# What is it about Haydn?



## shangoyal

I haven't read many music articles, but of all that I have read, there is not one on Haydn which takes him as seriously as the other Vienna masters - Mozart and Beethoven. What is it with Haydn? When I first heard classical music I became a Beethoven fanatic, and a minor Mozart one. But I think Haydn's music is as good as those other two - and in fact has a few things they don't, like *maturity* (barring maybe a couple of Beethoven's late quartets). He's usually passed off as some old master whose works only served as teaching for the "geniuses". Father of the symphony and all that jazz. I don't get it.

Do people usually only get Haydn later in life?

Do people not listen to him that carefully and just pass judgement from a distance?

Is it high fashion to keep Haydn on a lower pedestal?

I would like to see some article where Haydn is handled with more care and understanding.


----------



## Vesteralen

I never worry about other peoples' perceptions unless someone is SO unrecognized that no one performs their music and, thus, I can not access it.

No worries about Papa Haydn -- he may have a few detractors, but there are enough appreciators out there that there is no dearth of recorded performances.

I can then sit back and enjoy and not care what anyone else thinks.


----------



## Bulldog

Seems to me that, excepting for Bach, Beethove and Mozart, the consensus is that Haydn is ranked right below them. That's a very good position to be in (along with Schubert, Brahms, Mahler, etc.).


----------



## Sudonim

Part of Haydn's problem is that he sits in the pantheon between Bach and Mozart the same way that John Adams (the statesman, not the composer ) sits between George Washington and Thomas Jefferson - justifiably or not, he seems relatively small in comparison. And I think even among some classical listeners there's a perception that Haydn's music is just "light" and "witty" - i.e., that and not much more - certainly not "heavy" and "serious" and "profound" like Beethoven. (The same thing can be - and sometimes is - said of Mozart, but I think in his case he's won more fame due to his "genius" label - child prodigy already composing at age 4, etc.) Maybe, too, he's thought of as a kind of "transitional" composer between the two greats on each side of him: moving beyond Baroque but not quite Classical yet, and therefore just a kind of way-station not quite worthy of its own attention.

I've come to admire Haydn quite a bit and agree that he's underappreciated.


----------



## Mahlerian

Charles Rosen's _The Classical Style_ treats Haydn as a master fully on par with Haydn and Beethoven. If you haven't read it yet, I recommend it.


----------



## hpowders

Mahlerian said:


> Charles Rosen's _The Classical Style_ treats Haydn as a master fully on par with Haydn and Beethoven. If you haven't read it yet, I recommend it.


I assume you mean on a par with Mozart and Beethoven. Haydn and Mozart are my faves.


----------



## hpowders

shangoyal said:


> I haven't read many music articles, but of all that I have read, there is not one on Haydn which takes him as seriously as the other Vienna masters - Mozart and Beethoven. What is it with Haydn? When I first heard classical music I became a Beethoven fanatic, and a minor Mozart one. But I think Haydn's music is as good as those other two - and in fact has a few things they don't, like *maturity* (barring maybe a couple of Beethoven's late quartets). He's usually passed off as some old master whose works only served as teaching for the "geniuses". Father of the symphony and all that jazz. I don't get it.
> 
> Do people usually only get Haydn later in life?
> 
> Do people not listen to him that carefully and just pass judgement from a distance?
> 
> Is it high fashion to keep Haydn on a lower pedestal?
> 
> I would like to see some article where Haydn is handled with more care and understanding.


Lower pedestal? No way. A few of us on TC consider him #1 or #2. I believe in the large TC poll of greatest composers, he came out #4 overall. Pretty impressive.

When I was a mere youth, Haydn was considered inferior to Mozart and Beethoven, but that fog, thankfully, has been lifted.


----------



## stevens

I find Hayden a little bit ...boring. 
-But I have only heard around 20 of his symphonies (and the trumpet concerto 
and that cello thing).


----------



## Aramis

shangoyal said:


> Do people usually only get Haydn later in life?


Yes, because without proper guidance and with help of some bad luck, chances are that you'll spend years of your life digging through his generic, unexciting works to finally find the masterpieces.


----------



## SONNET CLV

shangoyal said:


> I haven't read many music articles, but of all that I have read, *there is not one on Haydn which takes him as seriously as the other Vienna masters* - Mozart and Beethoven. What is it with Haydn? When I first heard classical music I became a Beethoven fanatic, and a minor Mozart one. But I think Haydn's music is as good as those other two - and in fact has a few things they don't, like *maturity* (barring maybe a couple of Beethoven's late quartets). He's usually passed off as some old master whose works only served as teaching for the "geniuses". Father of the symphony and all that jazz. I don't get it.


What is it about Haydn? Frankly, I don't believe he'd_ want _to be taken_ too _seriously. He was a jokester, a prankster, a fun loving kind of fellow for whom the minor keys were probably a bit anti-himself. (His first minor key symphony shows up only at number 26, and there's only about nine others in the whole 104 shebang! This was one happy guy.)

Haydn has long been my "favorite" composer. And not only because of his birthday. I will admit he is seldom as profound as Bach or Beethoven or as richly miraculous as Mozart ... but his music has always been fun, leaving me, at least, more smiling than thinking. And that's not a bad reaction to get from music. (If it only leaves you thinking, you've probably missed something.)

If you can, pick up a box load of the complete symphonies. There are several out there, and all are good. (I know. I have them all.) You'll find a marvelous variety of sounds that I guarantee will provoke more smiles than frowns. If possible, move on to the string quartets, especially if you enjoy that medium. Haydn's quartets are always delightful. (Here the best set I've heard are from the Angeles Strings Quartet on Philips.)







, and the highly recommended Dorati set of symphonies:








Soon you'll be calling the man "Papa", too.


----------



## Guest

Odd thing is that some of his pieces have been used for film and TV music, so its not as if he's not had _some _popular exposure (_Ren and Stimpy_ for god's sake!).

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0370817/?ref_=fn_al_nm_1

But certainly I've come to him late (mid fifties!) though, I hope, not too late.


----------



## Blake

I'd certainly put Haydn on the same throne as Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven... without a doubt. I think that shrugging him off as a simply 'happy' composer is doing a great disservice to oneself. I feel his innovations surpass all of them, actually. He dove into many different emotional realms, but he was never overindulgent in the darker emotions. I just think he was such a sound and solid guy that he didn't have the urge to. Everything feels so completely content in his music, as if he wasn't worried about a thing. 

And yes, "he was in the Classical era where they didn't express personal perceptions of life".... Shut-up. Other classical composers didn't produce what Haydn did.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

One more game in the World Cup like tonight's and we may get to hear Papa Haydn's _Kaiserquartet_ resounding all over Brazil.


----------



## hpowders

Argentina's no Brazil, however. They will be tough.


----------



## Headphone Hermit

stevens said:


> I find Hayden a little bit ...boring.
> -But I have only heard around 20 of his symphonies (and the trumpet concerto
> and that cello thing).


There is so much that you are missing out on - loads of top quality string quartets, 8 or 9 discs of marvellous piano trios, The Creation, excellent masses ..... he is a top quality composer


----------



## hpowders

stevens said:


> I find *Hayden *a little bit ...boring.
> -But I have only heard around 20 of his symphonies (and the trumpet concerto
> and that cello thing).


Well of course! He's an impostor. Sort of like buying a Rolax watch. The man to ask for at your local record store is FJ *HAYDN!*! Not boring at all! He's the real deal! :tiphat:


----------



## Funny

Just reheard a Haydn symphony today that I hadn't heard since I first started listening to him, and was wowed all over again. Maybe OP is right and people can only truly get Haydn later in life. I'm now on the other side of 50 and during the first four or so decades of my life I thought of the guy as trivial and superficial - can you imagine?

Oh, and anyone who thinks of him simply as the "happy" composer, spin Symphony #49 a few times.


----------



## tdc

Was it couchie who said Haydn is about as edgy as a gay dolphin at sea world? An interesting description and personally I can see where he was coming from because seriously the guy did have about as much edginess in his music as a pre-teen Christian pop group. 

There is nothing wrong with having no edginess, I just don't really relate as much to the music. Its personal preference. Its masterfully composed no doubt, and I can't really argue that he was one of the greatest innovators in classical music. I just find his music has very little "bite". He does get points for his wit, and innovations, structurally his music was very tight, but most of it just sounds pompous and wishy washy to my ears.


----------



## Headphone Hermit

tdc said:


> most of it just sounds pompous and wishy washy to my ears.


Poor you! If your HiFi doesn't put out good music, you can easily get new equipment, but if your ears don't let IN good music there isn't much to be done.

Still, we can't all like everything!


----------



## dgee

Symphony 44 and that's about it for me - none of the rest has stuck. I'd never write him off tho! An extended go at his later symphonies on period instruments is "on the list" when the mood takes me at some stage in the future


----------



## ArtMusic

shangoyal said:


> I haven't read many music articles, but of all that I have read, there is not one on Haydn which takes him as seriously as the other Vienna masters - Mozart and Beethoven. What is it with Haydn? When I first heard classical music I became a Beethoven fanatic, and a minor Mozart one. But I think Haydn's music is as good as those other two - and in fact has a few things they don't, like *maturity* (barring maybe a couple of Beethoven's late quartets). He's usually passed off as some old master whose works only served as teaching for the "geniuses". Father of the symphony and all that jazz. I don't get it.
> 
> Do people usually only get Haydn later in life?
> 
> Do people not listen to him that carefully and just pass judgement from a distance?
> 
> Is it high fashion to keep Haydn on a lower pedestal?
> 
> I would like to see some article where Haydn is handled with more care and understanding.


Absolutely nothing wrong with the father of Classicism. Those who don't get it, need some serious ear training and shouldn't really regard themselves as Classicl Music lovers anyway.


----------



## violadude

Iono, I'd say Haydn's sense of musical humor was pretty edgy!


----------



## Andolink

I think good historically informed period instrument perfomances are the key to getting at Haydn's greatness, at least for those who've been unimpressed with him on modern instruments. It's like removing the layers of dirt and varnish from old paintings. That's what did it for me anyway. Christopher Hogwood's set of the Haydn symphonies with the AAM and Ronald Brautigam's set of the complete keyboard sonata's are revelatory IMO.


----------



## dgee

ArtMusic said:


> Absolutely nothing wrong with the father of Classicism. Those who don't get it, need some serious ear training and shouldn't really regard themselves as Classicl Music lovers anyway.


What aspect of ear-training would you recommend, Art? I'm keen to understand Haydn better - I'm a pretty good sight singer (done my Modus Novus and all that), rhythmic and harmonic dictation quite strong still. My timbral recognition is significantly better than average having been a pro orchestral player for years

Serisouly, bro, what ear training would you recommend for someone who doesn't dig on Haydn

But actually, you're probably right about not being a Classical music lover. I love later Mozart and early Beethoven, maybe some Vanhal and Michael Haydn, but other than that I'm not super-jazzed about the classical period


----------



## Haydn man

Haydn is definitely rubbish!
A real composer like Mahler or Bruckner got it all out in 9 symphonies, but this Haydn tried 104 times and if you add them all up it's still just superficial jokey stuff.
If you don't like a Haydn that's fine but really who cares who does or doesn't like or appreciate Haydn his place in musical history seems pretty secure to me


----------



## Blake

Fighting for the man's due respect, ya' hear? No reason he should be second fiddle.


