my personal pantheon. I absolutely love Mozart's Requiem and his Great Mass in C-minor. In spite of this, I would be forced to admit that Haydn's contributions to choral music are greater considering his numerous masses, the choral setting of his _Seven Last Words_ and of course his great oratorios, _The Seasons_ and _The Creation_. Then there are the marvelous piano sonatas, the delicious piano trios, and the cello concertos. Many of those who struggle with Haydn are also equally dismissive of Mozart. Of course if you expect Haydn to sound like Beethoven or a Romantic or Modernist composer you will likely be disappointed. Haydn composed an incredible array of music, and there is an incredible array of top-notch performances/recordings out there to be explored.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Haydn's Paris and London symphonies are among the greatest symphonies ever written-all 18 of them.


----------



## Guest (Oct 9, 2016)

The more you discover other women,the less impressive your wife is.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

*Why I don't like Haydn*

He yelled at me to get off his lawn.


----------



## Nevum (Nov 28, 2013)

hpowders said:


> Haydn's Paris and London symphonies are among the greatest symphonies ever written-all 18 of them.


I agree. My comment about "Mozart of the poor man" was inappropriate. Please consider it retracted.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

He who dislikes Haydn has no wit. He who dislikes Mozart has no soul.

Just sayin'.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

My own ambivalence about Haydn stems from a lingering, perhaps wholly unjust, view of him as no more than a precursor--Father of the Symphony, Father of the Quartet, etc. Since his instrumental and harmonic means were so limited compared to those who followed, it's easy to dismiss him as a rather quaint signpost pointing toward the future, rather than a force to be reckoned with in his own right.

Although actually listening to him can challenge that idea.


----------



## Magnum Miserium (Aug 15, 2016)

Don't think of Haydn as the father of the symphony/quartet/whatever. Think of Haydn as the successor of CPE Bach (which is also to say the successor of the successor of JS Bach).


----------



## Friendlyneighbourhood (Oct 8, 2016)

KenOC said:


> He who dislikes Haydn has no wit. He who dislikes Mozart has no soul.
> 
> Just sayin'.


Hmmm, not so sure matey!


----------



## Friendlyneighbourhood (Oct 8, 2016)

Traverso said:


> The more you discover other women,the less impressive your wife is.


I agree to some extent there, if Haydn's output was smaller. People, would obviously have a smaller amount of music for people to familiarise with.

Obviously too, it brings up quality vs quantity. By Haydn appears to be consistent quality for the large quantity. The problem for me, lies in the era his quantity is in. 
If he was a 20th century composer, his output would sound astoundingly different every work. But as a composer of his time, it kind of speaks for itself.

But I will add that the way he used the tools that he had, was impressive!


----------



## Magnum Miserium (Aug 15, 2016)

Friendlyneighbourhood said:


> If he was a 20th century composer, his output would sound astoundingly different every work. But as a composer of his time, it kind of speaks for itself.


Just wait until we've had a couple more hundred years to assimilate 20th century music. Bartók and Stravinsky are gonna sound samey like you won't BELIEVE.


----------



## Guest (Oct 9, 2016)

Friendlyneighbourhood said:


> I agree to some extent there, if Haydn's output was smaller. People, would obviously have a smaller amount of music for people to familiarise with.
> 
> Obviously too, it brings up quality vs quantity. By Haydn appears to be consistent quality for the large quantity. The problem for me, lies in the era his quantity is in.
> If he was a 20th century composer, his output would sound astoundingly different every work. But as a composer of his time, it kind of speaks for itself.
> ...


In other words ,he was a great composer.:tiphat:


----------



## Friendlyneighbourhood (Oct 8, 2016)

Traverso said:


> In other words ,he was a great composer.:tiphat:


A great composer who is slightly overshadowed in his large output, somewhat like JS Bach, but not treated so "holy"


----------



## Guest (Oct 9, 2016)

What about Telemann,he was also a prolific composer,as was Mozart.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Haydn was the antithesis of Enlightenment and Classicism. Fact.


----------



## Magnum Miserium (Aug 15, 2016)

ArtMusic said:


> Haydn was the antithesis of Enlightenment and Classicism. Fact.


Schönberg was the epitome of sweetness, light, romance, and tunefulness. Fact.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Friendlyneighbourhood said:


> You more of a romantic then?


Guess so. I'd say that Beethoven and Mahler pretty much bracket the era I like most. I do go back earlier for a little Handel (Messiah mostly).

I don't doubt that Haydn and Mozart are great masters, and if I were to get into some of the music, it could be quite unwieldy working my way though their massive symphonic outputs. Perhaps someday, but for now I am in my considered sweet spot until something moves me otherwise.


