# Haydn and the Problem of Quantity: Favourite Symphony



## Eclectic Al (Apr 23, 2020)

In various threads on this site people say that a problem that have with Haydn (especially his symphonies) is the number of them. It's a bit like the observation supermarkets make of jam: if there are too many flavours on the shelves, people leave the shop with no jam. Reduce the choice and people buy more.
Would anyone care to make this problem easier for Haydn novices by picking their favourite Haydn symphonies? Ideally a small number of symphonies from different periods would be great, plus favourite performance of all: just one if possible! 

I might suggest:
No 44 (Trauer): beautiful slow movement in particular, and a tremendously energetic finale.
No 82 (The Bear): Grand triumphal opening, a minuet you can imagine actually being danced to, infectious finale (complete with bagpipe effect)
No 104 (London): just because it's the last!

To cheat, I might suggest No 99 with Solti and the LPO as a favourite performance, just because it shows that Georg could relax. Haydn can make even Solti smile!

I could come up with many more, but the point is not to do that.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio (Jan 3, 2020)

I haven't heard close to 'em all! But here's some of my current favorites that I think would make for a decent starter sampler. My favorite Haydn conductors are Szell, Jochum, and Davis. I dislike the Dorati recordings with a _strong_ passion - lead-footed, monochromatic, elephantine soup (don't get me wrong, I love old-school performances for the most part). Haydn needs to move and dance gracefully and the players need to sound like they're having the time of their lives. For a complete set I'd go with Adam Fischer. Also worth hearing is Bernstein in the six Paris symphonies and Pinnock in the Sturm und Drang symphonies.

No. 6 "Le Matin"
No. 44 "Trauer"
No. 49 "La Passione"
No. 83 "La Poule"
No. 92 "Oxford"
No. 93 (only the Szell performance will do in this one - listen to the second movement and find out why!)
No. 96 "Miracle"
No. 103 "Drumroll"


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

_In various threads on this site people say that a problem that have with Haydn (especially his symphonies) is the number of them._

In my experience that's the _joy_ of Haydn: the lengthy availability of his craft, humor and inspiration.

Had he written only the famous last 12 I'd never have made acquaintance with all my favorites from him: Nos. 6, 13, 41, 52, 60, 70, 72, 86 and 90, not to mention his Concerto for 2 Horns I learned on a recording with one of those symphonies.

Compared to just about any other orchestral composer Haydn is a fount of nearly unending wonder. I think people that like his famous symphonies and limit themselves to those miss many of the composer's best attributes.


----------



## Eclectic Al (Apr 23, 2020)

Yes, I got into them first through the Pinnock Sturm und Drang set, having earlier acquired the Davis London set. On then returning to the Davis recordings I got much more out of them. I have the Kuijken Paris recordings, and am less convinced about those. The Fischer complete set maintains a good standard for such a large collection.
I will have to dip into Bernstein - not my favourite conductor, but if what we get to hear is Haydn rather than Bernstein then great.


----------



## Simplicissimus (Feb 3, 2020)

I like Haydn’s London symphonies as a group, and of these No. 96 in D Major “Miracle” is my favorite. I can recommend the 1956 Paul Paray/Detroit SO recording on Mercury Living Presence for its liveliness. (I consider Paray among the under appreciated conductors.) Another fine, more stately rendition from 1972 is Eugen Jochum/London Philharmonic Orchestra on Deutsche Grammophon.


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

Antonini's recording of #21 'The Philosopher' is a fine recording.


----------



## Coach G (Apr 22, 2020)

When I'm in the mood for Haydn, I go with Bernstein & the New York Phil.; from his earlier Columbia years. It's not HIP, but it's very exuberant, rich and full-bodied, to my ears. Bernstein did the Paris and London symphonies that take you through most of the 80s, 90s and 100s numbered symphonies of Haydn, and that's usually good enough for me.

The symphonies are short and easily digested. 

Sometimes I like to put the Haydn symphonies on while I'm cleaning, or cooking, or driving alone in my car on the highway; and while I do have my favorites (I share your enthusiasm for "The Bear"), sometimes I'm not even sure which symphony I'm listening to. It's just really happy music. 

I also like Prokofiev's "Classical Symphony", tribute to Haydn.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)




----------



## Eclectic Al (Apr 23, 2020)

Thanks for the responses. I'll keep track and see which are coming up most often - as an informal poll, although I wasn't really intending to do a poll per se.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

My two favorites are nos. 82 and 104.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

I've posted this before but it always makes me smile.

https://www.classicfm.com/composers/haydn/guides/definitive-ranking-haydn-symphonies/


----------



## Triplets (Sep 4, 2014)

The Decca series with Hogwood remains my favorite. He didn’t get to record them all, unfortunately. If I had to settle for just one set it would be the Pinnock Strum und Drang set


----------



## Bigbang (Jun 2, 2019)

Eclectic Al said:


> In various threads on this site people say that a problem that have with Haydn (especially his symphonies) is the number of them. It's a bit like the observation supermarkets make of jam: if there are too many flavours on the shelves, people leave the shop with no jam. Reduce the choice and people buy more.
> Would anyone care to make this problem easier for Haydn novices by picking their favourite Haydn symphonies? Ideally a small number of symphonies from different periods would be great, plus favourite performance of all: just one if possible!
> 
> I might suggest:
> ...


How 'sad' people would leave the market due to too many choices. There is top ten thread on Haydn symphonies on this list. I have heard Solti 99...very good. My favorite 44 is cantilena shepherd....with 43 and 48 I think. Anyway the slow movement is very moving if done right and up there as one of my favorites...even better than Mozart in many ways


----------



## hiroica (Aug 31, 2015)

Bulldog said:


> My two favorites are nos. 82 and 104.


Hi Bulldog, been getting classical info from this forum for years and love your taste. What recordings to you like for 82 and 104?
Never like Haydn at all until two months ago and now I'm obsessed but like the op said there's so much to wade through. Been loving HIP especially but there's great non HIP as well!!


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

hiroica said:


> Hi Bulldog, been getting classical info from this forum for years and love your taste. What recordings to you like for 82 and 104?


For both, my favorite conductor is Colin Davis.