----------



## KenOC

Vesuvius said:


> Fighting for the man's due respect, ya' hear? No reason he should be second fiddle.


Second fiddle? Haydn's barely a viola!

(relax folks, just kidding...)


----------



## Blake

Ha Ha. He He. Ho Ho.


----------



## hpowders

Watch out on 42 Street and Broadway. They will pass off Haydn as Hayden.

It was all over the newspapers. Thousands of fakes unloaded on the unsuspecting masses.

Folks, Sterling Hayden is not the real deal!

Please look for either Franz Joseph Haydn or Joseph Haydn for authentic music.

Then report back as to your musical impressions.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

hpowders said:


> Watch out on 42 Street and Broadway. They will pass off Haydn as Hayden.
> 
> It was all over the newspapers. Thousands of fakes unloaded on the unsuspecting masses.
> 
> Folks, Sterling Hayden is not the real deal!
> 
> Please look for either Franz Joseph Haydn or Joseph Haydn for authentic music.
> 
> Then report back as to your musical impressions.


---
Sterling Hayden is happenin'; Tom Hayden ain't.


----------



## hpowders

Marschallin Blair said:


> ---
> Sterling Hayden is happenin'; Tom Hayden ain't.


I liked the former in the Godfather. He never got a chance to finish his spaghetti in that Bronx restaurant. :lol::lol:


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

...most of it just sounds pompous and wishy washy to my ears.

You either haven't heard many of his better works, or...?

Please look for either Franz Joseph Haydn or Joseph Haydn for authentic music.

His brother Michael Haydn was pretty damn good as well... especially these:


----------



## KenOC

Marschallin Blair said:


> ---
> Sterling Hayden is happenin'; Tom Hayden ain't.


Sterling Hayden was also an excellent novelist, though hardly prolific. I very much enjoyed his novel _Voyage_.


----------



## millionrainbows

tdc said:


> There is nothing wrong with having no edginess, I just don't really relate as much to the music...it's masterfully composed, no doubt, and I can't really argue that he was one of the greatest innovators in classical music. I just find his music has very little "bite". He does get points for his wit, and innovations, structurally his music was very tight, but most of it just sounds pompous and wishy washy to my ears.


Hmm, I wonder why that is? Because this is pre-Romantic music composed for the upper class. There is no 'edginess' of the suffering of the common man, no hardship, no poetic struggle. This was before 'art' for your contemplation existed. This is music paid for by kings.

This is music for entertaining the court, and to keep the king's cello-playing nephew busy (or whatever). Of course it's well-crafted, just as the clothing was the finest, and the food served by the finest chefs. The best music that money can buy, and a good, lucrative gig for Haydn. $$$$$

Only later in England did Haydn 'perhaps' write more for himself, to please an ever-growing appreciative new audience, far removed from the stuffy, strict confines of the Esterhazy court. Chalk it up to "commercial pressure."

Of course, from a purely technical standpoint, the music is a delight, and are perfect studies in tonality. One must get involved on a purely sensual, musical level, enjoying the sounds, and perhaps appreciating the harmonic progressions and deviations ans returns to the home key; the delightfully balanced phrasing.

Pure ear candy, but not much fodder for the soul that wishes to be challenged or tested. No angst or personal involvement, no imaginary drama being unfolded in musical gestures, like the stabbings of Beethoven, or the harmonic angst and turmoil of Mahler. That all came later, when they called it "art" and it was at least free enough from the royal commercial pressure-cooker to become actual personal expression, a.k.a."art."


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock

millionrainbows said:


> Hmm, I wonder why that is? Because this is pre-Romantic music composed for the upper class. There is no 'edginess' of the suffering of the common man, no hardship, no poetic struggle. This was before 'art' for your contemplation existed. This is music paid for by kings.
> 
> This is music for entertaining the court, and to keep the king's cello-playing nephew busy (or whatever). Of course it's well-crafted, just as the clothing was the finest, and the food served by the finest chefs. The best music that money can buy, and a good, lucrative gig for Haydn. $$$$$
> 
> Only later in England did Haydn 'perhaps' write more for himself, to please an ever-growing appreciative new audience, far removed from the stuffy, strict confines of the Esterhazy court. Chalk it up to "commercial pressure."
> 
> Of course, from a purely technical standpoint, the music is a delight, and are perfect studies in tonality. One must get involved on a purely sensual, musical level, enjoying the sounds, and perhaps appreciating the harmonic progressions and deviations ans returns to the home key; the delightfully balanced phrasing.
> 
> Pure ear candy, but not much fodder for the soul that wishes to be challenged or tested. No angst or personal involvement, no imaginary drama being unfolded in musical gestures, like the stabbings of Beethoven, or the harmonic angst and turmoil of Mahler. That all came later, when they called it "art" and it was at least free enough from the royal commercial pressure-cooker to become actual personal expression, a.k.a."art."


millionrainbows, I'd be careful with generalizing so much, 'no angst', 'no imaginary drama' is taking it a bit far. Listen to the beginning of Symphony No. 52 in C minor, that's pretty much like Beethoven's 5th except about 30 years earlier. The Seven Last Words is also a great work in that respect and there are many dramatic parts in Haydn's masses. Haydn has a bit of everything. And how much more 'art' can one find that the Creation or the Seasons? These are perfect demonstartions of the mastery of compositional skill, imo.


----------



## millionrainbows

HaydnBearstheClock said:


> millionrainbows, I'd be careful with generalizing so much, 'no angst', 'no imaginary drama' is taking it a bit far. Listen to the beginning of Symphony No. 52 in C minor, that's pretty much like Beethoven's 5th except about 30 years earlier. The Seven Last Words is also a great work in that respect and there are many dramatic parts in Haydn's masses. Haydn has a bit of everything. And how much more 'art' can one find that the Creation or the Seasons? These are perfect demonstrations of the mastery of compositional skill, imo.


Ahh, so it makes you uncomfortable for me to articulate what other listeners can only hint at, i.e.* tdc's* lament that_* "...There is nothing wrong with having no edginess, I just don't really relate as much to the music...it's masterfully composed, no doubt, and I can't really argue that he was one of the greatest innovators in classical music. I just find his music has very little "bite". He does get points for his wit, and innovations, structurally his music was very tight, but most of it just sounds pompous and wishy washy to my ears." *_

The works you cite are all based on religious themes, which was the only allowable way to express angst and drama; but these themes did not address the audience except in the most collective, general sense.

This was still music for promoting an ideology, not poetics or art as we now know it; and the church was almost synonymous with the state, so it's designed to reinforce the power-ideology in place at that time.

*This is 'commercial' music, created to 'sell the product' of church and state power, not to communicate to your individual soul.*

I'm glad you enjoyed it. Have a Coke with a friend and listen to it again.

As for myself, I listen to it for the sheer sensual opulence, the superb craftsmanship, and the 'perfect' harmonic progressions. It's very entertaining. I don't take it as seriously as Mahler, Brahms, or Beethoven.


----------



## hpowders

HaydnBearstheClock said:


> millionrainbows, I'd be careful with generalizing so much, 'no angst', 'no imaginary drama' is taking it a bit far. Listen to the beginning of Symphony No. 52 in C minor, that's pretty much like Beethoven's 5th except about 30 years earlier. The Seven Last Words is also a great work in that respect and there are many dramatic parts in Haydn's masses. Haydn has a bit of everything. And how much more 'art' can one find that the Creation or the Seasons? These are perfect demonstartions of the mastery of compositional skill, imo.


Yes. Haydn could do it all. He's a man for all "Seasons".


----------



## Vesteralen

Scene in the Haydn household:

FJ: Have you seen the manuscript for my latest string quartet?

Mrs H: Was that the thing with all the funny squiggles on it that was sitting on the dining room table last night?

FJ: That's it...yes

Mrs H: Well, Hilda's niece came to see if I had any extra fish, so when I found a piece for her I wrapped it up in your squiggle-paper and sent her home with it.

FJ: How many times have I told you not to touch my work papers!

Mrs H: Work papers, indeed. Why if you've heard one of them scratch-and-whine things you've heard them all. Besides, you churn them out so fast, it won't be any trouble for you to just make another. But, when I need fish paper I need fish paper.

FJ (tearing hair out by the roots) : Woman, one of these days I'm going to grab you and start shaking and shaking till...

Mrs H: Till what?

FJ: Till......till....till I SHAKE YOU INTO A MILLION RAINBOWS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Bulldog

millionrainbows said:


> Hmm, I wonder why that is? Because this is pre-Romantic music composed for the upper class. There is no 'edginess' of the suffering of the common man, no hardship, no poetic struggle. This was before 'art' for your contemplation existed. This is music paid for by kings.
> 
> This is music for entertaining the court, and to keep the king's cello-playing nephew busy (or whatever). Of course it's well-crafted, just as the clothing was the finest, and the food served by the finest chefs. The best music that money can buy, and a good, lucrative gig for Haydn. $$$$$
> 
> Only later in England did Haydn 'perhaps' write more for himself, to please an ever-growing appreciative new audience, far removed from the stuffy, strict confines of the Esterhazy court. Chalk it up to "commercial pressure."
> 
> Of course, from a purely technical standpoint, the music is a delight, and are perfect studies in tonality. One must get involved on a purely sensual, musical level, enjoying the sounds, and perhaps appreciating the harmonic progressions and deviations ans returns to the home key; the delightfully balanced phrasing.
> 
> Pure ear candy, but not much fodder for the soul that wishes to be challenged or tested. No angst or personal involvement, no imaginary drama being unfolded in musical gestures, like the stabbings of Beethoven, or the harmonic angst and turmoil of Mahler. That all came later, when they called it "art" and it was at least free enough from the royal commercial pressure-cooker to become actual personal expression, a.k.a."art."


You're a hoot, even using Haydn's music to advance your usual agenda.


----------



## hpowders

Pure ear candy? Have you ever even heard The Creation? A towering masterpiece!

I don't even know why I bother:trying to bend the inflexible! :lol::lol:


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock

*Quote:* The works you cite are all based on religious themes, which was the only allowable way to express angst and drama; but these themes did not address the audience except in the most collective, general sense.

This was still music for promoting an ideology, not poetics or art as we now know it; and the church was almost synonymous with the state, so it's designed to reinforce the power-ideology in place at that time.

Every kind of music fits a certain ideology. Beethoven's music fit the ideology of early romanticism and was influenced by the cult around Napoleon, etc. The idea of the 'sublime' already had an influence on Haydn as he composed The Creation, for example, and this was before Beethoven composed most of his works.

Saying that Haydn's music has no subjectivity is very incorrect imo, since Haydn's humour was entirely subjective. Is there another composer with this attribute? There is humour in Mozart, for example, but it's very different from Haydn's. Beethoven had humour too, and his was often influenced by Haydn's, imo. When Haydn composed the Creation Mass, he added a quote from the Creation to the lines 'Qui tollis peccata mundi' - Christ carrying the sins of humanity. The quote from the Creation was a very happy-sounding tune which reflected his own view of God. I think it was Maria Theresia who wanted Haydn to change that part entirely. He did not agree - he composed something for her, but kept his manuscript unchanged. So how is that not subjective?