----------



## DiesIraeCX (Jul 21, 2014)

ArtMusic said:


> Haydn was the antithesis of Enlightenment and Classicism. Fact.


Haydn was the... antithesis of classicism?


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

^Yeah, I didn't quite follow that either. Maybe Artmusic is saying Haydn pushed the boundaries.

I don't think the OP and I are listening to the same Haydn. He was well on his way to becoming as progressive as Beethoven. You can hear it in his late works. Most of his works are not dull at all -- quite engaging and even laugh out loud funny at times. Maybe the idiom is just lost on many twenty-first century listeners.


----------



## Heliogabo (Dec 29, 2014)

Haydn's output is too large to be judged with categorical assessments. 
There's always some Haydn that remains... to be discovered. So many masterful works, but so many minor pieces which still are pearls of classicism.

Personally, I've never heard anything of his music that I can't like in one way or another. His music tells me something that attracts me. Haydn is one of the greatest composers of all time, and that is not a matter of subjective opinions.


----------



## Bruckner Anton (Mar 10, 2016)

Haydn was one of the most important figures in the history of western music who set standards for the classical style in general and several genres and had great influence on his contemporaries and following generations.


----------



## ArtMusics Dad (Oct 10, 2016)

Haydn is a great composer, but is he really better than Beethoven? I don't think so


----------



## Casebearer (Jan 19, 2016)

Weston said:


> ^Yeah, I didn't quite follow that either. Maybe Artmusic is saying Haydn pushed the boundaries.
> 
> I don't think the OP and I are listening to the same Haydn. He was well on his way to becoming as progressive as Beethoven. You can hear it in his late works. Most of his works are not dull at all -- quite engaging and even laugh out loud funny at times. Maybe the idiom is just lost on many twenty-first century listeners.


In my case the idiom certainly plays a very big part in finding Haydn probably the dullest top ranked composers ever. He might be clever or humorous or whatever and from a historical viewpoint he may have been very important but all of it is lost on me and I have had my share of Haydn symphonies listening to German and Dutch classical radio in my youth a lot. I think there was no composer that got so much airplay but I can't remember liking a single note of what I heard. On the other hand there were composers that were hardly ever played that grabbed me by the second note.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

Bruckner Anton said:


> Haydn was one of the most important figures in the history of western music who set standards for the classical style in general and several genres and had great influence on his contemporaries and following generations.


Very wise words Mr. Anton.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

DiesIraeCX said:


> Haydn was the... antithesis of classicism?


What I meant to say was Haydn and Classicism were inseparable.


----------



## bz3 (Oct 15, 2015)

Funny, the more I listen to Haydn the more I'm convinced he's as good or better than all the guys that get billed ahead of him. 

I spent way too much time avoiding him and I think it was mostly because he composed so much volume in most of the popular genres that it's hard to get a handle on things. I had the same impediment when I began with Bach's cantatas, keyboard, and organ works at first as well - I spent much more time with the larger vocal works and orchestral music largely because they were fewer in number. That was a grievous error on my part as I've found the the solo keyboard and organ works to contain my absolute favorites in Bach.


----------



## Mal (Jan 1, 2016)

hpowders said:


> Haydn's Paris and London symphonies are among the greatest symphonies ever written-all 18 of them.


Whose performances do you recommend?


----------



## Genoveva (Nov 9, 2010)

JamieHoldham said:


> Before I make people angry - I don't hate Haydn, there are several pieces by I him I think are extremely original and fantastic in every way.. but I simply don't listen to him very much at all, and I think there are sadly alot of people that think the same.....
> 
> My theory for this is not just people and I dislike his music because of opinion - but rather Haydn was too good. He mastered the Gallant Classical era style of music, and pushed it in some ways which laid the foundation for Mozart and every other composer in the classial era after him. What I am getting at is his mastery of the "classical era" form makes his music seem dull and unpredictable, yet there are loads of original and maginificent pieces out there that I have yet to discover, and I hope it sparks mine and many others interest in the works of one of the most influential and important composers of all time.
> 
> ...


I'm not clear what you are trying to argue.

You say you dislike Haydn partly because of "opinion" which I infer you believe is not good. If so, I can only express surprise that you believe that Haydn is underrated. It is not true. On the contrary, he is generally considered to be among the very best composers, not top 3 but well inside top 10 in most polls.

This is because of Haydn's high quality, inventiveness, wit, melodic abilities, wide variety of form, large output that puts him in the super league of composers. He was probably the most famous composer of his day, and second only to Beethoven in his later years. Public opinion has tended to ebb and flow somewhat over time but as far as I'm aware Haydn has always been held in high regard.

You say "his mastery of the "classical era" form makes his music seem dull and unpredictable". I don't see how you reach such an apparently contradictory conclusion. Nor do I understand the "unpredictable" bit. Do you mean "predictable"?