----------



## Eclectic Al (Apr 23, 2020)

Thanks people. Pleased to see what an excellent set of eminent respondents showed an interest in this thread.
Top mentions (among the admittedly small sample) are for 82 and 104. Then we have 6, 44 and 96. We've got early, Sturm und Drang, Paris and London there, so a wide spread. Even 5 great symphonies would be regarded as excellent for most composers.
Davis and Pinnock looking good (for different periods, I guess) as conductors. No real surprise.
I have a thought that if the composer of the early symphonies was called HaydnA, S&D HaydnB, Paris HaydnC and London HaydnD, plus HaydnE for any that fall through the gaps, then each of HaydnA to HaydnE would be highly regarded.
Oh, and I love the mention of Prokofiev 1 as a good Haydn symphony. Agreed.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

Merl said:


> I've posted this before but it always makes me smile.
> 
> https://www.classicfm.com/composers/haydn/guides/definitive-ranking-haydn-symphonies/


I remember reading it some time ago, the descriptions are quite hilarious :lol:.


----------



## Caryatid (Mar 28, 2020)

My absolute favourite bit of Haydn is an individual movement, the Allegretto second movement from the "Military" Symphony (No. 100). It was originally written for a concerto, but later he made some alterations and reused it. It starts off inconspicuously but develops into an almost Mahlerian fantasy. It's not characteristic of Haydn's style at all, but I'd recommend it any way.


----------



## senza sordino (Oct 20, 2013)

I can't tell one Haydn symphony from the other. In fact, you could play for me the first movement from one symphony, the second movement from another, the third movement from another and the last movement from yet another, I wouldn't know. I couldn't tell the difference between a Haydn "Franken Symphony" from an actual symphony.


----------



## Eclectic Al (Apr 23, 2020)

Hmm. Beethoven and Mozart seemed to have quite a lot of respect for the quality of Haydn's compositions, but they're probably not judges whose opinions should carry much weight.


----------



## Brahmsian Colors (Sep 16, 2016)

Some favorite Haydn Symphonies: 6, 13, 20, 31, 38, 84, 92

Some favorite Haydn conductors: Dorati/Philharmonia Hungarica, Scherchen/Vienna State Opera Orchestra, Szell/Cleveland, Davis/Concertgebouw


----------



## Eclectic Al (Apr 23, 2020)

annaw said:


> I remember reading it some time ago, the descriptions are quite hilarious :lol:.


Indeed. you read the description below, and you have to have a listen.

19. Symphony No. 97
Super-chromatic from the outset, it's as if old man Haydn is drunkenly scrawling across the manuscript, a smouldering ***-end perched on a shelf, dangerously close to his glass of Riesling. Supreme stuff.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

My favorite is any one with a good minuet -- "good" being defined as any one with a proper stately feel that keeps you off base by uneven phrases lengths, rhythmic surprises, or other little tricks that he was master of. They are absolutely my favorite Haydn movements.


----------



## StDior (May 28, 2015)

For starting, I recommend the following Haydn symphonies (highlighting my favorite movements of them): 
6, 43 (excellent fast first movements)
88, 97 (superb minuets, especially the middle trio parts)
102, 104 (wonderful slow second movements. I recommend some slower versions at this (maybe Celibidache), some versions play too fast.)


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

The last two, 103 and 104. Take your pick.


----------



## MrMeatScience (Feb 15, 2015)

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> Antonini's recording of #21 'The Philosopher' is a fine recording.
> 
> View attachment 135189


A little late to the party, but I'm so glad somebody mentioned Antonini's Haydn. The Haydn 2032 series has been absolutely knocking my socks off the last few days. I have never heard Haydn played with this much energy. It's infectious!


----------



## bharbeke (Mar 4, 2013)

Winner: 95

Runner-Up: 103


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

My favourite Haydn symphony overall is still Lamentatione (#26) followed by his Military (#100). His music oozes charm and I find more repeatably satisfying than Mozart's symphonies.


----------



## Bigbang (Jun 2, 2019)

Eclectic Al said:


> Hmm. Beethoven and Mozart seemed to have quite a lot of respect for the quality of Haydn's compositions, but they're probably not judges whose opinions should carry much weight.


Might be right as they are more concern about their music at the time. And we have the hindsight to have all the music in front of us to compare, whereas Mozart/Beethoven could only be aware of various compositions.


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

44, 60, 88, 93, 101, 104


----------



## Eclectic Al (Apr 23, 2020)

Quick update on running totals, for those with more than one vote.

Votes	Symphony

6 104

4 6

3 44
3 82
3 103

2 13
2 60
2 88
2 92
2 93
2 96
2 100


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Eclectic Al said:


> I have a thought that if the composer of the early symphonies was called HaydnA, S&D HaydnB, Paris HaydnC and London HaydnD, plus HaydnE for any that fall through the gaps, then each of HaydnA to HaydnE would be highly regarded.


Obviously an exaggeration.

45th/i: 



60th/i: 




44th/iv: 



60th/iv:


----------



## Bruckner Anton (Mar 10, 2016)

Some of my favorites:
88,92,94,95,104


----------



## Eclectic Al (Apr 23, 2020)

Interesting observation (maybe?). About one third of the symphonies have been mentioned at least once.

That strikes me as pretty surprising with over 100 to choose from. You might have expected a stronger bias towards a few favourites.
One argument might be that they're all much the same, so it's not so surprising: it's largely random.
My favoured explanation is that it shows a remarkably high level of sustained quality.


----------



## Animal the Drummer (Nov 14, 2015)

My favourites both feature the number 7: from the Paris symphonies no.87 in A major, from the London symphonies, no.97 in C major, each a lovely combination of musical polish and sheer high spirits.


----------



## Eclectic Al (Apr 23, 2020)

That's a first vote for 87, adding to the 35 already receiving at least 1 vote.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

Of the 12 in #31 (the ones mentioned at least twice?), all but 2 are among the ca. 30 symphonies with nicknames and only one (13) is a rather unknown piece, so it does not seem random (but I am not going to try to find trends in the 35 mentioned only once .

So I'll go for five favorites without nicknames and not mentioned already twice:

21 A major (briefly mentioned in the other subforum's thread to #22) Goodman or Fischer
46 B major (more witty than stormy with the menuet coming back in the finale) Pinnock
70 D major/d minor (my favorite movement is not the fugal finale but the andante) Rattle or Blum
86 D major (my favorite of the Paris set) Bernstein
102 B flat major (maybe my favorite of them all) Klemperer

(and unsolicitated, three with nicknames I find rather overrated: 43, 55, 100)


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Last year I listened to all of the Haydn symphonies I was not absolutely sure I had heard before, making special note of those I found most interesting. So this list doesn't include any of the London Symphonies, 6-8, other favorites like 88, or my favorite run of four, 44-47, etc. 