----------



## tdc

millionrainbows said:


> Hmm, I wonder why that is? Because this is pre-Romantic music composed for the upper class. There is no 'edginess' of the suffering of the common man, no hardship, no poetic struggle. This was before 'art' for your contemplation existed. This is music paid for by kings.
> 
> This is music for entertaining the court, and to keep the king's cello-playing nephew busy (or whatever). Of course it's well-crafted, just as the clothing was the finest, and the food served by the finest chefs. The best music that money can buy, and a good, lucrative gig for Haydn. $$$$$
> 
> Only later in England did Haydn 'perhaps' write more for himself, to please an ever-growing appreciative new audience, far removed from the stuffy, strict confines of the Esterhazy court. Chalk it up to "commercial pressure."
> 
> Of course, from a purely technical standpoint, the music is a delight, and are perfect studies in tonality. One must get involved on a purely sensual, musical level, enjoying the sounds, and perhaps appreciating the harmonic progressions and deviations ans returns to the home key; the delightfully balanced phrasing.
> 
> Pure ear candy, but not much fodder for the soul that wishes to be challenged or tested. No angst or personal involvement, no imaginary drama being unfolded in musical gestures, like the stabbings of Beethoven, or the harmonic angst and turmoil of Mahler. That all came later, when they called it "art" and it was at least free enough from the royal commercial pressure-cooker to become actual personal expression, a.k.a."art."


Interesting ideas, but personally I find most of the classical era and especially Haydn unique in this sense - for example I perceive underlying edginess in Mozart's music, and I find plenty of "bite" in Bach's music, in fact we could go all the way back to Machaut and I hear strange and intriguing dissonances aplenty.

Haydn's works do entertain me and are pleasing on some levels, but I am always wanting him to plumb further depths... he draws me in, but ultimately I am always wanting something more profound from him...you ever watch that show Full House? Its like everything ultimately just turns into another 'after school special' with Haydn.

I think one of the reasons I don't get as much out of Beethoven's music as most others is because he was very influenced by Haydn and used a similar harmonic language. Clearly Beethoven had more edginess, but I still get a sense of generally wanting more from Beethoven that he does not deliver. Beethoven is like an entertaining and action packed movie, with a good plot, but without sufficient attention paid to the subtle details that heighten mood and atmosphere. From my perspective composers like Mozart and Bach were masters of the subtle details as well as many from the early 20th century such as Stravinsky and Ravel.


----------



## KenOC

tdc said:


> Clearly Beethoven had more edginess, but I still get a sense of generally wanting more from Beethoven that he does not deliver.


Beethoven does not deliver? Oh my. Oh my goodness gracious!


----------



## Blake

KenOC said:


> Beethoven does not deliver? Oh my. Oh my goodness gracious!


Well, Dominos wasn't around then. There's one thing he simply couldn't deliver.


----------



## Serge

There's more to music than just work. Coincidentally, there's very little of that in Haydn. Just to be kind to the folks, I won't say if any.


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock

Serge said:


> There's more to music than just work. Coincidentally, there's very little of that in Haydn. Just to be kind to the folks, I won't say if any.


I don't even understand what you mean - you can't possibly mean to say that Haydn had an easy time composing works like The Creation or The Seasons.


----------



## Blake

Karma police, arrest this man... he talks in maths... he buzzes like a fridge.


----------



## Serge

Haha, thanks. Sorry for my poor English. I'm saying that Haydn lacks in a genius department.


----------



## hpowders

Beethoven doesn't wear well. 57 years of listening and I'm getting a bit tired of it.


----------



## KenOC

hpowders said:


> Beethoven doesn't wear well. 57 years of listening and I'm getting a bit tired of it.


57 years? I'd say it wore pretty well!

But if the honeymoon's over at last, what is there to say? Luigi, of course, will be shattered.


----------



## hpowders

HaydnBearstheClock said:


> I don't even understand what you mean - you can't possibly mean to say that Haydn had an easy time composing works like The Creation or The Seasons.


Fascinating to imagine, but none of us will ever know how easily or difficult composing came to any of the great masters. Just imagine walking into Beethoven's flat and seeing sheets and sheets of filled music paper all over the floors, shelves, drawers, bed, etc; It must have been quite a sight. I'd like to imagine that Haydn was a bit more organized and neater.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

You're a hoot, even using Haydn's music to advance your usual agenda.

Unfortunately the agenda in but a tired rehash of the old politically-correct mantra that "everything is political" and everything must be judged on political standards. It strikes me as having little if anything to do with a passion for music or the arts.

Indeed... I would suggest that the concept that Art must be measured according to non-Artistic standards and values is not far from the same mentality that Haydn labored under.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Haha, thanks. Sorry for my poor English. I'm saying that Haydn lacks in a genius department.

Really? Hmmm... I don't hear it that way at all. I was just listening to _The Creation_ today. A work of towering genius.


----------



## KenOC

Serge said:


> There's more to music than just work. Coincidentally, there's very little of that in Haydn. Just to be kind to the folks, I won't say if any.


Haydn said that composing was difficult for him and he worked slowly. Yes, he did. It's true!


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock

Serge said:


> Haha, thanks. Sorry for my poor English. I'm saying that Haydn lacks in a genius department.


Well, basically what you're saying is that Haydn doesn't fit your subjective tastes. That has nothing to do with the genius Haydn evidently possessed, since he basically set up all the different classical music genres. Sonatas, piano trios, string quartets, masses, symphonies, oratorios - all composers afterwards used Haydn's ideas. So how is that not genius? Haydn's genius might have been less focused on emotion or dramatic effect, it might have been more organizational, logical/rational, structural or purely aesthetic, but if it wasn't there, classical music would have sounded differently today, imo. And Haydn does have his more emotional moments; one just has to be well-acquainted with his music to know how to appreicate his lyrical aspect fully.


----------



## Serge

Fair enough. I don't think that defining what a song is equals writing a good song, but I'm not gonna fight Haydn fans any more. If people cherish him for all those merits, then so be it. I'm just saying that there's not much of his music that I actually enjoy.


----------



## satoru

Serge said:


> Fair enough. I don't think that defining what a song is equals writing a good song, but I'm not gonna fight Haydn fans any more. If people cherish him for all those merits, then so be it. I'm just saying that there's not much of his music that I actually enjoy.


So I thought too, until I hit 50s: Haydn=boring. Then suddenly I found myself hooked to Haydn's music. My friend at 60 still doesn't get it, so it depends. Just don't close your mind toward Haydn's music completely. Once you are there, his music can be soothing, mind cleansing experience, at least they are for me. It's totally fine that you don't get them, since you must have equivalent place in your mind filled with beautiful music, just not Haydn's (tell us what those are, in a separate thread. I want to learn and listen to them!).


----------



## bigshot

Serge said:


> Fair enough. I don't think that defining what a song is equals writing a good song, but I'm not gonna fight Haydn fans any more. If people cherish him for all those merits, then so be it. I'm just saying that there's not much of his music that I actually enjoy.


And that says more about you than Hadyn.


----------



## Guest

Serge said:


> Fair enough. I don't think that defining what a song is equals writing a good song, but I'm not gonna fight Haydn fans any more. If people cherish him for all those merits, then so be it. I'm just saying that there's not much of his music that I actually enjoy.


Serge, you don't need to have been hanging around here long to know that everyone is entitled to his opinion, but some opinions are more equal than others. If you say you don't enjoy Haydn's music, you'll know that someone will come along and insist that he is a certified genius and you're wrong.


----------



## Badinerie

Haydn is top rank for me. Often quoted as " The Father of the Symphony" 
Just my 2 cents worth.


----------



## hpowders

Yes indeed, Badinerie. Haydn's Symphonies belong right up there with Mozart's Keyboard Concertos as perfect examples of the specimen.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

SiegendesLicht said:


> One more game in the World Cup like tonight's and we may get to hear Papa Haydn's _Kaiserquartet_ resounding all over Brazil.


Well, we did hear it tonight. Hail to Papa Haydn and to all the good Germans, both musicians and listeners, who seek eternal beauty rather than plastic disposable pop art...


----------



## Marschallin Blair

SiegendesLicht said:


> Well, we did hear it tonight. Hail to Papa Haydn and to all the good Germans, both musicians and listeners, who seek eternal beauty rather than plastic disposable pop art...


Well, arms raised and elbows poised for 'Eternal Art.' <everyone drinks>

And now we can put our arms down for the "Here-today-gone-later-today" gimmicky-desposable gar_-bhhhhhhaaaaaaaagggge._


----------



## Mesenkomaha

I'm working my way from symphony 1 to fin currently and greatly enjoying the ride. Not once have I been bored or wanted to turn it off. I'm at no. 33 right now. To my untrained ear it really sounds much the same but this is not a problem since the music is so fun amd bright. Haydn is awesome and quickly becoming a favorite.


----------



## azumbrunn

The lament which opened this discussion needs some expansion. It is not just listeners who don't take Haydn seriously. Not just writers of CD booklets and program notes. Performers often don't take his music seriously either.

Quartets and symphonies are usually programmed as warm up pieces. They are "easy" for professionals so they under-rehearse (it's only the warm up piece, right?) and neglect to take a closer look at the music the way they certainly do when playing Mozart or Beethoven. They play the fast movements too fast and the slow movements too slowly. As a result the fast movements glide by without resistance and and the slow movements (especially the andante movements) plod along and spread boredom. In the menuets even the performers seem to be visibly bored.

Against this backdrop I can understand some of the dismissive entries in this debate. I'd however recommend the symphonies in Nikolaus Harnoncourt's version. He does a lot of things right, though I am generally skeptical of attempts to record all symphonies or quartets: No professional musician can afford the time to do all of the pieces thoroughly (104 symphonies and 68 quartets, each with its own character, its own innovations).

The vocal music fares better: If someone tackles the Creation or one of the masses they tend to put in the work to achieve an impressive rendering.


----------



## azumbrunn

It is going to be more varied soon, Mesenkomaha. You are approaching the so called "Sturm und Drang" phase of Haydn's career where he started writing in sometimes darker moods (e.g. the farewell symphony) and generally tried to intensify the expression.


----------



## millionrainbows

I Like Haydn. I like water table crackers, too. And tofu. And rice wafers. And flavored water.


----------



## KenOC

millionrainbows said:


> I Like Haydn. I like water table crackers, too. And tofu. And rice wafers. And flavored water.


Are you suggesting that Haydn's music was the first minimalism? Minimal individuality, minimal character, minimal interest, and minimal memorability? :lol:


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock

Don't know why people always complain about this - Haydn has extraordinary variety in his music, imo. He has excellent pieces in all genres, how much more variety can one wish for .


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

It is not just listeners who don't take Haydn seriously. Not just writers of CD booklets and program notes. Performers often don't take his music seriously either.

I'm not certain where you are getting this information. As others have mentioned, Haydn is consistently ranked... by those who enjoy ranking... among the top 10 composers or all time... often among the top 5.

Quartets and symphonies are usually programmed as warm up pieces. They are "easy" for professionals so they under-rehearse (it's only the warm up piece, right?) and neglect to take a closer look at the music the way they certainly do when playing Mozart or Beethoven.

I haven't seen this in recordings. His quartets have been championed by the top performers/quartets: Quatuor Mosaiques, Amadeus Quartet, Kodaly Quartet, Takacs Quartet, Borodin Quartet, London Haydn Quartet, the Emerson String Quartet, etc... The same holds true of his solo piano works: Alfred Brendel, Marc-Andre Hamelin, Emanuel Ax, Jean-Efflam Bavouzet, Sviatoslav Richter, Glenn Gould, Leif Ove Andsnes, Andras Schiff... none of these pianists are slackers, likely to undertake recording music that they feel is but mediocre or likely perform in a lackadaisical manner.

