# Haydn's Charm



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

I'm starting to develop a love for Haydn, and other symphonic composers as well, but of Haydn in particular, I find him a bit simpler compared to Mozart, more straight-forward, and just beautiful.


Also, could we list some lesser known symphonic composers? I think this is my favorite genre. (I also don't mind some orchestral works of the Baroque).


----------



## Olias (Nov 18, 2010)

If you are interested, I have put together video walkthroughs of Haydn Symphonies 82-104 here:

http://somethingclassical.blogspot.com

Some other composers of "charming" 18th century symphonic music would include:

CPE Bach
JC Bach
Joseph Boulogne, Chevalier de Saint-Georges
François-Joseph Gossec


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Need not stick to 18th century, but I will look into those recs. Thank you Olias!


----------



## Alfacharger (Dec 6, 2013)

Still 18th century but a composer Haydn thought very highly. Joseph Kraus ang his Symphony in C minor.






I'm also a fan of the late symphonies of Muzio Clementi.






Don't forget Mehul.






Someone from the the 20th century. Gosta Nystroem.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Need not stick to 18th century


Yes you do; look at some of the things I wrote about this composer:



hammeredklavier said:


> also interesting are certain "resemblances" between the movements:
> -mov.1 seems to share this motif [2:43] with mov.2 [6:38], and mov.4 ("inverted" horizontally) [15:57].
> -the contrapuntal passages of mov.1 [2:09 (2:27)] and mov.4 [19:17 (19:30)].
> mov.3 ends with a coda (rather than a da capo), kind of like Beethoven's scherzos.





hammeredklavier said:


> For instance, to me, the expressions of harmonic, dynamic emphasis in K.551/ii, K.516/iii, K.593/ii epitomize the heart and soul of "Mozartian" classicism. They originate more from Michael's work, such as
> string quintet in G (1773): [ 4:27 ]
> symphony No.22 in D (1779): [ 12:25 ]
> than anything else.
> ...





hammeredklavier said:


> No.30 in D (1785):
> 
> 
> 
> ...





hammeredklavier said:


> No.18 in C (1773), with a length of 26:45 (albeit with some repeats), rivals the most substantial symphonies of other composers of the time.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





hammeredklavier said:


> No.18 in C:
> 
> 
> 
> ...





hammeredklavier said:


> symphony No.31 in F (1785)
> 
> 
> 
> ...





hammeredklavier said:


> the use of inner voices
> 
> 
> 
> ...





hammeredklavier said:


> symphony No.29 in D minor (1784) - 0:01 , 12:55 , 16:22 (ends with a coda in D major)
> [1]: "The third movement is a rondeau, Presto scherzante. Horns are in F, trumpets in D. The A theme could be seen as a metamorphosis of the first subject of the first movement." - wikipedia
> [2]: "The entry of the piano here, a new material, but interestingly, it's exactly the same chord structure as that first entry in the first movement. A wonderful sense of Mozart referring back to what we remember, having heard before." -Charles Hazlewood


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

Cipriani Potter Symphony no. 6






Kraus Symphony in C Minor






Burgmuller Symphony no. 1






Schnittke Suite in the Old Style:


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

I count myself a Haydn fan, especially enamored of the symphonies.

If you haven't yet heard it, give a listen to Sergei Prokofiev's First Symphony, titled _Classical_. Haydn would have probably liked this 20th century masterpiece.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I also don't mind some orchestral works






^feels like fresh morning air


----------



## Jay (Jul 21, 2014)

Haydn has been ill-served by the whole "Papa" thing, the avuncular uncle in a powdered wig who's not quite all there. Before Beethoven, he was a radical, an experimentalist within the constraints of 18th c. musical language, practically a surrealist--the fragmentation, unexpected superimpositions, the wacked-out humor--ensconced at Esterhazy, seeing what he could get away with.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

Benjamin Britten's Simple Symphony, for string orchestra, op.4, is somewhat in the Haydnesque vein. In fact, I'd reckon that even folks not particularly atuned to Haydn's 18th century style will enjoy the Britten.






Add to this list also the Cecil Effinger Little Symphony (written in 1945), a long-time favorite of mine (and I suspect a lot of others if they had the opportunity to ever hear the piece!).