These I noted as especially interesting, along with a few comments I made:
64 — Masterpiece! The Largo! The finale!
40 — Great minuet: Melody evades meter. Fugal finale. This one's a keeper.
67 — Excellent
23 — Dramatic modal contrasts in first two movements, dissonant chain suspensions. Canonic minuet. Explosive finale. This is a keeper.
87 — Excellent throughout
86 — largo is a strange game with cadences, perfunctory, evaded, or denied. Minuet one of his best.
56 — Most interesting opening movement in C major.
60 — "Il Distratto." Six movements.
63 — Every movement is good
66 — One of the best.
71 — Fragmentary, tangled first movement.

I guess the biggest revelation to me was the "60s," none of which I really knew before. Five of them I singled out as ones I must hear again. Or maybe the revelation was just how much excellent work he did in all periods of his symphonic career.


----------



## Eclectic Al (Apr 23, 2020)

Kreisler jr said:


> Of the 12 in #31 (the ones mentioned at least twice?), all but 2 are among the ca. 30 symphonies with nicknames and only one (13) is a rather unknown piece, so it does not seem random (but I am not going to try to find trends in the 35 mentioned only once .
> 
> So I'll go for five favorites without nicknames and not mentioned already twice:
> 
> ...


Interesting post, and nicknames do seem to be an interesting aspect of getting attention to Haydn's symphonies. However, I don't think I can start deducting votes from 43, 55 and 100.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

You shouldn't deduct votes 

I have far more than 5 big favorites; it was not at all a problem to avoid nicknamed works to name these 5 and there are of course some with nicknames I regard highly, e.g. 82 is my co-favorite for the Paris set and I love also 103/104 and 94 and 101 (despite their nicknames stressing mostly trivial, irrelevant aspects). I think the weakest of the London set are 96 and 100 and they are nevertheless very good pieces. I have to admit that I find #60 also overrated and a bit silly, although the re-tuning is really funny and the recommendable disc of 60,70,90 with Rattle was a major step for me appreciating Haydn beyond the dozen of most famous symphonies.


----------



## David Phillips (Jun 26, 2017)

My favourite is No.43, 'Mercury' as conducted by Mogens Wöldike. This was recorded in the early 1950s and appeared on many LP labels - some budget - often in variable sound. The latest CD release sounds excellent. A perfect performance of a perfect symphony.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Kreisler jr said:


> I find #60 also overrated and a bit silly, although the re-tuning is really funny


That's the thing about Haydn. He often does stuff that's just "unnecessary" imv:
93rd/ii: 



45th/iv: 






hammeredklavier said:


> Obviously an exaggeration.
> 45th/i:
> 
> 
> ...


60th/i: 



83rd/ii:


----------



## Brahmsian Colors (Sep 16, 2016)

My preferred Haydn Symphonies (updated). Asterisk (*) indicates most liked.

6*,11,20*,21,22,23,24,31*,32,38*,42,44,45,53,59,69,73,80,88*,92*,102*.

Favorite Haydn conductors: Dorati, Scherchen, Szell, Davis


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

hammeredklavier said:


> That's the thing about Haydn. He often does stuff that's just "unnecessary" imv:


You seem the only person to have a problem with that. I don't see any connection between the bassoon fart and the other passages you list. None of them is as silly/funny. 
The obvious "jokes" are very rare, there is probably a dozen among 104 symphonies with altogether ~380 movements, so it is very strange to focus on them as if they were important or detrimental. The surprise in 94, the fart in 93 and the re-tuning in 60 are a bit silly but the last one might have made sense in the incidental music the symphony was based on. I never found the "farewell" merely a joke, it's a surprising and even poetic way to end the piece. But even counting this and the fake ending in the finale of #90 (a supreme piece, entirely independent of that little joke), the keyboard solo in the finale of 98, or the "military" (which apparently was not seen as funny but genuinely heroic back then) or a few other borderline effects (double bass solo in one of the early symphonies or the illustrative bits in matin/midi/soir) as "jokes" (although most of them aren't) they are few and far between.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Kreisler jr said:


> You seem the only person to have a problem with that. I don't see any connection between the bassoon fart and the other passages you list. None of them is as silly/funny.
> The obvious "jokes" are very rare, there is probably a dozen among 104 symphonies with altogether ~380 movements, so it is very strange to focus on them as if they were important or detrimental. The surprise in 94, the fart in 93 and the re-tuning in 60 are a bit silly but the last one might have made sense in the incidental music the symphony was based on. I never found the "farewell" merely a joke, it's a surprising and even poetic way to end the piece. But even counting this and the fake ending in the finale of #90 (a supreme piece, entirely independent of that little joke), the keyboard solo in the finale of 98, or the "military" (which apparently was not seen as funny but genuinely heroic back then) or a few other borderline effects (double bass solo in one of the early symphonies or the illustrative bits in matin/midi/soir) as "jokes" (although most of them aren't) they are few and far between.


You, sir, are clearly unaware that there are finite amounts of approbation and adulation in the universe and that if the least measure of praise is lavished - well, let's be honest, wasted - on inferior beings like Haydn, then the truly worthy, the incomparable, the all encompassing Godhead who is Mozart will be deprived of the proper respect and eternal, universal obeisance that is his due. Indeed, to even mention such a plodding scribbler as Haydn on the same forum as the divine WAM marks you as a blasphemer courting eternal perdition. Like those who worshiped the heathen god Baal and polished the golden calf, you will be cast forth from the light, consigned to eternal misery in a lake of fire, brimstone, and flaming bassoon farts. I would think twice before again challenging the prophet of the Lord Wolfie.


----------



## Bluecrab (Jun 24, 2014)

EdwardBast said:


> You, sir, are clearly unaware that there are finite amounts of approbation and adulation in the universe and that if the least measure of praise is lavished - well, let's be honest, wasted - on inferior beings like Haydn, then the truly worthy, the incomparable, the all encompassing Godhead who is Mozart will be deprived of the proper respect and eternal, universal obeisance that is his due. Indeed, to even mention such a plodding scribbler as Haydn on the same forum as the divine WAM marks you as a blasphemer courting eternal perdition. Like those who worshiped the heathen god Baal and polished the golden calf, you will be cast forth from the light, consigned to eternal misery in a lake of fire, brimstone, and flaming bassoon farts. I would think twice before again challenging the prophet of the Lord Wolfie.