They play the fast movements too fast and the slow movements too slowly. As a result the fast movements glide by without resistance and and the slow movements (especially the andante movements) plod along and spread boredom. In the menuets even the performers seem to be visibly bored.

Szell, Collin Davis, Trevor Pinnock, Sir Thomas Beecham, Marriner, Sir Charles Mackerras, and Marc Minkowski all perform Haydn impeccably... each bringing a unique voice to these works. I'm sorry, but I don't hear any slacking going on.

The vocal music fares better: If someone tackles the Creation or one of the masses they tend to put in the work to achieve an impressive rendering.

Personally, I prefer the vocal music... but then again, I tend to prefer vocal music in general. I don't find the recordings of Haydn's symphonies, quartets, or sonatas in any way lacking.


----------



## hpowders

For me Haydn is within the top 5 composers of all time. Would love to have some good chinese dim sum with him and the other four some afternoon.


----------



## Roi N

Haydn isn't No. 2 or No. 3 or any of that. *He is No. 1 by far*. Beethoven had 9 symphonic masterpieces? Haydn had 12 just in his London symphonies. (And let's not forget that Beethoven's first is a just Haydn's 62 symphony (Finale) merged with his 98th (Adagio)).
As for learning to love this man, I would reccommend all the London symphonies. You've got it all there - the true colors of music.
Besides, I would try his variation movements - his individuality from any other composer shines in these movements' because he likes to keep the theme in his variations - and create unbelieveable contrapunctal masterpieces. 
Top 5 variations? I would say the slow movement from the "Emperor" quartet (Op. 76 No. 3), the adagio of the "Surprise" symphony (No. 94), the opening movement of the E-Flat minor (Yes, _minor_) trio (No. 41), the Andante and Variations in F minor and the first movement of the E-Flat Major Quartet (Op. 76 No. 6). Oh, the 56th piano sonata's first movement is also good. So is the 58th. So are the first two movement from the "Gypsy Rondo" trio (no. 39). Ooh, and the slow movement of the "Clock" (No. 101). Oops, that's ten. 
Enjoy!


----------



## hpowders

Let's not forget the Paris Symphonies, all masterpieces too!


----------



## Roi N

hpowders said:


> Let's not forget the Paris Symphonies, all masterpieces too!


Agreed (The 82nd is truely unbelieveable)


----------



## SONNET CLV

Mesenkomaha said:


> I'm working my way from symphony 1 to fin currently and greatly enjoying the ride. Not once have I been bored or wanted to turn it off. I'm at no. 33 right now. To my untrained ear it really sounds much the same but this is not a problem since the music is so fun amd bright. Haydn is awesome and quickly becoming a favorite.


Ah! A marathon! Great!
I plan to do that again soon.


----------



## hpowders

Roi N said:


> Agreed (The 82nd is truely unbelieveable)


#82 is not unlike the other great Haydn C major symphony, #97.

Haydn really knew how to do C Major!!!


----------



## Roi N

hpowders said:


> Haydn really knew how to do C Major!!!


And D Major, and E-Flat Major, and G Major.... man that man was a genious!!


----------



## hpowders

Roi N said:


> And D Major, and E-Flat Major, and G Major.... man that man was a genious!!


Yes! I've noticed!! 

Imagine being in London in the audience for the premiere of #97 or in Paris for #82. Wow!


----------



## millionrainbows

KenOC said:


> Are you suggesting that Haydn's music...(lacked)...individuality...character...interest, and...memorability? (edited for objectivity)


This was not really the age for over-the-top emoting, although one can see the beginnings.

There is a nice sense of 'drama' in Haydn, although it's really just created by contrasts and other sorts of dramatic musical gestures which are ends in themselves. They don't really invite me to introspect or to ponder them, compared to heavy Romanticism such as Tchaikovsky or Saint Saens.

I don't get the impression that Haydn's 'dramatic gestures' were referencing anything other than what was happening in the music itself; I don't see these gestures as having any urgent or vital correlation to one's 'inner emotions' or introspective poetic sensibility; I see them as simply effective musical gestures which keep one entertained and engaged.

In this sense, the music is subservient to its utilitarian or ostensible purpose of entertainment or diversion, in the service of power. I don't see Haydn's music as being self-serving or self-sufficient as an exclusive musical statement, but rather as an adjunct to the purpose it was created for. In this sense, there is a certain 'passivity' which comes through, or a certain restraint which might appear to the modern mind as 'subservient' or ambiguous in its emotive content. So, in a real sense, this music is 'entertainment,' and to expect it to be profoundly more than _*that*_, is, I think, wishful thinking. Although, with enough fine wine in one's gut, who knows what it might become?

This, then, is Classicism. This is what Classicism means, and to see this, one must compare it to what came after, namely, Romanticism.

This comparison, and this awareness of the difference, makes sense of all the doubts about Haydn (and Mozart as well); this puts into perspective all of the accusations of 'coldness' and detachment, with no need to 'defend' Haydn on any other grounds. His music is sufficient unto itself in the era and context it was created.

I see these 'defenses' of Haydn in the same light I see the criticisms; as a failure to have defined clearly what Haydn's music can mean to us, and the intents and limits of its expressive purpose.


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock

millionrainbows said:


> This was not really the age for over-the-top emoting, although one can see the beginnings.
> 
> There is a nice sense of 'drama' in Haydn, although it's really just created by contrasts and other sorts of dramatic musical gestures which are ends in themselves. They don't really invite me to introspect or to ponder them, compared to heavy Romanticism such as Tchaikovsky or Saint Saens.
> 
> I don't get the impression that Haydn's 'dramatic gestures' were referencing anything other than what was happening in the music itself; I don't see these gestures as having any urgent or vital correlation to one's 'inner emotions' or introspective poetic sensibility; I see them as simply effective musical gestures which keep one entertained and engaged.
> 
> In this sense, the music is subservient to its utilitarian or ostensible purpose of entertainment or diversion, in the service of power. I don't see Haydn's music as being self-serving or self-sufficient as an exclusive musical statement, but rather as an adjunct to the purpose it was created for. In this sense, there is a certain 'passivity' which comes through, or a certain restraint which might appear to the modern mind as 'subservient' or ambiguous in its emotive content. So, in a real sense, this music is 'entertainment,' and to expect it to be profoundly more than _*that*_, is, I think, wishful thinking. Although, with enough fine wine in one's gut, who knows what it might become?
> 
> This, then, is Classicism. This is what Classicism means, and to see this, one must compare it to what came after, namely, Romanticism.
> 
> This comparison, and this awareness of the difference, makes sense of all the doubts about Haydn (and Mozart as well); this puts into perspective all of the accusations of 'coldness' and detachment, with no need to 'defend' Haydn on any other grounds. His music is sufficient unto itself in the era and context it was created.
> 
> I see these 'defenses' of Haydn in the same light I see the criticisms; as a failure to have defined clearly what Haydn's music can mean to us, and the intents and limits of its expressive purpose.


I have to disagree - there are some very expressive melodies, for example, in Haydn's The Seasons and in The Creation, which prefigure romanticism - take, for eg., the Overtures to Spring & Winter and the Sunrises in both oratorios, among others. The Intermezzo of the oratorio version of the Seven Last Words also has great depth, imo.





(at 35:00)

There's plenty of introspection in it and I think Beethoven later used similar elements of tension and suspense in his music.


----------



## Muse Wanderer

The beauty of Haydn's compositions can't be compared to others that reflect other times, personalities and environments. If every composer sounded like Beethoven, then the classical era would be quite boring. 

Anyway, thanks to these latest threads I started listening to Haydn again... big time.

I decided to give all his symphonies a go starting from 1 just now... and I am loving it!


----------



## hpowders

Good for you, Muse Wanderer!!


----------



## Muse Wanderer

hpowders said:


> Good for you, Muse Wanderer!!


Thank you for speaking up for such a brilliant composer.

I could have neglected him for few more years without your Haydn Public Relations consultancy firm :lol:


----------



## hpowders

Muse Wanderer said:


> Thank you for speaking up for such a brilliant composer.
> 
> I could have neglected him for few more years without your Haydn Public Relations consultancy firm :lol:


At this time, Haydn and Mozart are both #1 on my list. Wait 'til you get to the Paris and London symphonies. Superb. Perfectly composed music!


----------



## Muse Wanderer

I just listened to Joseph Haydn's 3rd symphony in G major (Hob. I/3) and found something sorely missing from parts of early and middle period Beethoven (which I adore by the way).

Yep, besides being one of the first four movement symphonies, it is loaded with counterpoint.

The first movement starts with a monothemathic exposition and, bang on in the middle, changes to a splendid canon.

The andante moderato is in G minor with a melody that calmed down my colicky 5 week old baby boy quite nicely!

The minuet is again a canon that is a joy to dance to with an adorable trio.

Baby is now fast asleep!

Now, what can I say about the finale?!

It is marked 'Alla breve' and in two minutes Haydn writes a fantastic two subject fugue finale with six voices!

Now I am a fugue obsessed Bachian and this was _not _expected.

Moreover the finale has, to my ears, a resemblance to the fugue from Mozart's Requiem in D minor 'Domine Jesu' which is again repeated da capo in the Hositias movement.

The fugue is sung as 'Quam olim Abrahae promisisti, et semini ejus' and is a favourite of mine in the requiem and its first subject reminds me of the theme in this symphony's finale. Could it be that Mozart (who wrote the vocal parts) was inspired by one of Haydn's earliest symphonies? 

Lesson of the day:

Make babies, listen to Haydn and live a happy peaceful life! :tiphat:


----------



## hpowders

If you like Haydn counterpoint, may I suggest, if you haven't already heard these, the fourth movements of Haydn's Sun Quartets, Opus 20, quartets #'s 2, 5 and 6. Haydn was a master of everything and fugues were no exception.


----------



## millionrainbows

HaydnBearstheClock said:


> I have to disagree - there are some very expressive melodies...which prefigure romanticism...There's plenty of introspection in it and I think Beethoven later used similar elements of tension and suspense in his music.


I agree that there are expressive melodies, and tension and suspense, and other purely musical and dramatic devices;

...but Haydn did not intend to be 'introspective' or cause you to 'introspect' with him, like the Romantics later did, because that was not the intent or function of music in those times and circumstances.

Haydn was not trying to 'communicate to your soul in the baring of his own soul' as Beethoven was doing. He was creating entertaining and emotionally engaging music for the pleasure of the Esterhazy Court.

Haydn did not write this music to communicate with Humanity at large, but only for an elite. Surely, one senses this when one listens.

And surely, this is the reason Haydn and Mozart are continually challenged on this point, as this thread's existence demonstrates, and why many new listeners simply do not 'get' this music. Their intuition and gut-feeling is correct: This music was not composed for them.

*Music which is "composed by humans, for humans, for human purposes" is art, if it's good;* and to be art, it must be a 'mapping of experience' from composer to listener. It's a communication of soul to soul.

If any other *purpose *obstructs that universal humanity, such as commercial pressure, or pressure from whatever dominant market power is in place, then the work was not created with purity of purpose, and is tainted. Works can 'transcend' these pressures, but the original intent of the creator must be intact, in spite of the ostensible purpose or utilitarian context it emerged from. *True* *art is like religion in this sense, and its purpose is purely metaphysical.
*
The reason Classicism is recognized as Classicism is because of its relative failure, in most cases, to fully transcend those extra-artistic pressures, as Romanticism did in most cases; that was Romanticism's intent, at any rate. Thus, with Classicism, we are left with a detached objectivity created by this distancing from universal soul-to-soul communication; we are left with a 'flat affect' and lack of profound contact when we attempt to 'sublimely contemplate' it.