There. I kept it a little simple, which is good.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

hammeredklavier said:


> Yes you do; look at some of the things I wrote about this composer:


No he does not. By the way, why do you keep quoting yourself so often? Once is more than enough.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

Late 19th c. French, better than Franck's (IMHO): Alberic Magnard


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Alfacharger said:


> I'm also a fan of the late symphonies of Muzio Clementi.


"Nothing was heard of Clementi's symphonies for a century, until Georges de Saint-Foix discovered lengthy sections of them within a set of manuscripts acquired in 1917 by the Library of Congress. Further material, also in manuscript form, was held by the British Library, but in neither place were there complete versions of any of the symphonies. Manuscripts are of course subject to the whims of fate; the full scores and individual parts, which must have existed for performances to have taken place, were perhaps among the papers mistakenly destroyed by the servant of one of Clementi's descendants…So began the process of reconstruction, a task undertaken with dedication and love-in the first instance by Alfredo Casella, a great champion of the rebirth of Italian instrumental music. In the mid-1930s, he created editions of two of the symphonies, WO 32 and WO 33, to which he made numerous revisions and additions (attracting fierce criticism in the process, despite the successful performances he gave of them). He felt that not enough survived of the others to enable their reconstruction. Forty years later, however, Pietro Spada produced editions of Symphonies 3 and 4, again based on existing manuscripts, and an edition of an Overture in C, originally the opening movement of a lost symphony (a triple-time Allegro with an Adagio introduction), which is also included on this recording.

To be clear then, the four symphonies of Clementi's maturity that can be heard today are works deservedly edited and revised by other hands who were convinced that the composer was too historically significant for his orchestral works to be neglected; but, unless further plausible discoveries are made, it will remain impossible to speak in terms of definitive versions. There is sufficient original music available, however, for us now to gain a reasonable image of Clementi the symphonist."
https://www.naxos.com/mainsite/blur...iletype=About this Recording&language=English


----------



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

I've always been a fan of M Haydn, even if he lacks the harmonic inventiveness and imagination of his brother. He was still a fine and forward-thinking composer capable of writing real gems and on a large scale—music with personality and intellectual drive.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess (Aug 30, 2015)

vtpoet said:


> I've always been a fan of M Haydn, even if he lacks the harmonic inventiveness and imagination his brother. He was still a fine and forward-thinking composer capable of writing real gems and on a large scale-music with personality and intellectual drive.


Get ready for someone to tell you are wrong about M Haydn. The J Haydn cult is keeping M Haydn down.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

MarkW said:


> Late 19th c. French, better than Franck's (IMHO): Alberic Magnard


I don't think they are better than Franck's but certainly worth listening to. Closer to the Franck in style IMO and also curiously little known is Chausson's single symphon in Bflat major.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

vtpoet said:


> I've always been a fan of M Haydn, even if he lacks the harmonic inventiveness and imagination of his brother. He was still a fine and forward-thinking composer capable of writing real gems and on a large scale-music with personality and intellectual drive.


I've always thought that imaginative use of harmony, expressive use of inner voices is what Joseph Haydn lacks the most. Sure, certain symphonic intros have some noteworthy progressions, but the expressivity of inner voices is lacking, I really hate to say. In works like Op.20 No.2, Op.76 No.6, and the SLWOC, he "struggles". I don't find such struggles in the other composer though. Maybe we could discuss this topic in some other threads, like https://www.talkclassical.com/71012-haydns-joseph-vs-michael-14.html#post2094344
https://www.talkclassical.com/13412-michael-haydn.html#post2113753


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Jay said:


> Haydn has been ill-served by the whole "Papa" thing, the avuncular uncle in a powdered wig who's not quite all there. Before Beethoven, he was a radical, an experimentalist within the constraints of 18th c. musical language, practically a surrealist--the fragmentation, unexpected superimpositions, the wacked-out humor--ensconced at Esterhazy, seeing what he could get away with.


In my view, he's good for these things -
83rd: 



 (7:44)
65th: 



 (3:51)
60th: 



 (2:12)


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

"expressivity of inner voices"

What does this mean?


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

For a long time I preferred Haydn over Mozart and Beethoven. Actually, I probably still do.