Great post. Now let's see how long it stays up. Because lately there has been a real intolerance here for criticism of Mozart. I had a post deleted that merely referred to the recurring Mozart hagiography that fouls this forum regularly, as did Woodduck.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Bluecrab said:


> Great post. Now let's see how long it stays up. Because lately there has been a real intolerance here for criticism of Mozart. I had a post deleted that merely referred to the recurring Mozart hagiography that fouls this forum regularly, as did Woodduck.


I wasn't criticizing Mozart. I was, under the guise of humor, suggesting to our relatively new friend Kreisler why he finds himself responding to niggling complaints about Haydn's symphonies from a certain quarter. My apologies for my lack of clarity.


----------



## Coach G (Apr 22, 2020)

I don't anyone could reasonably expect even the most dedicated classical music enthusiast to become familiar with all 104 of Haydn's symphonies. Like the 41 symphonies by Mozart or the 18 piano sonatas by Mozart, or the 33 piano sonatas by Beethoven, or the whopping 200 or so cantatas by Bach; or the 500+ Vivaldi concertos for every combination of instruments; they are there for you, waiting to be enjoyed whenever you need to be refreshed and renewed.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Coach G said:


> I don't anyone could reasonably expect even the most dedicated classical music enthusiast to become familiar with all 104 of Haydn's symphonies. Like the 41 symphonies by Mozart or the 18 piano sonatas by Mozart, or the 33 piano sonatas by Beethoven, or the whopping 200 or so cantatas by Bach; or the 500+ Vivaldi concertos for every combination of instruments; they are there for you, waiting to be enjoyed whenever you need to be refreshed and renewed.


These are very different cases. Both Mozart genres you cite include juvenilia. The Haydn, Beethoven, and Bach don't. Not that I necessarily disagree with you. I will never find time to listen to all of Bach's cantatas. And although I've listened to all of Haydn's symphonies, it's unlikely I will listen to all of them enough to claim "familiarity," unless a few hearings counts. Beethoven's Piano Sonatas, on the other hand, is not a big ask. I and thousands of others are familiar with all of them.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

EdwardBast said:


> the divine WAM Lord Wolfie.


I don't know why especially Mozart has to be dragged into this.



EdwardBast said:


> These are very different cases. Both Mozart genres you cite include juvenilia.


The Bach, Haydn, Beethoven also include juvenilia actually (eg. cantatas #71, 106, sonatas #25, 26). 










Bluecrab said:


> Great post. Now let's see how long it stays up. Because lately there has been a real intolerance here for criticism of Mozart. I had a post deleted that merely referred to the recurring Mozart hagiography that fouls this forum regularly, as did Woodduck.


You sound like MR


----------



## MusicaDeiDonum (Apr 27, 2021)

The (32, not 33) piano sonatas by Beethoven are each and every one brilliant, beautiful works, full of character and diversity. I would be inclined to say every single one is a great work, but couldn't say the same for Haydn's, Mozart's, Bach's, or Vivaldi's listed. A big reason for that is that, while many of those pieces listed may be well-crafted, many lack individuality and character, something which Beethoven's 32 sonatas do not.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

MusicaDeiDonum said:


> The (32, not 33) piano sonatas by Beethoven are each and every one brilliant, beautiful works, full of character and diversity. I would be inclined to say every single one is a great work, but couldn't say the same for Haydn's, Mozart's, Bach's, or Vivaldi's listed. A big reason for that is that, while many of those pieces listed may be well-crafted, many lack individuality and character, something which Beethoven's 32 sonatas do not.


I disagree, all of Beethoven's sonatas sound similar to me with the exception perhaps of sonata no. 1 which I've always had a fondness for, because it sounds less arrogant. The truth is we tend to notice the diversity in music we enjoy. Composers we enjoy less, tend to sound samey.

Most Beethoven sounds the same to me. I find more diversity in Bach's cantatas.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

MusicaDeiDonum said:


> The (32, not 33) piano sonatas by Beethoven are each and every one brilliant, beautiful works, full of character and diversity. I would be inclined to say every single one is a great work, but couldn't say the same for Haydn's, Mozart's, Bach's, or Vivaldi's listed. A big reason for that is that, while many of those pieces listed may be well-crafted, many lack individuality and character, something which Beethoven's 32 sonatas do not.


Beethoven's are certainly more "technically demanding" and "broader in scale" in general (reflects the aesthetics of early 19th century piano music more). But every single one of them is a "masterpiece" in a way Mozart's are not? I doubt it.

Op.28/ii: 



Op.79/iii: 



Surely these are fine works, but in certain ways, don't they also remind us of <Do you agree with Bernstein here?>





Robert Levin: "I think what one notices about them is how different they are. There isn't a formula for a Mozart slow movement, he would say "but there's no formula for human beings"."



hammeredklavier said:


> Late Beethoven is derivative of early/middle Beethoven. For example;
> The ending of his 9th symphony is derivative of that of his choral fantasie Op.80.
> The slow movement of his Op.111 is derivative of his Op.77 fantasie.
> There are also similarities of expression between certain moments of his variations:
> ...





hammeredklavier said:


> (3:02~5:40)
> I discussed the connection between K.533/ii and Wagner's Tristan prelude (I don't know if you've seen it): https://www.talkclassical.com/71040-how-much-theory-do-4.html#post2073361
> and also take a look at One-movement Sonata Cycle, if you haven't already.
> The outer movements of the duet sonata, K.497 are quite elaborate/expansive as well.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

tdc said:


> Most Beethoven sounds the same to me. I find more diversity in Bach's cantatas.


I certainly acknowledge Beethoven as an artist of tremendous creativity and imagination, but for some reason, people tend to think he sounds different every single time (in a way Bach and Mozart weren't). While there may be some elements in his ways (such as his handling of form) that make them appear that way; I think that in some quarters, the "diversity" in his methods of expression (ie. certain passage works and their texture) is slightly exaggerated compared to that of Bach's and Mozart's.

Op.73/i: 



Op.80: 



 (note that it also sounds like Op.125/iv in the subsequent passages; also look at passages of Op.123 such as the 'Dona nobis pacem')

Op.97/i: 



Op.80: 




Op.68/ii: 



Op.125/iii: 




Op.91: 



Op.125/ii: 




Op.31 No.2/i: 



Op.57/iii: 




Op.77: 



Op.111/ii: 






hammeredklavier said:


> This passage in the grosse fuge (
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

The most striking indication of the low estimation of Haydn is maybe how quickly the thread has turned to Beethoven...