The only possible redemption of Classical is in the realm of religious music; but even there, the institution and its dogma are first and foremost, and if you believe along the same dogmatic lines, then your 'soul' has been communicated to, but only within these prescribed parameters of common belief. This is as 'sincere' as Classicism gets.


----------



## millionrainbows

Muse Wanderer said:


> I just listened to Joseph Haydn's 3rd symphony in G major (Hob. I/3) and found something sorely missing from parts of early and middle period Beethoven (which I adore by the way)...Yep, besides being one of the first four movement symphonies, it is loaded with counterpoint...The first movement starts with a monothemathic exposition and, bang on in the middle, changes to a splendid canon...The andante moderato is in G minor with a melody that calmed down my colicky 5 week old baby boy quite nicely!...The minuet is again a canon that is a joy to dance to with an adorable trio.
> ...Baby is now fast asleep!
> 
> Lesson of the day:
> 
> Make babies, listen to Haydn and live a happy peaceful life!


I'll admit that there is a pleasant detachment in Haydn, and the pleasure of sheer craftsmanship; as a musician, I like this music for those reasons.

No stormy conflict, no suffering of the poetic soul. In this sense, it is very good Yuppie music for taking care of babies and going about one's business.

As long as you don't need 'deep art', it's fine. This is an acknowledged fact:


----------



## Muse Wanderer

millionrainbows said:


> I'll admit that there is a pleasant detachment in Haydn, and the pleasure of sheer craftsmanship; as a musician, I like this music for those reasons.
> 
> No stormy conflict, no suffering of the poetic soul. In this sense, it is very good Yuppie music for taking care of babies and going about one's business.
> 
> As long as you don't need 'deep art', it's fine. This is an acknowledged fact:
> 
> [/LIST]


Personally I love every era of music I've tried from medieval to avant garde. I may still be entrenched in baroque and classical as these were my starting points in classical music. However I am fervently exploring romantic and 20th century music.

Moreso, one should not label individuals based on their musical tastes. My tastes encompass everything and composers from each era touch my 'soul' in different ways. I need 'deep art' music as much as lighter music.

Baroque and romatic eras are highly emotional in an 'in your face' kind of way. The classical and modern eras were a direct reaction to that with less overt emotion expressed but these eras can be as 'deeply emotional' as any other era if given a chance in my opinion.

The political environment at the times are only secondary.

The artist always finds a way to express what is hidden within his mind and soul.


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock

millionrainbows said:


> I'll admit that there is a pleasant detachment in Haydn, and the pleasure of sheer craftsmanship; as a musician, I like this music for those reasons.
> 
> No stormy conflict, no suffering of the poetic soul. In this sense, it is very good Yuppie music for taking care of babies and going about one's business.
> 
> As long as you don't need 'deep art', it's fine. This is an acknowledged fact:


I think Haydn did want you to be introspective - this is what he said of The Seven Last Words: "Each [movement], or rather each setting of the text, is expressed only by instrumental music, but in such a way that it creates the most profound impression on even the most inexperienced listener."

Haydn's music was in part a product of his time, of course, but there is a large subjective component in his music nonetheless - that's why he sounds like Haydn, and not like Mozart or Beethoven. He had his own personality and it's reflected in the music. I personally admire Haydn's personality since he took on incredibly challenging tasks late in life and thereby produced some of his greatest masterpieces, namely the London Symphonies, The Creation, The Seasons and the late masses. He was also very experimental, innovative and continued mastering his own style despite some criticisms. His later works have increasingly full instrumentation and are more complex - Haydn kept on getting better and better with age. And, imo, Haydn's humour is in itself based on introspection - to 'get' Haydn's jokes, you have to know how musical pieces are generally constructed - therefore, you have to distance yourself for some moments from the purely emotional perception of music and move into 'thinking about what makes music work', which is a different level of perceiving art. That's one of the reasons why I love Haydn's humour - it communicates to the listener and establishes a familiarity between him and the composer. Millionrainbows, no one is forcing you to like Haydn more than the composers which you prefer; we're all free people here and listen to what we like and it should continue being that way. But if you say that one cannot be introspective when listening to Haydn, I have to disagree because there are plenty of pieces which to me sound very introspective.


----------



## hpowders

HaydnBearstheClock said:


> I think Haydn did want you to be introspective - this is what he said of The Seven Last Words: "Each [movement], or rather each setting of the text, is expressed only by instrumental music, but in such a way that it creates the most profound impression on even the most inexperienced listener."
> 
> Haydn's music was in part a product of his time, of course, but there is a large subjective component in his music nonetheless - that's why he sounds like Haydn, and not like Mozart or Beethoven. He had his own personality and it's reflected in the music. I personally admire Haydn's personality since he took on incredibly challenging tasks late in life and thereby produced some of his greatest masterpieces, namely the London Symphonies, The Creation, The Seasons and the late masses. He was also very experimental, innovative and continued mastering his own style despite some criticisms. What more can one wish for from an artist?


Haydn was smart. He was writing for a bunch of dolts who simply wanted to be entertained in this pre-Fox News world of theirs. That's why many of his slow movements weren't terribly serious.

Haydn knew how to play the game....unlike poor Mozart.


----------



## spradlig

There are _two_ "cello things" (one in C, one in D). Haydn is not one of my favorites, but I love his cello concerti.



stevens said:


> I find Hayden a little bit ...boring.
> -But I have only heard around 20 of his symphonies (and the trumpet concerto
> and that cello thing).


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Music which is "composed by humans, for humans, for human purposes" is art, if it's good; and to be art, it must be a 'mapping of experience' from composer to listener. It's a communication of soul to soul.

If any other purpose obstructs that universal humanity, such as commercial pressure, or pressure from whatever dominant market power is in place, then the work was not created with purity of purpose, and is tainted. Works can 'transcend' these pressures, but the original intent of the creator must be intact, in spite of the ostensible purpose or utilitarian context it emerged from. True art is like religion in this sense, and its purpose is purely metaphysical.

Congratulations! This is the most ridiculous thing I have read on the internet in quite some time. I'll probably need to scour the Fox-News site for some time to surpass this.


----------



## hpowders

Roi N said:


> Haydn isn't No. 2 or No. 3 or any of that. *He is No. 1 by far*. Beethoven had 9 symphonic masterpieces? Haydn had 12 just in his London symphonies. (And let's not forget that Beethoven's first is a just Haydn's 62 symphony (Finale) merged with his 98th (Adagio)).
> As for learning to love this man, I would reccommend all the London symphonies. You've got it all there - the true colors of music.
> Besides, I would try his variation movements - his individuality from any other composer shines in these movements' because he likes to keep the theme in his variations - and create unbelieveable contrapunctal masterpieces.
> Top 5 variations? I would say the slow movement from the "Emperor" quartet (Op. 76 No. 3), the adagio of the "Surprise" symphony (No. 94), the opening movement of the E-Flat minor (Yes, _minor_) trio (No. 41), the Andante and Variations in F minor and the first movement of the E-Flat Major Quartet (Op. 76 No. 6). Oh, the 56th piano sonata's first movement is also good. So is the 58th. So are the first two movement from the "Gypsy Rondo" trio (no. 39). Ooh, and the slow movement of the "Clock" (No. 101). Oops, that's ten.
> Enjoy!


I completely share your enthusiasm for the great Joseph Haydn!


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock

hpowders said:


> I completely share your enthusiasm for the great Joseph Haydn!


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


----------



## hpowders

HaydnBearstheClock said:


> ----------------------


That looks like my contribution to the "Atonal Music Can Be Fun" thread.


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock

Haydn is an amazing composer with an endless store of ideas. Definitely my no. 1 right now.


----------



## hpowders

HaydnBearstheClock said:


> Haydn is an amazing composer with an endless store of ideas. Definitely my no. 1 right now.


What a shock!! Completely surprised!! :lol:


----------



## Blancrocher

hpowders said:


> That looks like my contribution to the "Atonal Music Can Be Fun" thread.


Hm--seems like you made a minimalist composition in that thread, hpowders.


----------



## trazom

hpowders said:


> Haydn knew how to play the game....unlike poor Mozart.


Not really. Mozart played 'the game' for years working under the archbishop in Salzburg from 12 until about 25 years old and simply lost patience. He was ambitious, wanted public success, and is one of the first examples of the freelance musician.


----------



## KenOC

trazom said:


> Not really. Mozart played 'the game' for years working under the archbishop in Salzburg from 12 until about 25 years old and simply lost patience. He was ambitious, wanted public success, and is one of the first examples of the freelance musician.


Haydn also became something of a freelancer starting in 1779, when his new contract with the Esterhazy's allowed him to have his music published where he liked. Then in 1790, the orchestra was mostly released and his salary reduced substantially, although he still received a moderate pension, and he was allowed to go forth as he wished. Which he did!

Mozart, of course, was solely on his own in the latter part of his life, an arrangement that didn't work too well all the time. Beethoven was in similar straits, even accepting at one point the position of Kapellmeister to Napoleon's brother in Cassell. The promise of a permanent stipend to remain in Vienna caused him to withdraw his acceptance of that post.


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock

hpowders said:


> What a shock!! Completely surprised!! :lol:


Ah, so you're 'Surprise'd, I see, I see .


----------



## hpowders

HaydnBearstheClock said:


> Ah, so you're 'Surprise'd, I see, I see .


Yes I'm # 94'ed!!! :lol:


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock

When I go to my university library, I often get locker numbers like 103 or 104, and you know what I'm thinking when I see them.


----------



## hpowders

And I'm sure as you are opening your combination lock, the university band gives you an appropriate drumroll!


----------



## hpowders

A while back my favorite classical radio station was 104 on the dial.


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock

hpowders said:


> And I'm sure as you are opening your combination lock, the university band gives you an appropriate drumroll!


Yeah, and when I open it, it sounds like a Paukenschlag.


----------



## KenOC

"Oh Franz, another symphony? Why don't you just play one of the old ones -- nobody will know the difference."

Heh-heh...


----------



## hpowders

HaydnBearstheClock said:


> Yeah, and when I open it, it sounds like a Paukenschlag.


It's a Miracle that happens.


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock

KenOC said:


> "Oh Franz, another symphony? Why don't you just play one of the old ones -- nobody will know the difference."
> 
> Heh-heh...


Haydn's symphonies do not sound the same - he is one of the most varied symphonic writers, imo. Even though he structured his symphonies in a similar manner, his genius allowed him to instill freshness into every work.


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock

hpowders said:


> It's a Miracle that happens.


Yes, and this Miracle happens 102 times.


----------



## hpowders

HaydnBearstheClock said:


> Yes, and this Miracle happens 102 times.


Yes. Incorrectly attached to #96 for years, but it really was #102, my favorite of the London 12, by the way.


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock

hpowders said:


> Yes. Incorrectly attached to #96 for years, but it really was #102, my favorite of the London 12, by the way.


Ah, the 102. It may be the most experimental of the bunch; the orchestration is awesome in it. Always loved the slow Introduction to the symphony. But all the Londoners are excellent; they're a musical treasure trove .