You also say there are several of Haydn's works that you consider are extremely original and fantastic in every way, but you do not listen to him a lot. If that is true, there could be other works that you might like which would presumably encourage you to listen more. Just to mention the symphonies, many of the Paris and London symphonies are very good. If you would like to sample an earlier one, you might look out for his Symphony No 49 in F minor, _"La Passione"_. This was written in 1768 and in my opinion it's one of the best pre Paris and London symphonies. There is a good version by the Orchestra of the Age Of Enlightenment, conducted by Frans Bruggen.


----------



## Genoveva (Nov 9, 2010)

ArtMusic said:


> Haydn was the antithesis of Enlightenment and Classicism. Fact.


I think you probably mean "epitomy" not "antithesis".


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

Genoveva said:


> I think you probably mean "epitomy" not "antithesis".


I think you probably mean "epitome" not "epitomy."


----------



## Genoveva (Nov 9, 2010)

amfortas said:


> I think you probably mean "epitome" not "epitomy."


I think you will probably find that "epitome" and "epitomy" have exactly the same meaning.

I do agree that "epitome" is the most common way to spell it these days, but "epitomy" is still occasionally seen.

In both cases the correct pronunciation is identical: "ee-pit-o-mee."


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

Genoveva said:


> I do agree that "epitome" is the most common way to spell it these days, but "epitomy" is still occasionally seen.


Where?
xxxxxxxxxx


----------



## Genoveva (Nov 9, 2010)

amfortas said:


> Where?
> xxxxxxxxxx


I don't know why are making such a thing about this, but if that's the way to want it, fine. Get on with reading the following links and then let me know what you think.

You could start with this: http://www.waystospell.com/how-do-you-spell/epitomy

And then once you have absorbed that, you could have a look at this: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/epitomy

If you scroll to the bottom of the web page for the second link you will see a section entitled "References in Periodicals Archive" to the word "epitomy". I think you will find a number of such references. Rather than clutter this post with all the cases cited, you can check them for yourself.

Like I said, I'm happy to accept that "epitome" is the more correct spelling, but I happened to use "epitomy". Either way, it is vastly more appropriate than "antithesis", or are you arguing about that too?


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

Genoveva said:


> I don't know why are making such a thing about this, but if that's the way to want it, fine. Get on with reading the following links and then let me know what you think.


The first link is incoherent. The second redirects from "epitomy" to the correct spelling, "epitome." The references at the end do indeed cite some less-than-prestigious publications which use "epitomy," but this has to be weighed against multiple sites that list "epitomy" as the "common misspelling" of "epitome."

Then again, "epitomy" does appear in some 17th- and 18th-century publications, so I suppose you could make a case for its residual, anachronistic use.

In any case, it doesn't affect my liking for Haydn.


----------



## Genoveva (Nov 9, 2010)

Further to my post above, you asked for examples of the use of "epitomy", and I gave you a couple of links where you can read all about.

In case they might be of interest, it took me 2 minutes by simply googling "epitomy" to find the following examples of the use of "epitomy" on a number of websites. I simply scrolled down a few random links:

http://www.overberg.co.za/content/view/234/
https://www.tripadvisor.ie/LocationPhotoDirectLink-g295113-i20701475-Cocos_Keeling_Islands.html
http://www.londonderrysentinel.co.u...w-epitomy-of-ulster-farm-excellence-1-7510425
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01bwbbt/p01bwqhz
http://tedxtalks.ted.com/video/Trent-Burns-on-The-ePITomy-of-C

I do hope you will these links of interest, and I look forward to hearing from you on whether I have met your request for examples of the use of "epitomy".


----------



## Genoveva (Nov 9, 2010)

amfortas said:


> The first link is incoherent. The second redirects from "epitomy" to the correct spelling, "epitome." The references at the end do indeed cite some less-than-prestigious publications which use "epitomy," but this has to be weighed against multiple sites that list "epitomy" as the "common misspelling" of "epitome."
> 
> Then again, "epitomy" does appear in some 17th- and 18th-century publications, so I suppose you could make a case for its residual, anachronistic use.
> 
> In any case, it doesn't affect my liking for Haydn.


Can you please take a look at my further post where I cited examples of the word "epitomy" I found by googling.

What do you make of these?


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

For me, in terms of a wealth of supremely-successful ideas over several genre, 1. *LvB* 2. *Haydn* 3. *WAM*. :tiphat:


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Genoveva said:


> Further to my post above, you asked for examples of the use of "epitomy", and I gave you a couple of links where you can read all about.
> 
> In case they might be of interest, it took me 2 minutes by simply googling "epitomy" to find the following examples of the use of "epitomy" on a number of websites. I simply scrolled down a few random links:
> 
> ...