BTW no Beethoven sonata besides the 3 "electoral sonatas" is "juvenilia". op.49 have a misleading opus number, but they were composed around 1797-98 (around/before op.10 - 13), not before op.2. And op.2 was composed ca. 1794 in Vienna, they are not juvenilia from Bonn.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess (Aug 30, 2015)

Kreisler jr said:


> The most striking indication of the low estimation of Haydn is maybe how quickly the thread has turned to Beethoven...
> 
> BTW no Beethoven sonata besides the 3 "electoral sonatas" is "juvenilia". op.49 have a misleading opus number, but they were composed around 1797-98 (around/before op.10 - 13), not before op.2. And op.2 was composed ca. 1794 in Vienna, they are not juvenilia from Bonn.


There is one person who can not stand a thread on Joseph Haydn with nothing negative against him. With nothing negative against Joseph Haydn it will be a Haydn cult thread.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

I don't quite understand what you mean. It is a thread about recommendations/favorites for Haydn symphonies. I don't see anything too bad about discussing "faults" even if this is not the main topic. E.g. the silly charge that "all 100+ symphonies sound the same" could well be discussed as such a prejudice would be a hindrance for potential listeners.
But Beethoven is clearly offtopic and distracting.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

arguably the best slow movement (along with 49th/i):


----------



## golfer72 (Jan 27, 2018)

tdc said:


> I disagree, all of Beethoven's sonatas sound similar to me with the exception perhaps of sonata no. 1 which I've always had a fondness for, because it sounds less arrogant. The truth is we tend to notice the diversity in music we enjoy. Composers we enjoy less, tend to sound samey.
> 
> Most Beethoven sounds the same to me. I find more diversity in Bach's cantatas.


How can anyone say Beethovens sonatas sound similar? The late sonatas as compared to the early ones for example are a different universe.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

golfer72 said:


> How can anyone say Beethovens sonatas sound similar? The late sonatas as compared to the early ones for example are a different universe.


Nevertheless, like other composers, he expands/builds on his earlier work to write his later work. It's reasonable to think that "Beethoven reuses stuff; late Beethoven resembles early Beethoven.":

Op.26









Op.109


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

golfer72 said:


> How can anyone say Beethovens sonatas sound similar? The late sonatas as compared to the early ones for example are a different universe.


Of course they are not all exactly the same, but I have problems with the late ones for similar reasons as most of the others. They are full of musical run-on sentences that never seem to get to the point on anything. To me it is still like listening to someone who talks too much. In the late sonatas he is talking about different subject matter, but he is still too chatty for me.

Too often Beethoven seems to be trying to dazzle with his sheer volume of ideas, piling them on and on. Don't get me wrong I know he is good at what he does, its just not to my tastes. I suspect for Beethoven fans as they listen, excitement and enjoyment builds and builds as the music goes along. For me annoyance just keeps building.

Back to Haydn, in my view the reason there is not much consensus on his best symphonies is because he composed a lot of very good works, but not any great works. I think his best symphony is no. 103.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

tdc said:


> Of course they are not all exactly the same, but I have problems with the late ones for similar reasons as most of the others. They are full of musical run-on sentences that never seem to get to the point on anything. To me it is still like listening to someone who talks too much. In the late sonatas he is talking about different subject matter, but he is still too chatty for me.
> 
> Too often Beethoven seems to be trying to dazzle with his sheer volume of ideas, piling them on and on. Don't get me wrong I know he is good at what he does, its just not to my tastes. I suspect for Beethoven fans as they listen, excitement and enjoyment builds and builds as the music goes along. For me annoyance just keeps building.


No offense, but I have never read anything so utterly wrong by anyone before, ever. Mesmerizing.


----------



## Parley (May 29, 2021)

tdc said:


> Of course they are not all exactly the same, but I have problems with the late ones for similar reasons as most of the others. They are full of musical run-on sentences that never seem to get to the point on anything. To me it is still like listening to someone who talks too much. In the late sonatas he is talking about different subject matter, but he is still too chatty for me.
> 
> Too often Beethoven seems to be trying to dazzle with his sheer volume of ideas, piling them on and on. Don't get me wrong I know he is good at what he does, its just not to my tastes. I suspect for Beethoven fans as they listen, excitement and enjoyment builds and builds as the music goes along. For me annoyance just keeps building.
> 
> Back to Haydn, in my view the reason there is not much consensus on his best symphonies is because he composed a lot of very good works, but not any great works. I think his best symphony is no. 103.


Not your taste. Fair enough. So leave him to those of us who appreciate his music.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Johnnie Burgess said:


> There is one person who can not stand a thread on Joseph Haydn with nothing negative against him. With nothing negative against Joseph Haydn it will be a Haydn cult thread.





tdc said:


> Back to Haydn, in my view the reason there is not much consensus on his best symphonies is because he composed a lot of very good works, but not any great works.


I think people are entitled to appreciate whatever they want, and it's never a bad thing that many people appreciate the music of Joseph Haydn. But a problem arises when someone like him is "over-popular"; people build certain "stereotypes" in their minds based on his style and start judging other composers of the period by those standards, and even distort history:

Classical period composers are supposed to write mostly symphonies and string quartets.
Classical period composers should sound "pompously happy" all the time; anyone who does things differently is a "freak", going for "proto-Romanticism", not "real Classicism".
Classical period composers do not need to be great at counterpoint.
Classical period composers are not supposed to focus on liturgical music or derive from archaism.
Btw, whenever I talk in this way, why do people always think I'm comparing him with Mozart and not someone else? (eg. someone related to him by blood). Before I started talking in this way on the forum, everyone pretended like "Joseph Haydn _invented everything_ and _laid a foundation_ for the period (before Mozart came along)". 
Yes, he influenced certain other composers, just like how the others also did. I don't ever believe he "set a standard" more than Gluck (for example) did with opera reforms. His style is just "one of the styles" of the period (just like the empfindsamer style of C.P.E. Bach). His way is not even the "most ideal" one a composer of the period is supposed to "sound or go about doing things". I don't even think his place with Mozart as the "two greatest composers of the late 18th century" or whatever, is warranted.