----------



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

hammeredklavier said:


> I've always thought that imaginative use of harmony, expressive use of inner voices is what Joseph Haydn lacks the most. (sure, certain symphonic intros have some noteworthy progressions, but the expressivity of inner voices is lacking, I hate to say. In works like Op.20 No.2, Op.76 No.6, and the SLWOC, he "struggles". I don't find such struggles in the other composer though.) Maybe we could discuss this topic in some other threads, like https://www.talkclassical.com/71012-haydns-joseph-vs-michael-14.html#post2094344
> https://www.talkclassical.com/13412-michael-haydn.html#post2113753


I'd agree with your estimation of Joseph's use of inner voices. His exploitation of harmony doesn't compare to Mozart's, but his harmonic instincts, combined with a more intellectual grasp of music and thematic development, elevates his music in a way that Michael's greater skill in other areas-doesn't (with exceptions here and there). I credit CPE Bach in that respect. I think that Joseph was profoundly influenced by CPE, mostly in positive ways, and in ways that Micheal wasn't. My impression is that Micheal was likely more drawn to the lighter, galant style perfected by JC Bach and others (in his youth). His melodic ideas, while often lovelier than Joseph's, are more conventional and typical of his era-and conventionally developed. I'd join you on the other thread but I don't have the cornucopia (of my own prior comments and research) to back up my assertions like you do. The level at which you like to discuss music (like our discussion of Bach's influence on Mozart and his peers) isn't where I want to put my energy. Though that's also something I'd enjoy discussing with you again-if you're feeling generous.


----------



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

Forster said:


> "expressivity of inner voices"
> 
> What does this mean?


It essentially refers to the exploitation of harmony; and the dependence (verses independence) of inner voices. That can mean counterpoint, but also mean unexpected shifts in harmony (of which Schubert was a master) lead by the inner voices. Bach always liked to play the viola, it's said, when he joined in group music sessions because he enjoyed filling out the harmonies. Joseph Haydn's string quartets were a revelation to Mozart because of the independence Haydn developed between the instruments. His quartets weren't just _figured base with first violin_. The "expressivity" of inner voices is hard to describe but compare the opening of Mozart's 1st String Quartet, K 80 to Haydn's Op. 20 # 1. The inner voices in Haydn's Quartet, at least in my opinion, are far more expressive than Mozart's earliest effort (which were essentially violin sonatas/divertimenti with string accompaniment).


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Thanks. Since posting my question, I looked up inner and outer voices, so that helped me understand your answer.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

vtpoet said:


> The "expressivity" of inner voices is hard to describe but compare the opening of Mozart's 1st String Quartet, K 80 to Haydn's Op. 20 # 1. The inner voices in Haydn's Quartet, at least in my opinion, are far more expressive than Mozart's earliest effort (which were essentially violin sonatas/divertimenti with string accompaniment).


I don't even get what you're talking about. Where in the Op.20 set (published in 1774) do we find expressive use of dissonance like 




 (composed in December 1773)




 (composed in 1773)
Look at the slow movement of Op.20 No.2, all those utterances of spiceless harmony going on for 7 minutes. In fact, most Joseph Haydn is like "that".


----------



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

hammeredklavier said:


> I don't even get what you're talking about. Where in Op.20 (published in 1774) do we find or do we find expressive use of dissonance like
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Settle down. "Expressivity" is subjective first of all and, second of all, I was just giving a comparative example. That's all. Don't have to read so much into it. Also, if you're going to sample something from the development section, this portion:






Is a little fairer. Ha! And I got the time stamp to work.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

vtpoet said:


> Settle down. "Expressivity" is subjective first of all and, second of all, I was just giving a comparative example. That's all. Don't have to read so much into it. Also, if you're going to sample something from the development section, this portion:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I don't think you hear things in the same way as I do, but most Joseph Haydn is like "that". The gut feelings I get from his expressions (as far as 18th century harmony is concerned) are
1. Movements of the lower voices, the alto, the tenor, don't sound like they're really contributing to the dissonant expressivity; so the overall effect is he seems to be playing around with "surface elements". This is a good example: 



 (and Op.33 No.1, and the "Lark" quartet). He does use a lot of dissonance, but there's nothing really "heart-wrenching" in feel.
2. Everytime he sounds like he's writing something expressively dissonant, he resolves things right away, as he does in his symphony slow movements.
I don't understand why is it so hard for the Joseph Haydn enthusiasts to accept there were other composers sounding "different", while being just as "innovative" as Joseph Haydn at the same time.