Well, I wouldn't trust your third example, they misspelled "Derry" with 6 extra letters at the start. :devil:


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

I haven't seen my epitome
It's lost, or maybe left at home!


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

I'm still waiting for an epitome/epitomy epiphany.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

Genoveva said:


> Can you please take a look at my further post where I cited examples of the word "epitomy" I found by googling.
> 
> What do you make of these?


I have to acknowledge, you've found some examples. The first two are ad copy, the second two more reputable, but British (perhaps that figures into the spelling choice?)

Your last link, to the TED Talks video, can be dismissed as a spelling error. The video opening credits use "epitomy" in the title, but it's clear from the video itself that the speaker intended "epitome" as his spelling (check the projection behind him).

All in all, you've convinced me that some people do indeed use "epitomy." But the authoritative consensus still points to "epitome" as the far more correct choice.

Fair enough?


----------



## Magnum Miserium (Aug 15, 2016)

Eeeee. Pity me.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

As a member of the language police (awful job, but somebody has to do it - or does he or she?), I can't help taking an interest in this possible barbarism, even it falls somewhat short of epitomizing (or epytomyzing) the decline of Western civilization. Since in my sixty-seven years of constant reading I've never encountered the spelling of epitome as "epitomy," and since I see nothing to indicate that the latter spelling is an archaic or traditional alternative - as I would not expect it to be, given that the word is Greek - I'd guess from its occasional use that it's a spelling mistake which may or may not be on its way to respectability. Time alone will tell.

Meanwhile we can reflect on the fact that "epitomy" could save us the embarrassing discovery that the word is not pronounced _EP - i - tohm._ Then again, perhaps we will pronounce it that way someday. We're not Greek, after all.


----------



## Genoveva (Nov 9, 2010)

Nereffid said:


> Well, I wouldn't trust your third example, they misspelled "Derry" with 6 extra letters at the start. :devil:


Are you sure? Is it not a reference to the "Londonderry and Limavady Agricultural Show," which I would presume is the correct spelling for this event? It is not used as a reference to the city of Derry or Londonderry.

In any case, it was not some deeply researched example that I was putting forward. It was simply one instance of the word "epitomy" that I plucked from a quick "google" search. The other examples show that it has been used by places like the BBC and TripAdviser. I have also found examples in the Financial Times and Guardian (or is it Grauniad!) Newspapers, but I am not going to supply any more links. Here in South Africa where I live I have quite often seen "epitomy" used in various magazines and newspapers. Maybe that's why I used it.

I was asked where examples of the word "epitomy" could be found and I have supplied examples, as requested. The word has exactly the same meaning as "epitome." If the two words meant something different I could understand the reason for pursuing the query, but that's not the case. If its use in either of its forms was inappropriate, I could understand that too. However, that is not the case, whereas the word "antithesis" definitely does seem to be incorrect.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

Woodduck said:


> . . . I see nothing to indicate that the latter spelling is an archaic or traditional alternative . . .


I wouldn't have thought so either, but wonders never cease.

An Epitomy of English History

An Epitomy of Ecclesiastical History


----------



## Genoveva (Nov 9, 2010)

amfortas said:


> All in all, you've convinced me that some people do indeed use "epitomy." But the authoritative consensus still points to "epitome" as the far more correct choice.
> 
> Fair enough?


Yes I'm happy with that.


----------



## Razumovskymas (Sep 20, 2016)

Haydn's appearance is just very boring that's the problem. His whole appearance radiates dullness and that affects my judging of his music.

Most composers have an interesting appearance, their talent, gift, or genius or whatever you will call it, reflects in the way they are presented (objective or not) and mostly their charisma is clear in every picture or painting that's made of them. With Haydn, no trace of any charisma at all. His biography is a little bit boring too, very good man, very respectful to his musicians and so on but really dull dull dull......

Call me shallow but for me I think it has a big influence.

When I hear his music I just see that dull picture with that somewhat silly wig and that somehow affects my judging of his music. I don't have that with any other composer. 

So I guess he's just unlucky with his appearance. 

OR it must be that his music IS actually that incredibly boring that it affects his image, could it be? I can't imagine. 

I love his string quartets op76 though!


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

Genoveva said:


> Yes I'm happy with that.


Happy is good.

By the way, the origin of your various citations, along with your own location, leaves me all the more convinced this is at least in part a British vs. American English thing.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Genoveva said:


> Are you sure? Is it not a reference to the "Londonderry and Limavady Agricultural Show," which I would presume is the correct spelling for this event? It is not used as a reference to the city of Derry or Londonderry.


It was a joke.