----------



## hpowders

HaydnBearstheClock said:


> Ah, the 102. It may be the most experimental of the bunch; the orchestration is awesome in it. Always loved the slow Introduction to the symphony. But all the Londoners are excellent; they're a musical treasure trove .


Yes. It will be time for me to play the London 12 again soon. I'm just waiting for The (alarm) Clock to give me the signal to begin.


----------



## Brahmsian Colors

Blake said:


> I'd certainly put Haydn on the same throne as Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven... without a doubt. I think that shrugging him off as a simply 'happy' composer is doing a great disservice to oneself. I feel his innovations surpass all of them, actually. He dove into many different emotional realms, but he was never overindulgent in the darker emotions. I just think he was such a sound and solid guy that he didn't have the urge to. Everything feels so completely content in his music, as if he wasn't worried about a thing.


Very nicely stated


----------



## hpowders

HaydnBearstheClock said:


> Haydn's symphonies do not sound the same - he is one of the most varied symphonic writers, imo. Even though he structured his symphonies in a similar manner, his genius allowed him to instill freshness into every work.


Haydn follows the same basic formula for his mature symphonies, which is why to the uninitiated, Haydn's symphonies sound similar. His genius, like Brahms in his ensemble chamber music, is producing so many varied masterpieces using what is essentially the same cookbook formula.


----------



## hpowders

For symphonies, it's Haydn, Beethoven and Mahler at the very top. Short and sweet.


----------



## Brahmsian Colors

hpowders said:


> For symphonies, it's Haydn, Beethoven and Mahler at the very top. Short and sweet.


Realizing the love we both have for Brahms, I'm surprised you didn't include his symphonies on the same level.


----------



## jdec

Several Haydn's symphonies are great, no doubt about it, but none of them is a "top ten", not even a "top twenty" according to the poll made to 151 living conductors:

http://www.talkclassical.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=87759&d=1471197779

The "Top ten symphonies" list was made by Beethoven, Mozart, Mahler, Brahms, Tchaikovsky and Berlioz. For comparison, a Mozart symphony was nominated (as one of the best 3 ever) by* 43* of these conductors, whereas a symphony by Haydn was nominated by only *7* conductors.

This was the resulting "top twenty symphonies" list:

1. Beethoven 3 
2. Beethoven 9
3. Mozart 41
4. Mahler 9 
5. Mahler 2 
6. Brahms 4 
7. Berlioz Symphonie Fantastique 
8. Brahms Symphony 1 
9. Tchaikovsky 6 
10. Mahler 3 
11 Beethoven 5
12 Brahms 3
13 Bruckner 8
14 Sibelius 7
15 Mozart 40
16 Beethoven 7
17 Shostakovich 5
18 Brahms 2
19 Beethoven 6
20 Bruckner 7


----------



## ArtMusic

It is a fact that Haydn was one of the most original composers of all times. He is definitely one of the greatest.


----------



## DavidA

I don't rate Haydn as one of the very greatest along with Bach, Mozart and Beethoven at their best, but a work like The Creation shows just how great he could be.


----------



## tdc

I agree Haydn was great, but not top tier and Brahms Symphonies are far better.


----------



## Chronochromie

Haydn at his best (symphonies, string quartets and choral music) is as good as any other great composer as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## Magnum Miserium

jdec said:


> Several Haydn's symphonies are great, no doubt about it, but none of them is a "top ten", not even a "top twenty" according to the poll made to 151 living conductors:


Conductors don't love Haydn because you can't do this to Haydn: https://i.ytimg.com/vi/PvLjERNUvtQ/hqdefault.jpg

(Though actually that particular conductor had a keen appreciation of Haydn and programmed him unusually often.)



Chronochromie said:


> Haydn at his best (symphonies, string quartets and choral music) is as good as any other great composer as far as I'm concerned.


And piano trios!


----------



## jdec

Magnum Miserium said:


> Conductors don't love Haydn because you can't do this to Haydn: https://i.ytimg.com/vi/PvLjERNUvtQ/hqdefault.jpg
> 
> (Though actually that particular conductor had a keen appreciation of Haydn and programmed him unusually often.)


I'm sure conductors would laugh at your assumption. So they can do that to Mozart (since he is in the list)?


----------



## Magnum Miserium

jdec said:


> I'm sure conductors would laugh at your assumption.


Well I laugh at their neglect of Haydn and Haydn is a vastly greater artist than any of them so I win.



jdec said:


> So they can do that to Mozart (since he is in the list)?


Of course they can do that to Mozart - not to, like, the Linz, but def to 40 and 41, and oh, look what two Mozart symphonies made the top 20! - though not as much as to the Romantics, which is why they still have freaking Bruckner and Sibelius ahead of 40.


----------



## jdec

Magnum Miserium said:


> Well I laugh at their neglect of Haydn and Haydn is a vastly greater artist than any of them so I win.


But they are vastly greater artists than you. No my friend, they win


----------



## Magnum Miserium

jdec said:


> But they are vastly greater artists than you. No my friend, they win


Okay maybe but they still lose to Haydn so they're still losing losers who lose.


----------



## tdc

Chronochromie said:


> Haydn at his best (symphonies, string quartets and choral music) is as good as any other great composer as far as I'm concerned.


Well I think many would disagree with this including Haydn himself, who acknowledged Mozart was without a doubt the better composer and by a good margin.


----------



## Chronochromie

tdc said:


> Well I think many would disagree with this including Haydn himself, who acknowledged Mozart was without a doubt the better composer and by a good margin.


If he meant it, then I must disagree with his thoughts about himself. It's not clear to me at all that Mozart was "clearly" better, they are both the giants of the Classical era, each with their own strengths and mastery over certain genres.


----------



## jdec

Chronochromie said:


> If he meant it, then I must disagree with his thoughts about himself.


He meant it, as he said "_Before God and as an honest man I tell you..._" when he praised Mozart as the greatest.

But many other great composers praised Mozart a lot too, as many quotes from them show it. We don't find they praise Haydn as high. This does not mean that Haydn was not a great composer though.


----------



## Chronochromie

jdec said:


> He meant it, as he said "_Before God and as an honest man I tell you..._" when he praised Mozart as the greatest.
> 
> But many other great composers praised Mozart a lot too, as many quotes from them show it. We don't find they praise Haydn as high. This does not mean that Haydn was not a great composer though.


A modest man.

I don't doubt that Mozart was highly praised by many composers, why would I? I love Mozart too, but even if every single one of my favorite composers commented negatively on Haydn (like Schumann did) that wouldn't change my opinion one bit.


----------



## jdec

Chronochromie said:


> A modest man.


Yes, modest and honest.

_To the musicologist Charles Burney, he said "I have often been flattered by my friends with having some genius, but he was much my superior." In a letter to his friend Marianne von Genzinger, Haydn confessed to dreaming about Mozart's work, listening happily to a performance of Mozart's opera The Marriage of Figaro._


----------



## Chronochromie

Mozart did very much admire Haydn, for his part. So did Beethoven, even if he didn't want to admit it.


----------



## bz3

Magnum Miserium said:


> Okay maybe but they still lose to Haydn so they're still losing losers who lose.


Alright Donald let's not tear up the classical establishment too.


----------



## Magnum Miserium

bz3 said:


> Alright Donald let's not tear up the classical establishment too.


Well if you want I guess you can say Haydn is a better composer than Bruckner only because Vlad hacked the scores.

Separately, here's something: http://www.harkavagrant.com/index.php?id=219

Also, for those who would use Haydn's candid praise of Mozart against him, here's Mozart's candid praise of Haydn: "No one else can do everything, jest and shock, create laughter and profound emotion, as Haydn can, and no one can do everything as well as Haydn can."

(The friendship between these two colossal minds is one of the sweetest stories in music.)


----------



## Pugg

Magnum Miserium said:


> Conductors don't love Haydn because you can't do this to Haydn: https://i.ytimg.com/vi/PvLjERNUvtQ/hqdefault.jpg
> 
> (Though actually that particular conductor had a keen appreciation of Haydn and programmed him unusually often.)
> 
> And piano trios!


Perfectly played by the Beaux Arts Trio, must have.


----------



## jdec

Magnum Miserium said:


> Also, for those who would use Haydn's candid praise of Mozart against him, here's Mozart's candid praise of Haydn: "No one else can do everything, jest and shock, create laughter and profound emotion, as Haydn can, and no one can do everything as well as Haydn can."


Now that's modesty. Of course Mozart can .


----------



## KenOC

The Beaux Arts are great, but the Haydn Trio Eisenstadt is strong competition. These were available as a $10 download a while ago. Alas, no longer!

https://www.amazon.com/Haydn-J-Pian...=sr_1_1?s=music&ie=UTF8&qid=1483167165&sr=1-1


----------



## Haydn man

I love Haydn's music and much of his work I would describe as great, the London Symphonies and later string quartets being examples I would happily use to justify this view. The consistency and originality in Haydn's output is quite remarkable
However, for me both Mozart and Beethoven scaled higher peaks with their music and Mozart PC No.23 and Beethoven PC No.5 are to my mind on another level.
But these 2 have enough fanboys so I shall stick to championing the 'Pappa' who showed them how it should be done


----------



## Heck148

Haydn was a great composer, endlessly inventive, yet, like Mozart, able to channel his creativity into coherent, consistent forms. 

For me, the ability to conduct Haydn symphonies well is a standard criterion upon which to judge conductors...if a conductor cannot present the formal musical ideas of a Haydn symphony convincingly, what is he/she going to do with the greater complexities of Mahler, Bruckner, Shostakovich, etc??
Most of my favorite conductors do a great job with Haydn - Reiner, Monteux, Walter, Szell, Solti, Bernstein, etc, etc...one exception is Toscanini, who certainly understood the formal structure of Haydn, but, for me, he pushes too hard...too driven....I fell the same about AT's Mozart, generally....


----------



## Magnum Miserium

Heck148 said:


> For me, the ability to conduct Haydn symphonies well is a standard criterion upon which to judge conductors...if a conductor cannot present the formal musical ideas of a Haydn symphony convincingly, what is he/she going to do with the greater complexities of Mahler, Bruckner, Shostakovich, etc??


Often he/she will do just fine. With Mahcknerkovich's broad gestures and length you can afford to ignore details. With Haydn you can't.


----------



## Heck148

If you can't figure it out with Haydn, you probably won't figure it out with Bruckner or Mahler...with FJH, the form is pretty clear, so is the harmonic and melodic structure, the rising and falling of the action, so to speak...


----------



## Magnum Miserium

Heck148 said:


> If you can't figure it out with Haydn, you probably won't figure it out with Bruckner or Mahler...with FJH, the form is pretty clear, so is the harmonic and melodic structure, the rising and falling of the action, so to speak...


Well consider Karajan for example. Good with Mahler, pedestrian with Haydn.


----------



## Heck148

Magnum Miserium said:


> Well consider Karajan for example. Good with Mahler, pedestrian with Haydn.


for me, HvK isn't very good with much of anything.


----------



## ArtMusic

There is something about Haydn's Classicism, the construct, the formality and elegance that is unlike many other. Mozart has a personal touch of invitation, but Haydn's is the epitome of 18th century Classicism that takes you into that beautiful world of artistic sensibility.