EdwardBast said:


> I wasn't criticizing Mozart. I was, under the guise of humor, suggesting to our relatively new friend Kreisler why he finds himself responding to niggling complaints about Haydn's symphonies from a certain quarter. My apologies for my lack of clarity.


----------



## Coach G (Apr 22, 2020)

tdc said:


> Of course they are not all exactly the same, but I have problems with the late ones for similar reasons as most of the others. They are full of musical run-on sentences that never seem to get to the point on anything. To me it is still like listening to someone who talks too much. In the late sonatas he is talking about different subject matter, but he is still too chatty for me.
> 
> Too often Beethoven seems to be trying to dazzle with his sheer volume of ideas, piling them on and on. Don't get me wrong I know he is good at what he does, its just not to my tastes. I suspect for Beethoven fans as they listen, excitement and enjoyment builds and builds as the music goes along. For me annoyance just keeps building.
> 
> Back to Haydn, in my view the reason there is not much consensus on his best symphonies is because he composed a lot of very good works, but not any great works. I think his best symphony is no. 103.


I fell under the spell of Beethoven during my youth. In my teens and early twenties Beethoven's heroic style seemed to fit the idea that life is a struggle, and I would hear a certain dialogue in Beethoven, a back and forth, where the composer is fighting a secret war with himself and ultimately wins the battle with grace and dignity. Joseph Campbell or Carl Jung might have called it "The Hero's Journey." Beethoven, of course, has his softer side, and is quite chill in the lovely _Symphony #6 "Pastorale"_; and some of the early chamber works could practically be mistaken for something by Haydn or Mozart in a blindfold test.

Now that I'm over 50, middle aged, I'm attracted more to music as craftsmanship and I get a lot out of Mozart who I was only mildly interested during my youth. In Mozart I enjoy the seamless quality, the idea that every note seems to fall into place, as if the music practically composes itself. Like a lot of people, during the heady days of COVID I found much comfort in caring for plants, both houseplants and outdoor gardening; and I still find it to be great therapy in that a certain type of "mindfulness" sets in while caring for plants; and I think Mozart is like that where unlike Beethoven there's no sense of struggle and heroism, just beautiful patterns and a natural flow to things. It doesn't mean that I don't like Beethoven anymore and I still take out my Beethoven records and CDs and enjoy the music; but what's changed is that I no longer take Beethoven as seriously as I once did, and I now see Mozart as much more than a composer of music that is merely pretty and smooth.

Which brings us back to Haydn, who to me embodies a spirit of unbounded joy and fun and an a quality of being emotionally uncluttered that I think is rare in the top "Great Composers" band of all-stars; and this to me lends Haydn's music to certain element of "freedom". While I have no intention of getting to familiar with all 104 of Haydn's symphonies, I do have my favorites (_#83 "The Bear"_, _#97_, _#100 "Military"_, the _"Surprise"_ whatever number that is,etc.) I know that I can depend upon the Haydn symphonies and even find one at random to bring a little bit of joy and sunshine into this weary world when the moment calls for it.

I think it's good that we can disagree on the strengths and weaknesses of what it is about certain composers and their compositions that make their music sound appealing or unappealing to our ears. It's what make the whole discussion fun and interesting. When we treat the Great composers as if their music represents a kind of sacred text that is above criticism or objective analysis, I think it diminishes the human element in their art.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Couchie said:


> No offense, but I have never read anything so utterly wrong by anyone before, ever. Mesmerizing.


Here's something you might find even "more wrong":


Pat Fairlea said:


> "Mr Wagner has some wonderful moments but bad quarters of an hour"
> I find that I get slightly overwhelmed, then quickly sated, then profoundly bored by Wagner's music. There is just too much going on, and going on for too long. It is like the creations of a would-be master chef who has yet to learn that less may be more. Too many flavours are bunged together to create novelty and impact, and the result just baffles the taste-buds. OK, not the best simile but maybe you get the idea? Having begun with Rossini, here's Sibelius to sum up:
> "Whereas most other modern composers are engaged in manufacturing cocktails of every hue and description, I offer the public cold spring water". I'll have the spring water, please, on ice.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

EdwardBast said:


> These are very different cases. Both Mozart genres you cite *include juvenilia*. The *Haydn*, Beethoven, and Bach *don't*.


Have a look, he was composing like this at 29 (1761):
symphony No.6 "Le matin" 



Btw, in this period, there's someone other than Mozart, (someone related to him by blood), who wrote stuff far more mature than this at 19~29.


----------



## Malx (Jun 18, 2017)

What does it matter what age a composer was when they wrote a piece of music - music is primarily for the ears and mind of the listener. Do I need to be informed of their age before deciding if I like something or should I like the work more because composer 'A' was younger than composer 'B' when similar pieces were composed?

To apply myself to the opening question I have listened to all Haydn's symphonies at least once and enjoy many on a repeated basis, including Nos 8, 26, 39, 44, 49, 73, 82, 86, 92, 97, 104.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

The problem is that nobody except Hammeredklavier thinks that J. Haydn was bad at counterpoint. Hardly anybody is interested in the academic church music of Michael Haydn, to Hammeredklavier's eternal chagrin. Nobody cares about correct church counterpoint of 1780 (partly because usually Bach or Handel are better in this department anyway) but about effective, varied and exciting music. And there Joseph's counterpoint in pieces like the finale of symphony #70 or the minore of the finale of 101 is good enough. 
I have not personally studied harmony, figured bass and counterpoint, so I cannot tell how good or bad counterpoint is. But I have read lots of commentary on Haydn and other classical music by people who do know their technical stuff and never ever encountered the charge that Joseph Haydn's works (maybe except a few fairly early pieces) were technically deficient (whereas I have read plenty of such claims wrt e.g. Gluck, Weber, Berlioz, Schumann, again I am not competent to examine such charges myself) before I encountered Hammeredklavier's claims here. And he apparently thinks that posting a minute of youtube is self explaining.