Or joky.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

amfortas said:


> I wouldn't have thought so either, but wonders never cease.
> 
> An Epitomy of English History
> 
> An Epitomy of Ecclesiastical History


Apparently sixty-seven years of reading are not enough. I should have been reading for two hundred and sixty-seven years.

It's back to the future.


----------



## Guest (Oct 10, 2016)

Razumovskymas said:


> Haydn's appearance is just very boring that's the problem. His whole appearance radiates dullness and that affects my judging of his music.
> 
> Most composers have an interesting appearance, their talent, gift, or genius or whatever you will call it, reflects in the way they are presented (objective or not) and mostly their charisma is clear in every picture or painting that's made of them. With Haydn, no trace of any charisma at all. His biography is a little bit boring too, very good man, very respectful to his musicians and so on but really dull dull dull......
> 
> ...


How Lucky are you with your appearance?


----------



## Genoveva (Nov 9, 2010)

amfortas said:


> Happy is good.
> 
> By the way, the origin of your various citations (England, Ireland, New Zealand), along with the fact that you're from South Africa, leaves me all the more convinced this is at least in part a British vs. American English thing.


Possibly correct, but I didn't try to bias the examples. I simply took the ones with reasonably familiar names.

I'm from South Africa, born from English parents 23 years ago, and lived there until I left Rhodes University in Eastern Cape Province, just over 2 years ago. Now I'm in Cambridge, UK, doing some research in applied statistics at one of the Colleges.

Although Cambridge is a really lovely place to live, work and study, I brought my CD collection with me on a hard disk, and I must say that I find it a great comfort in between all these activities, when I get the time.


----------



## Razumovskymas (Sep 20, 2016)

Traverso said:


> How Lucky are you with your appearance?


My appearance is of no importance in this discussion! ;-)


----------



## Genoveva (Nov 9, 2010)

Nereffid said:


> It was a joke.
> 
> Or joky.


Yes, I realised. I much appreciate your good humour, and thanks for your contribution. I just thought I'd mention the Agricutural Show to give it a bit of a "push" for next year, you understand.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

It's interesting to see the attention being given to the epitome vs. epitomy subject (of course, epitome is correct) when there are other (IMO) far greater 'atrocities' in written communication that occur on this and other forums. (I'm not including second language situations where people with different primary languages are trying their best to communicate using English spelling and structure.)

For instance:
Lack of capitalization and punctuation.

Run-on sentences where not only is there no punctuation, but also, one subject segues into another without at break.

And perhaps the worst: Long paragraphs. On a computer and, particularly, a tablet screen it is extremely difficult to read a post that has one long paragraph. The print on these screens is smaller than in a book and the screens are brighter than a page in a book such that it is hard for the human eye to keep track within a long paragraph. I tend to give up reading a post that consists of one long paragraph or a long post consisting of 2 or 3 very long paragraphs. Break them up people!

End of rant.


----------



## Guest (Oct 10, 2016)

The appearance of Haydn is also of no importance in the discussion.His music is not dull that's just your opinion.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

Traverso said:


> The appearance of Haydn is also of no importance in the discussion.His music is not dull that's just your opinion.


The thread is titled "Why I Don't Like Haydn." That opens the discussion to any reason, however silly.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

Genoveva said:


> Although Cambridge is a really lovely place to live, work and study, I brought my CD collection with me on a hard disk, and I must say that I find it a great comfort in between all these activities, when I get the time.


But now the really important question: how much of that time is spent listening to Haydn?


----------



## Razumovskymas (Sep 20, 2016)

Traverso said:


> The appearance of Haydn is also of no importance in the discussion.His music is not dull that's just your opinion.


If his appearance is the cause of him being underrated (see OP), than it is in fact of very great importance. I just pointed out MY weakness of judging music under influence of the composer's appearance (it's a very sad world, I know) and maybe that being a cause with other people underrating Haydn.

And I don't think I said his music was dull, I even said I love his opus 76.


----------



## Genoveva (Nov 9, 2010)

amfortas said:


> But now the really important question: how much of that time is spent listening to Haydn?


I must admit that I flit around quite a lot from one composer to another, partly depending on what I read here at T-C. The amount of time on any one composer can vary a good deal from week to week. Lately I've been paying extra attention to piano trios on account of the thread concerned with ranking works in this genre, and this has involved quite a bit of listening to Haydn's work, as he was a major figure in this area.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

Genoveva said:


> I must admit that I flit around quite a lot from one composer to another, partly depending on what I read here at T-C. The amount of time on any one composer can vary a good deal from week to week. Lately I've been paying extra attention to piano trios on account of the thread concerned with ranking works in this genre, and this has involved quite a bit of listening to Haydn's work, as he was a major figure in this area.


Yes, I'm planning on buying a set of the complete Haydn piano trios, when I can justify the expense. Or just go ahead and do it anyway.