----------



## Larkenfield

HvK... My experience with HvK’s Mahler Fifth and Six is that he played them with the volume, feel, and dynamics of Bruckner. I never made it through either recording after numerous attempts. I felt that he never fully understood the composer as much as someone like Bruno Walter, even if he apparently tried. I wonder if anyone ever asked him how he felt about Mahler being banned in Germany and the rest of Europe for as long as the Nazis were in power. On that point alone, I would imagine that he had to overcome some degree of prejudice in order to perform the Jewish composer at all, and I believe that his Ninth was far more insightful and appropriate to the spirit of the composer and an insightful interpretation. But not the others. Mahler was not Bruckner. Being so wide of the mark led to a great distrust of his conducting, whether Haydn or anyone, except perhaps for some of his Beethoven, Sibelius and Brahms performances, which I thought were quite excellent.


----------



## starthrower

ArtMusic said:


> There is something about Haydn's Classicism, the construct, the formality and elegance that is unlike many other. Mozart has a personal touch of invitation, but Haydn's is the epitome of 18th century Classicism that takes you into that beautiful world of artistic sensibility.


Ah, yes! Good music to have piddling away in the background while sipping tea and engaging in polite conversation. It's worked just fine for 250 years.


----------



## hammeredklavier

millionrainbows said:


> I agree that there are expressive melodies, and tension and suspense, and other purely musical and dramatic devices;
> 
> ...but Haydn did not intend to be 'introspective' or cause you to 'introspect' with him, like the Romantics later did, because that was not the intent or function of music in those times and circumstances.
> 
> Haydn was not trying to 'communicate to your soul in the baring of his own soul' as Beethoven was doing. He was creating entertaining and emotionally engaging music for the pleasure of the Esterhazy Court.
> 
> Haydn did not write this music to communicate with Humanity at large, but only for an elite. Surely, one senses this when one listens.
> 
> And surely, this is the reason Haydn and Mozart are continually challenged on this point, as this thread's existence demonstrates, and why many new listeners simply do not 'get' this music. Their intuition and gut-feeling is correct: This music was not composed for them.
> 
> *Music which is "composed by humans, for humans, for human purposes" is art, if it's good;* and to be art, it must be a 'mapping of experience' from composer to listener. It's a communication of soul to soul.
> 
> If any other *purpose *obstructs that universal humanity, such as commercial pressure, or pressure from whatever dominant market power is in place, then the work was not created with purity of purpose, and is tainted. Works can 'transcend' these pressures, but the original intent of the creator must be intact, in spite of the ostensible purpose or utilitarian context it emerged from. *True* *art is like religion in this sense, and its purpose is purely metaphysical.
> *
> The reason Classicism is recognized as Classicism is because of its relative failure, in most cases, to fully transcend those extra-artistic pressures, as Romanticism did in most cases; that was Romanticism's intent, at any rate. Thus, with Classicism, we are left with a detached objectivity created by this distancing from universal soul-to-soul communication; we are left with a 'flat affect' and lack of profound contact when we attempt to 'sublimely contemplate' it.
> 
> The only possible redemption of Classical is in the realm of religious music; but even there, the institution and its dogma are first and foremost, and if you believe along the same dogmatic lines, then your 'soul' has been communicated to, but only within these prescribed parameters of common belief. This is as 'sincere' as Classicism gets.


Many people have this misconception Romantic period music is universally more emotionally appealing than classicism for everyone. It is not.
I find it too full of empty melodrama, self-indulgence, minor-key corn, perversity, especially in the earlier half of the period. For example, when I listen to Schumann's 4th symphony or piano concerto in A minor, or Mendelssohn Violin Concerto in E minor, it seems like the main focus is excessive melodrama and minor-key corn. Haydn isn't any less emotive than these allegedly-emotionally-profound 'Romantics'. 
Whenever I listen to Haydn's 78th and 83th symphonies, both of which employ better orchestration, depth of texture and counterpoint than the Schumann, I'm like "now, that's what I'd call a symphony!". Then I go back to Schumann sometime later to listen to the same "Romantically-emotive" themes reused over multiple movements or the weakly attempted canons or fugatos or part writing within his orchestral works, I sometimes laugh in the inside. 
Unlike the Romantics, minor-key melodrama is never the main focus in Haydn. It's rather disappointing how Schumann revised his work and still isn't really better than Haydn, even though he had far more instrumental resources than Haydn.
Likewise, I find most short 'miniatures' of the Romantic era somewhat boring (like Grieg's lyric pieces and Mendelssohn's Songs without words) ones that the lack structural solidity and the motivic development (of classical sonatas and fugues), and indulge in minor-key melodrama, in the way New Age piano music does, to some extent. 
Hence I said in another thread, I find Mozart's K511 emotionally deeper than Chopin Ballade No.4, and K608 more than Liszt's Mazzepa. He knows just the 'right notes' to instill wide variety of emotion and he does it better than the Romantic keyboardists.


----------



## Larkenfield

I greatly enjoy Haydn and he has a more personal side, but it's not the Romantics' fault if others can rarely venture beyond Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven, thinking that they're always superior to what came afterwards and are the bee's knees. Maybe someone would like to post something by Haydn where he sounds like he had the experience of personal love, whereas that warm feeling of romantic and personal love can easily be heard in Schumann, and though rare, Haydn does have his more intimate moments:






Beautiful. Intimate. Wonderful.

Every period of development in music has its advantages and shortcomings, and for the Romantics it was a wider emotional range whose music says, "I exist as a person and this is how I am experiencing the world." Composers were liberated, regardless of those times when they may have seemed self-indulgent. The composer never existed in the same way during the Classical era and the composer's personal life was expected to be kept more out of the way and in the background. That's why Romanticism finally developed and was needed, for it acknowledged more of the inner side of life of the individual than the Classicists could overall only dream of expressing because of the constraints and control that was expected of them at the time despite some exceptions.

Maybe if Haydn hadn't been married to a shrew of a woman, rather than a fantastic woman such as Clara Schumann, there would have been more writing like the above. It may come as a shock, but there was life and meaning in music after the Classicists's great contributions to the art and their time had ended because the world had changed with Napoleon and the participation of the royals and aristocrates as an audience was dramatically and forceably reduced. It happened, and the world called for different types of composers who were more interested in conformed to their own ideals of what was right for them rather than what had been inspired by the classical ideals of ancient Greece and Rome. It's such a powerful idea that it still exists today despite all the trends in music that have come and gone.






Beautiful. Intimate. Wonderful.


----------



## Guest

hammeredklavier said:


> Many people have this misconception Romantic period music is universally more emotionally appealing than classicism for everyone. It is not.


Quite right. You don't have to hang around TC for long to discover that there is no music or composer that has universal appeal.



hammeredklavier said:


> minor-key corn, perversity,


Can you explain what these terms mean in relation to music?



hammeredklavier said:


> Whenever I listen to Haydn's 78th and 83th symphonies, both of which employ *better* orchestration, depth of texture and counterpoint than the Schumann, I'm like "now, that's what I'd call a symphony!".


"better" or just different? Romantic music would sound the same as its classical predecessors if it was written in the same way as Haydn, wouldn't it?



hammeredklavier said:


> Unlike the Romantics, minor-key melodrama is never the main focus in Haydn.


I don't see that "minor-key melodrama" is the focus in "the Romantics" either.



hammeredklavier said:


> Hence I said in another thread, I find Mozart's K511 emotionally deeper than Chopin Ballade No.4, and K608 more than Liszt's Mazzepa. He knows just the 'right notes' to instill wide variety of emotion and he does it better than the Romantic keyboardists.


Ironically, your personal emotional response is a Romantic response that real Classicists would disdain.

I find I have an emotional response to all the music I enjoy, whether it's Haydn or Mahler, Mozart or Debussy, Bartok or Bach - between them all, they appeal to my full emotional range. (Note that my emotional range will not be exactly the same as yours.)


----------



## larold

I've read and heard before the boring label attached to Haydn. In my experience it comes principally from people relatively new to classical music who spend most of their time and energy on highly emotive music like Tchaikovsky, Beethoven, Richard Strauss or Mahler.

If that is your appetite the subtlety and humor in a lot of Haydn's music won't be visible to you. And it's unlikely you are unfamiliar with his more volatile works -- the Creation oratorio or Nelson mass -- though Haydn, because of personality, time in life and training, never becomes incendiary.

Where many composers can be summed up in a handful of works or speak in only a single voice much of the time Haydn is a fountain that overflows in these respects. It takes years to learn his subtle ways and humor. Even when it is obvious, as in the Symphony 60, a newcomer won't get it. And because it doesn't hit him or her over the head like Ein Heldenleben or Beethoven's 5th symphony the impact won't be the same.

Haydn rewards long discovery in ways other composers do not. I was fortunate to get him early in my years as a listener and collector and know many who did not. Most of them came around later, when they changed and were able to hear him with new ears.


----------



## hammeredklavier

MacLeod said:


> Quite right. You don't have to hang around TC for long to discover that there is no music or composer that has universal appeal...."better" or just different? Romantic music would sound the same as its classical predecessors if it was written in the same way as Haydn, wouldn't it?


I was merely responding to people who said Romantic music is more emotionally appealing simply because they (allegedly) convey "profound personal-expression" even with all the "flaws". and No. Schumann, Schubert just couldn't do it as good as Haydn. Just listen to Schumann 'doubling the hell out of everything' in his 4th symphony and piano concerto. Let's not start discussing the orchestration and instrumental balance of Chopin concertos. Many of the major works from this period just not at the appropriate level of craftsmanship.



MacLeod said:


> I don't see that "minor-key melodrama" is the focus in "the Romantics" either.


I said "especially in the earlier half of the period"-- it is true many of the 'early Romantic giants' weren't as good in handling large forms as the Classical masters, so they mass-produced a bunch of miniatures, most of them being easy 'A-B-A' ternary forms. Take one exemplary composer from this time, Chopin. In the vast number of Waltzes and Mazurkas he wrote, the focus is indeed sentimental melodies. Listen to Mazurka Op.67 No.4 in A minor, and countless other Waltzes and Mazurkas (which make up like 1/3 of his entire output) where he uses endless repetitions ta-da-da, ta-da-da, ta-da-da, ta-da-da left hand figuration throughout. (with a few exceptions of late ones like the final F minor)
Sure they have good (sentimental) melodies, but what can you say about these works in terms of harmony, counterpoint, structure, motivic development, instrumental texture? You should have a look at what I wrote in Great melodists? 
I sometimes ask myself how hard would it be to write stuff like Op.28 Preludes No. 2, 6, 7, 11, 20, if I was a music composer in the same period as him. If you look at the lefthand part writing of Preludes No.14, 18, you'll see what I mean "how much else is there in the music except minor-key sentimentality?" If you take away the sentimentalism- there's nothing there.






I think it's unfair it's always the Classicists who are blamed for writing 'easy music' compared with the Romantics, I'm just making sure everyone know Romantic music is not necessarily better music from Classical era music for everyone. Lots of people here seem to forget this. They said it.

"...And surely, this is the reason *Haydn and Mozart are continually challenged on this point,*.. 
...The reason *Classicism is recognized as Classicism is because of its relative failure*,.."

Stuff like the E major section of Polonaise Op.53 where he repeats [ E D# C# B ] in the lefthand octaves for 2 PAGES straight, or Polonaise Op.44 middle section where he repeats the same march theme with both hands in unison for 2 minutes with no interesting modulation-- is just not 'intelligent', 'inspiring' keyboard writing in my view. Yet, he's always hailed as the GREATEST piano composer ever. There are so many examples of these, the middle section of Nocturne Op.48 No.1 in C minor, you name it. I'm rather more surprised he still wrote at this 'level' even though he so much more 'artistic freedom' from the Classical masters.