If you really want to make a point, take e.g. the finale of Haydn #70 and a fugal finale of Michael's and show where and why the former is deficient. Even if it was technically deficient, it is a more exciting and surprising movement than any of the fugal finale's by Michael I have heard. The latter are also good music but it is not at all surprising to me that they are not as well known as Joseph's. And no, the latter are not more popular because of a single bassoon fart in 400 movements. Neither does their fame mostly rest on good or bad counterpoint, they are not Bach fugues nor trying for something like that.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

One example why/how Haydn is so great: The symphony 103 takes the idea of the music of the introduction returning in key points in the fast section probably from Mozart's quintet K 593. But this is one of the rare cases where such a device seems mostly "technical" in Mozart's piece whereas it becomes more poignant and "poetic" in Haydn's version. The way the movement "grows" out of the dark introduction and the ominous return is more "proto-romantic" (if this is taken as something positive, I don't care, it is expressive and effective) than anything I could remember from a symphony by Michael Haydn or even Mozart (Mozart has a longer and more dramatic intro in the Prague symphony but this is fairly operatic whereas in Haydn 103 it is more "primordial").

This is only one example. People like Haydn's symphonies (and other pieces) because they have a wealth of such small effective and expressive details that make the music special. Very few are jokes, some are dramatic shock values, but most are more subtle. Those who cannot hear this, it's their loss, I fear.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess (Aug 30, 2015)

Kreisler jr said:


> The problem is that nobody except Hammeredklavier thinks that J. Haydn was bad at counterpoint. Hardly anybody is interested in the academic church music of Michael Haydn, to Hammeredklavier's eternal chagrin. Nobody cares about correct church counterpoint of 1780 (partly because usually Bach or Handel are better in this department anyway) but about effective, varied and exciting music. And there Joseph's counterpoint in pieces like the finale of symphony #70 or the minore of the finale of 101 is good enough.
> I have not personally studied harmony, figured bass and counterpoint, so I cannot tell how good or bad counterpoint is. But I have read lots of commentary on Haydn and other classical music by people who do know their technical stuff and never ever encountered the charge that Joseph Haydn's works (maybe except a few fairly early pieces) were technically deficient (whereas I have read plenty of such claims wrt e.g. Gluck, Weber, Berlioz, Schumann, again I am not competent to examine such charges myself) before I encountered Hammeredklavier's claims here. And he apparently thinks that posting a minute of youtube is self explaining.
> 
> If you really want to make a point, take e.g. the finale of Haydn #70 and a fugal finale of Michael's and show where and why the former is deficient. Even if it was technically deficient, it is a more exciting and surprising movement than any of the fugal finale's by Michael I have heard. The latter are also good music but it is not at all surprising to me that they are not as well known as Joseph's. And no, the latter are not more popular because of a single bassoon fart in 400 movements. Neither does their fame mostly rest on good or bad counterpoint, they are not Bach fugues nor trying for something like that.


And no conductor has completed. Michael Haydn symphony cycle.


----------



## Charlie Mac (May 23, 2015)

I love No. 26, personally. Maybe not 'the best', but I've a lot of affection for it.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Kreisler jr said:


> The problem is that nobody except Hammeredklavier thinks that J. Haydn was bad at counterpoint. Hardly anybody is interested in the academic church music of Michael Haydn, to Hammeredklavier's eternal chagrin. Nobody cares about correct church counterpoint of 1780 (partly because usually Bach or Handel are better in this department anyway)


Yes, there are "over-popular" composers in classical music today. What's your point? I totally agree with "Classical music concert scheduling is a copycat industry -- when something becomes popular everyone does it." (Larold), and sometimes their over-popularity even twists and distorts our view of history in a way that's unfair for lesser-known composers. I'm still not suggesting any of the composers mentioned here is "overrated", I would use subtlety and nuance to explain my points more nicely rather than blatantly calling any "overrated". I even said that it's never a bad thing that many people appreciate Joseph Haydn's music.



Kreisler jr said:


> but about effective, varied and exciting music. And there Joseph's counterpoint in pieces like the finale of symphony #70 or the minore of the finale of 101 is good enough.


With composers like Dittersdorf who churned out 100+ symphonies (most of which are full-length works, not "overtures"), I question their "capacity for creativity". I simply disagreed with someone's comment that "those humongous cycles 100+ symphonies and 70+ string quartets actually sound like there are different Haydns or periods of Haydn: HaydnA, HaydnB, HaydnC, HaydnD, HaydnE in all of them". Then, another person wrongly believed I'm only comparing Joseph Haydn with Mozart, so I merely told him I'm not.

Maybe someone should explain what's wrong with _"writing reasonable amounts in each area; German songs, liturgical music (a cappella and orchestral), symphonies, string quintets, operas, oratorios, incidental music, etc"_, which makes a composer less of a "one-trick pony" than a composer who has to churn out a humongous cycle of 100+ symphonies and it has to be his "bread and butter" cause he can't think of anything better for creativity. 




I think something like this is an example of music written by an 18th-century composer whose "musical thinking" doesn't work or flow imaginatively due to his prowess in harmony and counterpoint. And _"It's because he's not academic or pedantic!"_ seems a bit like a sad excuse to glorify mediocrity.



Kreisler jr said:


> I have not personally studied harmony, figured bass and counterpoint, so I cannot tell how good or bad counterpoint is. But I have read lots of commentary on Haydn and other classical music by people who do know their technical stuff and never ever encountered the charge that Joseph Haydn's works (maybe except a few fairly early pieces) were technically deficient (whereas I have read plenty of such claims wrt e.g. Gluck, Weber, Berlioz, Schumann, again I am not competent to examine such charges myself) before I encountered Hammeredklavier's claims here. And he apparently thinks that posting a minute of youtube is self explaining.





Kreisler jr said:


> You seem the only person to have a problem with that.


I don't want to hear the "Nobody cares... Nobody thinks... " argument anymore. It just sounds like _"Since nobody can see that the emperor is naked, he's not naked!"_
I agree with Tdc, who once said that "I don't listen to his music, because I find it dull and with respect to dissonance, impotent. He uses dissonance, but not effectively in my view. It is like food without spice. His music strikes me as the kind of thing a man would write who has never himself experienced anything in life one could call 'deep' or 'profound'. It seems he resorts to humor, because there is nothing else of substance he has to say."
and "Haydn's sound is easier to duplicate than Mozart. I suspect the difference is related to Mozart and Bach's mastery of counterpoint."
and Fabulin, who once said that "All I can say is that the music of Joseph Haydn has never seemed strikingly intelligent to me the way Mozart's, Beethoven's, Bach's or Haendel's does. His rhythmic-melodic prowess resemble to me the likes of Franz Lachner or self-taught composers on Youtube more than composers seen in a typical top 25. His counterpoint is yet to impress me as well." regarding this topic.