----------



## TxllxT (Mar 2, 2011)

Papa Haydn, good-humoured, successful in making music his business: no Don Giovanni, no 'per aspera ad astra' - ambitions (Ludwig's adagium), just steering safe in the middle of the road. Compared with today's politics I would vote for Haydn, but otherwise he's not on my radar.


----------



## Guest (Oct 10, 2016)

amfortas said:


> Yes, I'm planning on buying a set of the complete Haydn piano trios, when I can justify the expense. Or just go ahead and do it anyway.


Do it,they are realy fine,you can regret it later. No but you can go wrong with the Barytone trio's


----------



## Razumovskymas (Sep 20, 2016)

Traverso said:


> Do it,they are realy fine,you can regret it later. No but you can go wrong with the Barytone trio's


Didn't he have to compose these because Prince Estherazy was fond of this weird instrument?


----------



## Guest (Oct 10, 2016)

That's right,it is nice to hear a few ,his employer Prince Estherhazy was not an excellent player so Haydn was forced to keep it simple and still attractive for the prince.


----------



## Haydn man (Jan 25, 2014)

There is enough music by Haydn to last me a lifetime of exploration
His wit and love of life in the music are what attracts me
If he doesn't 'float your boat ' then it is no problem, go and listen to something that does.


----------



## Mal (Jan 1, 2016)

... but don't give up too easy. Try different pieces, and different interpretations, different styles (HIP, modern, big band,...), Something (or many things!) might float your boat.


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

Traverso said:


> That's right,it is nice to hear a few ,his employer Prince Estherhazy was not an excellent player so Haydn was forced to * keep it simple* and still attractive for the prince.


I am an enthusiastic listener of Haydn's music but my interest pales for these works .... they are, as you say 'simple' ... a bit too simple for me to enjoy much. As for *twenty-one* CDs of the stuff .... no! Please, no, thanks!


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

amfortas said:


> Yes, I'm planning on buying a set of the complete Haydn piano trios, when I can justify the expense. Or just go ahead and do it anyway.


Go for it! The excellent Beaux Arts Trio set on 9 CDs on Decca is available for about £40 new or (£30 secondhand) on a well-known site with a name like a South-American river. Its full of lovely music


----------



## Mal (Jan 1, 2016)

I'd treat even the excellent Beaux Arts set with caution. Out of the 43 trios "only" 18 get my rosette, which is awarded to knockout chamber works I must listen to with full concentration in my next rotation of the canon. (Although all get my "plus sign", which means all can be listened to as nice background music without upsetting my digestion...) Compare this to a "hit rate" of 17 out of 27 for Mozart's Paino concertos, or 4 out of 4 for Brahms symphonies. Also, the hits tend to come on later disks, so you might be suffering badly if you expected your mind to blown by the end of disc 4. All that said I'd probably still go for it today, there's not much competition and it's worth £40 for 18 pieces that are worthy of the desert island, isn't it?


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

TxllxT said:


> Papa Haydn, good-humoured, successful in making music his business: no Don Giovanni, no 'per aspera ad astra' - ambitions (Ludwig's adagium), just* steering safe in the middle of the road.* Compared with today's politics I would vote for Haydn, but otherwise he's not on my radar.


What road is that? You mean the one he made? Listen to his symphonies from the 1770s and then see if you still want to talk about a safe middle road.


----------



## Mal (Jan 1, 2016)

Harnoncourt is not a safe middle of the road kind of guy, and he's performed quite a lot of Haydn, try 60 with the "wild man" and Conertus Musicus Wien, and experience anger, frustration and unease in Haydn.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

Headphone Hermit said:


> Go for it! The excellent Beaux Arts Trio set on 9 CDs on Decca is available for about £40 new or (£30 secondhand) on a well-known site with a name like a South-American river. Its full of lovely music


Thanks; I have the Beaux Arts set in mind. On my limited budget, though, I may need to go cold turkey for a while before I can justify yet another classical music purchase.


----------



## TxllxT (Mar 2, 2011)

EdwardBast said:


> What road is that? You mean the one he made? Listen to his symphonies from the 1770s and then see if you still want to talk about a safe middle road.


I agree that he ventured into the new with his (later) symphonies. Otherwise I respect him for being typical classical...


----------



## kartikeys (Mar 16, 2013)

Haydn and Mozart made lots of work to please people.
Probably that makes one feel, especially in the case of Haydn, 
that they were overall 'dull' as the OP says.


----------



## Mal (Jan 1, 2016)

kartikeys said:


> Haydn and Mozart made lots of work to please people.
> Probably that makes one feel, especially in the case of Haydn,
> that they were overall 'dull' as the OP says.