----------



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

hammeredklavier said:


> I don't think you hear things in the same way as I do...


Thank you for the compliment.



hammeredklavier said:


> I don't understand why is it so hard for the Joseph Haydn enthusiasts to accept there were other composers sounding "different", while being just as "innovative" as Joseph Haydn at the same time.


I don't know. But when I see some of those damned Haydn enthusiasts (I think they wear T-Shirts with Haydn's face on them) I'll demand an answer, by God.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

vtpoet said:


> but his harmonic instincts, combined with a more intellectual grasp of music and *thematic development*, elevates his music in a way that Michael's greater skill in other areas-doesn't


Have you ever listened to the cycles of string quartets and thought the motifs repeat way too much without making an "impression"? I can't even remember which one it was in the Op.50 set. Maybe banality in music has also been written in the name of "thematic development"; "thematic development" is overrated? (I'm just posing a question)


----------



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

hammeredklavier said:


> Have you ever listened to the cycles of string quartets and thought motifs repeat way too much without making an "impression"?


Yes. Absolutely. When I was young and first listening to classical music, I couldn't listen to Haydn for all the reasons you've stipulated here and elsewhere. And I preferred M Haydn for all the reasons you've stipulated. But I'm older now, 50s, and a funny thing happened. As early music performers discovered CPE Bach, I began to immerse myself in CPE. I remember the first time I listened to CPE. He sounded strident, stringy, stingy, and then there was all that repeated plunking away with the left hand. But then I began to hear CPE, maybe, on his own terms, and not as a disposable precursor to Mozart and Beethoven. When I returned to Haydn, after CPE, I heard Haydn anew and completely differently. I heard him not as a watered down anticipation of Mozart, but as the inheritor, in some respects, of CPE Bach's musical language. So, maybe, while you keep comparing Haydn to later composers, I hear him in terms of what came before. M Haydn, though I still have all his symphonies, string quintets, quartets, devertimenti, Requiems, Masses (one I bought at Chiemsee where the mass was first performed) duos even one of his operas, now makes slightly less of an impression on me than Joseph. I feel that Joseph brings more intellect to bear.



hammeredklavier said:


> I can't even remember which one it was in the Op.50 set. Maybe banality in music has also been written in the name of "thematic development"; "thematic development" is overrated? (I just posing a question)


Possibly, but when I say thematic development, I' m referring to Haydn's ability to develop a theme such that one feels as though he's building toward a climax. There's a sense of direction, drama and progression in Joseph's thematic development that his brother doesn't seem as able to sustain. You can find passages in M's symphonies, but not so often entire movements. M's fugal finales, while powerful and impressive, don't make me feel as though they're building toward a dramatic catharsis. If one samples any given passage by Michael Haydn, one does feel that one is in a world closer to Mozart's, but taken as a whole, Joseph better shares Mozart's overall feel for drama and musical architecture.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

vtpoet said:


> Possibly, but when I say thematic development, I' m referring to Haydn's ability to develop a theme such that one feels as though he's building toward a climax. There's a sense of direction, drama and progression in Joseph's thematic development that his brother doesn't seem as able to sustain. You can find passages in M's symphonies, but not so often entire movements. M's fugal finales, while powerful and impressive, don't make me feel as though they're building toward a dramatic catharsis. If one samples any given passage by Michael Haydn, one does feel that one is in a world closer to Mozart's, but taken as a whole, Joseph better shares Mozart's overall feel for drama and musical architecture.


I understand your preferences, but when I read things like what you've written, I can't help but feel there's certain "idolatry" around Joseph Haydn (that's not any less "bizarre" than, say, the one some people accuse of Mahler enthusiasts of having). It's never a bad thing lots of people appreciate his music, but I still feel that all the claims about how he invented stuff and influenced other composers in the 18th century should be taken with a grain of salt. And contrary to your claims, I'm not sure if he really has what it takes in terms of 18th century harmony to build a good climax. ([1], [2], [3]). I don't think of these composers as being objectively "inferior/superior" to each other, artistically. Maybe you could consider trying to view them the same way.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess (Aug 30, 2015)

vtpoet said:


> Yes. Absolutely. When I was young and first listening to classical music, I couldn't listen to Haydn for all the reasons you've stipulated here and elsewhere. And I preferred M Haydn for all the reasons you've stipulated. But I'm older now, 50s, and a funny thing happened. As early music performers discovered CPE Bach, I began to immerse myself in CPE. I remember the first time I listened to CPE. He sounded strident, stringy, stingy, and then there was all that repeated plunking away with the left hand. But then I began to hear CPE, maybe, on his own terms, and not as a disposable precursor to Mozart and Beethoven. When I returned to Haydn, after CPE, I heard Haydn anew and completely differently. I heard him not as a watered down anticipation of Mozart, but as the inheritor, in some respects, of CPE Bach's musical language. So, maybe, while you keep comparing Haydn to later composers, I hear him in terms of what came before. M Haydn, though I still have all his symphonies, string quintets, quartets, devertimenti, Requiems, Masses (one I bought at Chiemsee where the mass was first performed) duos even one of his operas, now makes slightly less of an impression on me than Joseph. I feel that Joseph brings more intellect to bear.
> 
> Possibly, but when I say thematic development, I' m referring to Haydn's ability to develop a theme such that one feels as though he's building toward a climax. There's a sense of direction, drama and progression in Joseph's thematic development that his brother doesn't seem as able to sustain. You can find passages in M's symphonies, but not so often entire movements. M's fugal finales, while powerful and impressive, don't make me feel as though they're building toward a dramatic catharsis. If one samples any given passage by Michael Haydn, one does feel that one is in a world closer to Mozart's, but taken as a whole, Joseph better shares Mozart's overall feel for drama and musical architecture.


Welcome to the J Haydn cult. See above.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

vtpoet said:


> When I was young and first listening to classical music, I couldn't listen to Haydn for all the reasons you've stipulated here and elsewhere. But I'm older now, 50s, and a funny thing happened....


I already heard a similar anecdote from Eclectic Al. It only reminds me of Schumann, Berlioz, Hanslick's comments about "a welcome old friend". Maybe in order to really "welcome" an "old friend" from the heart, you would also have to be "old"?


----------



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

Johnnie Burgess said:


> Welcome to the J Haydn cult. See above.


Oh goodie! I'll send you post cards from the J Haydn cult and you can see me postcards from the Hammeredklavier Koolaide Klub.


----------



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

hammeredklavier said:


> I understand your preferences, but when I read things like what you've written, I can't help but feel there's certain "idolatry" around Joseph Haydn...


You can't help but "feel"? Don't let me get between you and your feelings.



hammeredklavier said:


> ...(that's not any less "bizarre" than, say, the one some people accuse of Mahler enthusiasts of having). It's never a bad thing lots of people appreciate his music, but I still feel that all the claims about how he invented stuff and influenced other composers in the 18th century should be taken with a grain of salt. And contrary to your claims, I'm not sure if he really has what it takes in terms of 18th century harmony to build a good climax. ([1], [2], [3]). I don't think of these composers as being objectively "inferior/superior" to each other, artistically. Maybe you could consider trying to view them the same way.


More feelings I take it? *Edit:* Some composers are objectively and demonstrably "inferior/superior" to others, but this discussion has already been had here. No reason to re-litigate.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess (Aug 30, 2015)

vtpoet said:


> Oh goodie! I'll send you post cards from the Haydn cult and you can see me postcards from the Hammeredklavier Koolaide Klub.


Sorry I am not part of hammeredklavier club. More than likely in Hayden cult as well.


----------



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

There's no such thing as a Haydn cult. That's just Hammeredklavier "poisoning the well". It's a logical fallacy and a kind of ad hominem attack. I expressed my opinion, in good faith, and rather than address that opinion he poisoned the well (as it were). In other words: There's no sense in addressing my opinions because my opinions arise from the "Haydn Cult". Et Viola! Poisoned well.


----------



## Roger Knox (Jul 19, 2017)

vtpoet said:


> There's no such thing as a Haydn cult.