If pointing out or suggesting that -"Joseph Haydn is "pompously happy" all the time and this may be the reason why other composers were admired/respected just as much, if not more (by someone like Mozart), and people today are simply used or accustomed to that "pompously happy" sound because they're "brainwashed or misguided" into thinking _"that's just how a Classical period composer is supposed to sound"_" -counts as an "offense" for some people,
maybe they should question themselves if they're indulging in the idolatry of Joseph Haydn.



Kreisler jr said:


> If you really want to make a point, take e.g. the finale of Haydn #70 and a fugal finale of Michael's and show where and why the former is deficient. Even if it was technically deficient, it is a more exciting and surprising movement than any of the fugal finale's by Michael I have heard. The latter are also good music but it is not at all surprising to me that they are not as well known as Joseph's. And no, the latter are not more popular because of a single bassoon fart in 400 movements. Neither does their fame mostly rest on good or bad counterpoint, they are not Bach fugues nor trying for something like that.


Having sense and skill at harmony and counterpoint doesn't make a composer "academic", "undistinctive" either (contrary to your claims); it gives him various "tools" for "expressive power". Maybe someone should use examples to prove me wrong? I rather think that the reason why Joseph Haydn has to be "pompously happy" all the time has something to do with his prowess in these elements. Again, I'm only "suggesting".


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

hammeredklavier said:


> I would use subtlety and nuance to explain my points more nicely rather than blatantly calling any "overrated". I even said that it's never a bad thing that many people appreciate Joseph Haydn's music.


You have repeatedly suggested, throughout multiple threads, that people who like Haydn's music are engaging in cultish, sheep-like, behavior. I guess this is a neat trick- say you think it's fine to like Haydn's music, but then suggest that nobody actually likes his music, they're just pretending and/or brainwashed.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess (Aug 30, 2015)

hammeredklavier said:


> Maybe someone should explain what's wrong with "writing reasonable amounts in each area; German songs, liturgical music, symphonies, string quintets, operas, oratorios, incidental music, etc", which makes a composer less of a "one-trick pony" than a composer who has to churn out a humongous cycle of 100+ symphonies and it has to be his "bread and butter" cause he can't think of anything better for creativity. ".


When you have someone pay you write music and they want you to write Symphonies and String Quartets you do. Do you do what your boss hired you for or do do what you want at work?


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

hammeredklavier said:


> Maybe someone should explain what's wrong with "writing reasonable amounts in each area; German songs, liturgical music (a cappella and orchestral), symphonies, string quintets, operas, oratorios, incidental music, etc", which makes a composer less of a "one-trick pony" than a composer who has to churn out a humongous cycle of 100+ symphonies and it has to be his "bread and butter" cause he can't think of anything better for creativity.


There's nothing wrong with "reasonable amounts" until we start disagreeing as to what quantity is reasonable. At the other end, there's also nothing wrong with composing all piano sonatas or clarinet quintets or lieder, etc. My preference is that composers write whatever they want to write and leave the reasonable amounts issue to those who want to dwell on it.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Compare 85th/i: 



 with


hammeredklavier said:


> 45th/i:
> 
> 
> 
> 60th/i:


and compare 85th/ii: 



with 100th/ii: 




I think this extends to the late masses; he's arguably the most "cookie-cutter" in the area (always using the melodic phrase "F-D-B(b)" and then bland chords to make his argument):











Kreisler jr said:


> Nobody cares about correct church counterpoint of 1780 (partly because usually Bach or Handel are better in this department anyway) but about effective, varied and exciting music.


So are you suggesting there were no composers or works acting as a "bridge" between the late Baroque composers and Mozart K.427, K.626? (I can assure you Joseph Haydn took absolutely no part in this). Saying that "the post-1750 composers of liturgical music did no work in developing expressions new/different from those of the old "Doctrine of the Affections"" is like saying "Joseph Haydn did no work in developing secular Classical forms". 
How long must we have this "Joseph Haydn-centric view" of the 18th century music history? Come on, it's 2021 already; we nowadays know all kinds of composers from the 10th to the 20th century, but I always wonder why our view of this particular century (the 18th) is still so "outdated". Shouldn't we at least teach our kids the "right history"?



Eclectic Al said:


> Hmm. Beethoven and Mozart seemed to have quite a lot of respect for the quality of Haydn's compositions, but they're probably not judges whose opinions should carry much weight.


Yes, but Mozart had just as much respect for the quality of the Bach brothers' compositions. 
When Christian Bach died, Mozart wrote to his father "What a loss to the musical world!" I can see why.


----------



## Eclectic Al (Apr 23, 2020)

_In various threads on this site people say that a problem that have with Haydn (especially his symphonies) is the number of them. It's a bit like the observation supermarkets make of jam: if there are too many flavours on the shelves, people leave the shop with no jam. Reduce the choice and people buy more.
Would anyone care to make this problem easier for Haydn novices by picking their favourite Haydn symphonies? Ideally a small number of symphonies from different periods would be great, plus favourite performance of all: just one if possible!

I might suggest:
No 44 (Trauer): beautiful slow movement in particular, and a tremendously energetic finale.
No 82 (The Bear): Grand triumphal opening, a minuet you can imagine actually being danced to, infectious finale (complete with bagpipe effect)
No 104 (London): just because it's the last!

To cheat, I might suggest No 99 with Solti and the LPO as a favourite performance, just because it shows that Georg could relax. Haydn can make even Solti smile!

I could come up with many more, but the point is not to do that._
------------------
I thought I would put the original post up again. No reference to Haydn being better or worse then Mozart, no mention of Beethoven. It is quite possible that Michael Haydn is way better than Joseph Haydn: that is not relevant for this thread at all. The OP does not even require Haydn to be any good at all. It just requires some people to have favourites, and assumes that others might find it helpful to hear about those (even if all Joseph's symphonies are worse than all of Michael's - no problem).

It's a bit like that thread about how to get more "average Joes" to like classical music. That was derailed by an insistent strand arguing that the objective was not a good one. Well fine, that's a point, but it's not relevant to the question. The question was "How", not whether it was a good idea to try. I never think there's a problem with the odd post challenging the premises of an OP, but having made their point I think it behoves posters making those points to let the thread get back to its point with good grace.

What seems clear is that there are plenty of people who were willing to engage in the point: to help people who want to dip into Haydn's 104+ symphonies but might benefit from a little guidance about where to start, based on others' preferences and recommendations.


----------