Why should making work to please people lead to "dull" work? Anyway, at most, 2/3s of Haydn's works are dull. What was he doing with the other third, trying to infuriate his aristocratic employers? I doubt that very much, and his best works, although exciting & beautiful & far from dull, don't sound to me as if they would upset the princes, methinks m'lord would be pleased.


----------



## Mal (Jan 1, 2016)

amfortas said:


> Thanks; I have the Beaux Arts set in mind. On my limited budget, though, I may need to go cold turkey for a while before I can justify yet another classical music purchase.


There's a set of 24-27 going for $1.67 used on Amazon, and they are 4 good ones! Also the set is certainly not the last word (are any?) Other performers provide better performances of some trios, perhaps even lifting the work from "nah" to "desert island" status, e.g., Levin puts in a great performance of the first movement of 30...


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

I like Haydn a lot - he's not on the level of Bach Mozart or Beethoven but he is often not far off.

It has become quite a cliche on here for people to say "After 2 decades I realise Haydn is a great composer etc - fantastic wit blah blah bah"

and for some equally cliche replies "Yay! Glad you got there! Haydn's the man"

That's not me - I always thought Haydn was one of the top composers even 2 decades ago and I like him the same now as I did then.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Traverso said:


> That's right,it is nice to hear a few ,his employer Prince Estherhazy was not an excellent player so Haydn was forced to keep it simple and still attractive for the prince.


Haydn was always acutely aware of what his audiences wanted. That partly explained why he was one of the most successful and well known composer in all Europe by the time he was performing his public concerts in London. Fact.


----------



## harsimaja (1 mo ago)

Someone else who would strongly disagree with the ‘Mozart of the poor man’ claim would be… Mozart. Not to mention Beethoven. Somehow we tend to think that the mentor to two such pillars of greatness must therefore be vastly inferior as if the story is all about how they were surpassed. In reality his massive output, innovations, ‘wit’ and teaching two thirds of the probably most common choice of ‘top 3’ are hardly evidence of inferiority… I’d rate him as one of my favourites.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

Haydn was one I wondered about when he made the Top 7 composers in TC's main list. Such list is compiled daily where people upvote works on Science's tiers, and my skepticism towards this composer ranking so high was that people upvote all these works of his, and only when they show up, so they simply must be quite refreshing to occasionally hear. But it can't be that people _relisten_ with such a weight as 7th. Until that is, I invented a new proposition just for such a task. A New Version of Top 10 Composers

It seems my skepticism was proven mostly wrong. He's not in the 'clear genius' category. He's in the higher one... the 'destroyed 3 of my radios' category.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

harsimaja said:


> Someone else who would strongly disagree with the ‘Mozart of the poor man’ claim would be… Mozart.


We actually don't know for certain what Mozart thought of Haydn's prowess as a composer because Mozart never discusses it in any of his correspondences. In Niemetschek's biography of Mozart, Niemetschek claims that Mozart thought highly of Haydn the composer (I too used to buy into his various other claims), but-
"Niemetschek claimed to have had a long association with Mozart, but the lack of direct quotations or citings of personal conversations leads some scholars to doubt his claims.
Wates, Roye E. (2010). Mozart: An Introduction to the Music, the Man, and the Myths. Amadeus Press. p. 15. ISBN 978-1574671896. Niemetschek... implies that he knew Mozart... [His] future wife ... fashioned hats for Constanze Mozart... [He] himself never saw the composer... didn't move to Prague until 1793."


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

hammeredklavier said:


> We actually don't know for certain what Mozart thought of Haydn's prowess as a composer because Mozart never discusses it in any of his correspondences. In Niemetschek's biography of Mozart, Niemetschek claims that Mozart thought highly of Haydn the composer (I too used to buy into his various other claims), but-
> "Niemetschek claimed to have had a long association with Mozart, but the lack of direct quotations or citings of personal conversations leads some scholars to doubt his claims.
> Wates, Roye E. (2010). Mozart: An Introduction to the Music, the Man, and the Myths. Amadeus Press. p. 15. ISBN 978-1574671896. Niemetschek... implies that he knew Mozart... [His] future wife ... fashioned hats for Constanze Mozart... [He] himself never saw the composer... didn't move to Prague until 1793."