Yes, and with one less cult the world is a better place. And J. Haydn "idolatry" has eluded me too. It may exist in fevered imaginations, where straw phantoms devour the complete works of H. C. Robbins Landon and re-enact the snuffing out of candles at the end of the Farewell Symphony. Hammerdklavier, in my opinion J. Haydn gets performed because people like to play and hear his music, that's all.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

vtpoet said:


> I think that Joseph was profoundly influenced by CPE, mostly in positive ways, and in ways that Micheal wasn't. My impression is that Micheal was likely more drawn to the lighter, galant style perfected by JC Bach and others (in his youth). His melodic ideas, while often lovelier than Joseph's, are more conventional and typical of his era-and conventionally developed. The level at which you like to discuss music (like our discussion of Bach's influence on Mozart and his peers) isn't where I want to put my energy.


Sorry, but I doubt if you really know what you're talking about, regarding the composers' formative years and educational backgrounds, and their styles of chromaticism with respect to Mozart's. I recommend reading https://books.google.ca/books/about...dn_Tradition.html?id=m2a0OwAACAAJ&redir_esc=y . "Judging from a signed, dated autograph score that he copied in 1757 of Fux's Missa Canonica, he studied some of the Viennese composer's work during his formative years. The Biographische Skizze mentions that he also studied works of Bach, Handel, Graun and Hasse." (P. 47). 
I also remember that last time we met (correct me if I'm wrong), you had this overly-simplistic view that anything that sounds "good" ("good" according to you) in the era comes from Emanuel Bach, anything that doesn't comes from Christian Bach and others. But in reality, things weren't like that.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

hammeredklavier said:


> I don't even get what you're talking about.


I asked you a question. vtpoet takes the trouble to answer for you. You choose not to answer, but tell vtpoet you don't understand what he is saying.

Try explaining it to me for yourself then.

BTW, I'm a member of the Haydn cult too. I'm sorry that not only do you not like Haydn's reputation, not only do you not like his music, but you cast aspersions on those who like his music. Please desist.

As for 'banality', I would rather the opinions of those who choose to perform and record Haydn than some random poster at TC.



> conductors such as Antal Dorati with the Philharmonia Hungarica and, more recently, Adam Fischer with the Austro-Hungarian Haydn Orchestra, made it their business to record the complete symphonies, all 104 of the numbered ones - a treasure trove.For many, though, the period performances of Nikolaus Harnoncourt, Frans Brüggen and Christopher Hogwood have the edge. Haydn has been a fundamental for Simon Rattle, also for Mariss Jansons. There is great clarity in performances by the Quatuor Mosaïques, while both the Kodály Quartet and Takács Quartet bring Hungarian sensibilities to their authoritative playing.
> John Eliot Gardiner's recordings of Haydn Masses with the Monteverdi Choir and English Baroque Soloists are always rewarding and John McCabe offered a composer's insight in his admirable mid-1970s recording of the complete piano sonatas. Go to the Florestan for the piano trios, and Cecilia Bartoli is a richly expressive Haydn singer.


https://www.theguardian.com/music/2020/oct/14/haydn-where-to-start-with-his-music


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Also, could we list some lesser known symphonic composers? I think this is my favorite genre. (I also don't mind some orchestral works of the Baroque).


Currently in the middle of a series of lectures from Audible on The Symphony, (by Robert Greenberg) I'm listening to Sammartini and Stamitz. They might be worth a listen.



Olias said:


> If you are interested, I have put together video walkthroughs of Haydn Symphonies 82-104 here:
> 
> http://somethingclassical.blogspot.com


I've just listened to the first movement of s99. Being a novice, I've found the walkthrough helpful. Thank you.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

This nice little thread on the charm of Haydn has degenerated into a custard pie fight - what happened?


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

PlaySalieri said:


> This nice little thread on the charm of Haydn has degenerated into a custard pie fight - what happened?


See posts 5/17/24/26/28/30/32.


----------



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

hammeredklavier said:


> Sorry, but I doubt if you really know what you're talking about...


That's funny. That's the way I feel about _you_.



> " Haydn ventured into a bookshop and asked for a good textbook on theory. The bookseller named the writings of Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach as the best and most recent. Haydn wanted to look and see for himself. He began to read, he understood, found what he was looking for, paid for the book, and took it away thoroughly pleased.
> 
> That Haydn sought to make Bach s principles his own, that he studied them untiringly, is apparent even in his youthful works from that period. From his nineteenth year Haydn wrote quartets which gave him a reputation among lovers of music as a profound genius, so quickly had he learnt. As time went on, he acquired Bach s later writings. In his opinion Bach's writings form the best, most thorough and most useful textbook ever published.
> 
> As soon as Haydn s musical output became available in print, Bach noted with pleasure that he could count Haydn among his pupils. He later paid Haydn a flattering compliment; that Haydn alone had understood [Bach's] writings completely and had known how to make use of them."


https://theoryofmusic.wordpress.com/2008/08/21/cpe-bach’s-influence-on-haydn/

Not only that, but Haydn made the effort to personally visit CPE Bach in Hamburg, only to be met by Bach's widow.



hammeredklavier said:


> I also remember that last time we met (correct me if I'm wrong), you had this overly-simplistic view that anything that sounds "good" ("good" according to you) in the era comes from Emanuel Bach, anything that doesn't comes from Christian Bach and others. But in reality, things weren't like that.


Okay. You're wrong. That wasn't me.

I mean, what's striking is the degree to which we agree on most everything, _and yet_-here we are. I wrote a post essentially supporting your assertion concerning the "expressivity of inner voices" and also agreeing, to a degree, with your estimation of Haydn, and yet that wasn't good enough. It wasn't enough because it wasn't an explicit endorsement of your totalitarian condemnation of J Haydn. I mean, what is _wrong_ with you? You're like an Oxfordian. You're like those Amazon reviewers who listen to Salieri for the first time and think that they, _they alone!_ in defiance of the great Mozart conspiracy, have discovered a composer inexpressibly greater than Mozart. Maybe you should take a break? You've descended into a solipsistic rabbit hole sourcing your own comments as if they were the utterances of the Encylopedia Britannica. You sound ridiculous. Get a grip.


----------



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I'm starting to develop a love for Haydn, and other symphonic composers as well, but of Haydn in particular, I find him a bit simpler compared to Mozart, more straight-forward, and just beautiful.


I didn't start out loving Haydn, or Haydn's symphonies, but as I wrote to Hammeredklavier, falling in love with CPE Bach changed how I listened to Haydn. I'm with you. There's something about Joseph that's straight-forward and beautiful.



Captainnumber36 said:


> Also, could we list some lesser known symphonic composers? I think this is my favorite genre. (I also don't mind some orchestral works of the Baroque).


There's always Giovanni Battista Sammartini-who some argue was the true father of the symphony. Haydn was decidedly unimpressed by Sammartini, calling him a "note-spinner", but you may like him. Besides that, the Bendas (out of Berlin) wrote some really fine symphonies. I get the two Benda brothers confused, but I think it was Jiri Benda who was the symphonist. There's a cool two CD Naxos set. Benda starts out sounding like CPE Bach and ends, over the course of twelve symphonies, and ends sounding almost like a Viennese classicist. Benda's ability to adopt the musical lingua of the time is really remarkable. Don't forget Carl Ditters from Dittersdorf. His symphonies are remarkable and sound more like Haydn than any other composers. Sadly, half of his 12 Orpheus symphonies were lost. And then there are the Stamitz's-father and son. I personally think they composed some of the finest symphonies (of the second tier composers) of the early classical. Oh, and Michael Haydn, of course. Also, Joseph Martin Kraus, an eerily exact contemporary of Mozart and who Haydn considered a genius. Kraus, by the way, had zero interest in JS Bach's music.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Please refrain from personal comments. The thread is about the charm (i.e. "the power or quality of giving delight or arousing admiration") of Haydn and related composers.


----------



## Roger Knox (Jul 19, 2017)

In Haydn's Piano Sonata in E-flat major, no. 62 (Hob. XVI: 52) the first movement has charm in abundance for the attentive listener. It opens conventionally in introductory style with dotted rhythms and rolled chords of a modified 1-4-5-1 progression. Then the cadence is softly and wittily repeated and affirmed in the high register ("Excuse me?" "That. Really." "OK."), before the passage scurries down into the original register to continue. Throughout there are changes of texture, pitch content, and key -- sometimes surprising or baffling ones -- punctuated by silences. After all of these explorations I really enjoyed the recapitulation for pulling everything together in the home key, unlike in other sonatas where the recapitulation is a bore. It's not an easy piece to play because you have to convey the contrasts convincingly, and timing is so important.


----------