Do we know anything about what Haydn thought about Mozart? I remember once discussing with you the influence of Mozart’s music on Haydn’s music, and the examples were scant.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

We have the famous praise of Haydn for Mozart in a letter from Leopold and several later ones by Haydn, partly after Mozart's death, I think. I don't think this is doubtful. We have of course the personal contact, naturally undocumented because no need for letters if you regularly meet and the dedication of the quartets. Not that I am surprised by hammeredklavier's selective scepticism but even if sources like Niemetschek are dubious, there is little better, so one has to work with the dubious ones and no strong prima facie reason to doubt them. If anything people writing a Mozart biography would tend to make up positive comments about Mozart, not by Mozart about Haydn. As Mozart wrote some (often rather unfair) negative comments in letters about other composers (like Clementi), even silence vs. Haydn (in addition to the apparently cordial personal relation, or was this made up as well?) could be construed as approval/respect.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Kreisler jr said:


> Not that I am surprised by hammeredklavier's selective scepticism but even if sources like Niemetschek are dubious, there is little better, so one has to work with the dubious ones and no strong prima facie reason to doubt them. If anything people writing a Mozart biography would tend to make up positive comments about Mozart, not by Mozart about Haydn.


There would be no strong prima facie reason to doubt Otto Jahn's claims of what Mozart thought of Beethoven either then. (Am I the one being "selective" here?) If Niemetschek was an admirer of Haydn at heart, it's likely he would have had exhibited that bias in his writings in general, like how C. F. Pohl did in his. The dedication letter of the "Haydn quartets" and the fact that during his Vienna years Mozart played quartets with Haydn still say nothing meaningful about what Mozart actually thought of Haydn the composer. Chopin dedicated works to Liszt and admired his prowess as a performer, but not his prowess as a composer. Mozart also dedicated his various "masterpieces" to various other people throughout his life. Why not also make similar speculations about Mozart's dedication of K.475 & K.457 to Therese von Trattner, for instance.
"It has been suggested that an unhappy love affair with her might have provoked the serious expression of both works. However, no proof for this assumption is extant." www.boosey.com/shop/prod/Fantasia-Sonata-in-C-Minor-K-475-457-Piano/682906


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

Yes, you again show your selectivity, apparently without being aware of it. Bringing a totally different author, born in 1813 and writing in the 1850s in instead of an argument, why Niemetschek who was a contemporary and must have certainly met many people around Mozart, even if he hadn't met him personally would make something like that up?
The parallel with Chopin and Liszt hardly works because Haydn was not a great performer (and in fact, Mozart's remark about Clementi was mostly about his performance skills), so if Mozart said anything about Haydn, it must have been about his compositions (unless it was billard). To how many other contemporary composers did Mozart dedicate a bunch his most important instrumental works? 
To me, such remarks appear more like fleshing out what seems documented well enough (if mainly by Leopold and Haydn himself) as an amical relationship and it is very hard for me to imagine that such a friendship would have been possible if Mozart had had no appreciation of Haydn's music. Neither of them was influential enough that a lot could have been gained at the court or for some opera commission or whatever by the connection.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Kreisler jr said:


> Yes, you again show your selectivity, apparently without being aware of it. Bringing a totally different author, born in 1813 and writing in the 1850s in instead of an argument, why Niemetschek who was a contemporary and must have certainly met many people around Mozart, even if he hadn't met him personally would make something like that up?


Why would Schindler concoct anecdotes about Beethoven that had nothing to do with him (Schindler)? There are similarly alleged anecdotes of Bach between Handel. Just cause we don't know the motives or intents of the claimers it doesn't mean what they claim is authentic. Maybe Niemetschek simply liked to concoct stories about friendliness between composers he was a fan of. His biography of Mozart was written during the time Haydn's reputation in Europe was at its peak; maybe the writing reflects that cultural trend of the time. All his claims are of doubtful authenticity. He doesn't cite his sources. At least there's no reason to pretend they have the same authenticity as facts deduced from Mozart's own personal writings.



> The parallel with Chopin and Liszt hardly works because Haydn was not a great performer (and in fact, Mozart's remark about Clementi was mostly about his performance skills), so if Mozart said anything about Haydn, it must have been about his compositions (unless it was billard). To how many other contemporary composers did Mozart dedicate a bunch his most important instrumental works?


I'm not saying "Mozart must have thought Haydn was just a great performer". There are speculations about Mozart's comments on Clementi; Mozart could have been turned off by Clementi's Legato style, which was alien to his own native harpsichord-playing style.



> To me, such remarks appear more like fleshing out what seems documented well enough (if mainly by Leopold and Haydn himself) as an amical relationship and it is very hard for me to imagine that such a friendship would have been possible if Mozart had had no appreciation of Haydn's music.


It's still all speculation (something you don't do with Trattner because Haydn was a composer and she was not). The dedication of the 6 quartets was maybe a polite display of an act of "one-upmanship", since Haydn was known to compose sets of 6 quartets prolifically. Who knows? Mozart only wrote 10 string quartets in his late period. Whatabout Hoffmeister? Maybe Mozart was attracted to Haydn's personality. Mozart had close friends, Michael Puchberg and his Masonic brethren and various others for reasons unknown to us.


----------