----------



## starthrower

I recently purchased a complete set of Haydn string quartets. I don't know anything about his music other than I want to do some exploring to see if there's any pieces that I'll enjoy. Are there any specific quartets that are considered his best work, or that have some good melodies? I have the Angeles Quartet box. A bit overwhelming for a novice, but that's what I bought.

I don't know what it is about Haydn, but for a composer who wrote so much music, I can never remember anything I've listened to of his. It just doesn't seem to stick in my head.


----------



## KenOC

One of Haydn's most striking quartets is Op. 76 No. 2 in D minor, the "Quinten." The opening movement is based on a four-note theme in fifths (thus the name) and that is, in fact, the only theme. It is developed obsessively. There is also a so-called "Witch's Scherzo" which is based on a severe and loud minor-key canon at the unison that more of less stomps around...unlike any other music of Haydn, at least that I've heard.


----------



## Bulldog

For me, both Haydn and Chopin are fantastic composers. By the way, promoting favorites by dumping on other composers is a poor move to make.


----------



## starthrower

Okay Ken, I'll give that one a listen.


----------



## Tchaikov6

KenOC said:


> One of Haydn's most striking quartets is Op. 76 No. 2 in D minor, the "Quinten." The opening movement is based on a four-note theme in fifths (thus the name) and that is, in fact, the only theme. It is developed obsessively. There is also a so-called "Witch's Scherzo" which is based on a severe and loud minor-key canon at the unison that more of less stomps around...unlike any other music of Haydn, at least that I've heard.


I recently performed that in a quartet, and the first movement is remarkable. It forsees Beethoven's fifth, with development of a short motif rather than "melody." It is one of Haydn's most unique, and greatest pieces, imo.


----------



## Mandryka

c,j\bzakjzasbhcm,kszabchzas,kc bnhzasl,kvcnhsza,kl vc


----------



## Mandryka

starthrower said:


> Okay Ken, I'll give that one a listen.


I know why you think what you think. In my view the more interesting, the boldest, quartets, are earlier, op 20 certainly and op 33 possibly. This comes from just superficial listening, I'm sure that real Haydn people can find really fascinating things in op 76 for example, or op 50 -- the music is certainly agreeable enough. It also helped me to go to informed performances of the early quartets I like -- London Haydn Quartet


----------



## Bulldog

Mandryka said:


> I know why you think what you think. In my view the more interesting, the boldest, quartets, are earlier, op 20 certainly and op 33 possibly. This comes from just superficial listening, I'm sure that real Haydn people can find really fascinating things in op 76 for example, or op 50 -- the music is certainly agreeable enough. It also helped me to go to informed performances of the early quartets I like -- London Haydn Quartet


I especially agree with your views on op. 20. Also, I love the London Haydn Quartet's recordings on Hyperion. I must admit to having a special affection for the Solomon Qt. in op. 20 - also on Hyperion but sadly not in circulation these days.


----------



## starthrower

Mandryka said:


> I know why you think what you think.


Really? I don't have any opinion on these pieces yet. I'm just getting started.


----------



## Funny

Not to drag the Haydn-vs.-the-Romantics argument back in, but one point I saw missing was that in Haydn's era and the milieu he was working in, he was constrained to a great degree by parameters of "good taste." No matter how much he may have wanted to pour his heart out, there was pushback when a court composer of the 1770s and 1780s went too far with that. It's contested somewhat, but pretty much agreed that the Prince himself pulled Haydn back from the extremes of his Sturm and Drang period and requested that he focus more on insouciant gentility. Even outside the court Haydn had many critics constantly slamming him for his excesses - one of his greatest transgressions being the mixing of serious and humorous music in the same passage. Yet he still found ways within those bounds to create marvelously emotive music and to bring classical music straight up to the brink of Romanticism.

And as for the latter, I gotta agree with hammeredklavier. I grew up steeped in the Great Romantics, loving the Big Sweeping Gestures and Powerful Minor Chords that connoted truly Serious Art, all the while hearing 18th-century work as primitive, simple and quaint. But over time many of those big "soul-baring" gestures have curdled for me and seemed to be more ego-driven bombastic grandstanding than sincere attempts to connect, human to human. Nowadays I hear that attempt, and I hear it succeeding, in Haydn.


----------



## regenmusic

Joseph Haydn - "Farewell" Symphony No. 45 in F-sharp minor, Hob. I:45 Veda Senfonisi

Wonderful Experiencing a lot of warmth and intelligence in this work.


----------



## Mandryka

starthrower said:


> Really? I don't have any opinion on these pieces yet. I'm just getting started.


Oh sorry, I was confusing you with the bloke who said this



starthrower said:


> Ah, yes! Good music to have piddling away in the background while sipping tea and engaging in polite conversation. It's worked just fine for 250 years.


----------



## KenOC

Mandryka said:


> I know why you think what you think...


Hmmm... It seems to me that Haydn's quartets are all of value from the earliest (certainly before Op. 20) to the very end. The symphonies are similar. Can anybody really say that such-and-such series of symphonies are "better" than ay other grouping, earlier or later? I don't think so.


----------



## Gallus

I definitely agree that the most interesting quartets are in the op. 20 collection, they're endlessly fascinating to me with their abrupt turns and ideas coming out of nowhere. But the symphonies are quite different because the orchestral forces available to Haydn increased exponentially over the course of his life as the role of the symphony form developed, most of the earlier symphonies I've listened to seem more like divertimenti for the Esterhazy household compared to the grand public statements of the last London symphonies with their trumpet fanfares and crashing timpani which nickname the pieces.


----------



## Mandryka

KenOC said:


> Hmmm... It seems to me that Haydn's quartets are all of value from the earliest (certainly before Op. 20) to the very end. The symphonies are similar.


I haven't heard the ones before op 20. I think that the op 20s are the most interesting, and possibly the op 33s. The later ones are, I'm sure, charming. I know nothing about the symphonies.


----------



## SomeAustrianBloke

I've been following a few threads on Haydn for a while, and I'm really surprised, to say the least.

I'm into classical music for a short time compared to most of the members in here (and I can't stress this enough - as a silent observer - many of you have inspired me to check out various things, so, thank you all).

The funny thing is, it was Haydns "Farewell" symphony, which got me into classical music in the first place. And then I really wanted to hear more, and I've ended up with his "Sturm und Drang" Symphonies by Trevor Pinnock and the English Concert, which got me more interested in him, so I Purchased his Paris and London Symphonies by Karajan & BPO, Piano Concertos by Andreas Staier and FBO (I really, really love this record), Piano Trios by Patrick Cohen, Erich Höbarth & Christophe Coin, another record of Piano Trios by the Vienna Piano Trio, Sting Quartets by Takacs Quartet and his "Seasons" by Karajan and BPO. So, these records were my starting point into classical music. I really took my weekends, at least my sundays, to listen to his music without distractions from the outside world, so I got to know his records inside and out.

As time went on I also bought music from Bach, Mozart, Telemann, Vivaldi, Fux (one of my favourites besides Haydn), and also some Bruckner and Strauss, and I'm not in the position to argue (due to the fact that I lack some knowledge, as most of you would phrase it) which composer is the technically "better" one, and all these things.

I get that the music of Haydn may not be considered as "profound", or "deep" or "highly emotional" by many people, and maybe they are right, maybe he might appear as "lightweight" compared to Beethoven.

But there's one thing I personally owe to Haydn, the reason why I consider him my absolute favourite composer (from what I know now, but I've started listening to Bruce Springsteen at the age of six and I still love him to death) is, when I listen to his Piano Concertos, or his Piano Trios, for example, I can't help but smile and feel good. That can't be wrong, can it? Music which will put a smile on my face after the roughest day at work, during the ugliest weather - I have to cherish it.

So, to me - Haydn is amazing.

Please go on with your more technical discussions, I really want to learn as much as I can, I just couldn't resist to comment on the great Haydn


----------



## Ras

starthrower said:


> Are there any specific quartets that are considered his best work, or that have some good melodies? I have the Angeles Quartet box.


Start with some of the famous quartets with "nick-names" : *"The Lark" opus 64, no.5 - "The Emperor" (op. 76, no. 3) - "The Rider"(op. 74, no. 3) - "The Bird"(opus 33, no.3).

*Angeles is a good place to start - well played and well recorded.


----------



## starthrower

Mandryka said:


> Oh sorry, I was confusing you with the bloke who said this


Yeah, I was reacting to the stuffy passage that sounded like it was lifted from some crusty old music writer. Being a bit facetious, but in truth there is quite a bit politeness in this kind of music that fails to engage me as a listener. I find the same with Mozart's quartets.


----------



## Bulldog

Ras said:


> Start with some of the famous quartets with "nick-names" : *"The Lark" opus 64, no.5 - "The Emperor" (op. 76, no. 3) - "The Rider"(op. 74, no. 3) - "The Bird"(opus 33, no.3).
> 
> *Angeles is a good place to start - well played and well recorded.


Well, I think that period instrument performances are a great place to start and finish.


----------



## Ras

Bulldog said:


> Well, I think that period instrument performances are a great place to start and finish.


They are a good place to start and maybe even to finish yes, but *Starthrower* already bought the Angeles and I'm afraid the two sets on period instruments I am familiar with are out of print (that is :* Mosaiques on Naive and Festetics on Arcana* I believe…)


----------



## Bulldog

Ras said:


> They are a good place to start and maybe even to finish yes, but *Starthrower* already bought the Angeles and I'm afraid the two sets on period instruments I am familiar with are out of print (that is :* Mosaiques on Naive and Festetics on Arcana* I believe…)


The logic that record companies use to discontinue recordings escapes me.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

Ras said:


> They are a good place to start and maybe even to finish yes, but *Starthrower* already bought the Angeles and I'm afraid the two sets on period instruments I am familiar with are out of print (that is :* Mosaiques on Naive and Festetics on Arcana* I believe…)


You can get the Festetics on mp3 at cd universe:

https://www.cduniverse.com/productinfo.asp?pid=9400582


----------



## Ras

Johnnie Burgess said:


> You can get the Festetics on mp3 at cd universe:


Thank you - But I'm doing fine streaming them on www.spotify.com


----------



## EdwardBast

Gallus said:


> I definitely agree that the most interesting quartets are in the op. 20 collection, they're endlessly fascinating to me with their abrupt turns and ideas coming out of nowhere. But the symphonies are quite different because the orchestral forces available to Haydn increased exponentially over the course of his life as the role of the symphony form developed, most of the earlier symphonies I've listened to seem more like divertimenti for the Esterhazy household compared to the grand public statements of the last London symphonies with their trumpet fanfares and crashing timpani which nickname the pieces.


The symphonies nos 40-70 (roughly) are great in the same way as the quartets op. 20. Some of us prefer them to the London Symphonies.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Bulldog said:


> For me, both Haydn and Chopin are fantastic composers. By the way, promoting favorites by dumping on other composers is a poor move to make.


_" This, then, is Classicism. This is what Classicism means, and to see this, one must *compare* it to what came after, namely, *Romanticism.*
This comparison, and this awareness of the difference, makes sense of all the doubts about Haydn (and Mozart as well); "_

Indeed both were fantastic composers, the problem is that I don't really sympathize with people who compare Classicism with Romanticism in Romanticism-centric ideology. People talk of how profound music gets starting with Beethoven yet they don't talk of how the first generation of Romantic composers, Mendelssohn, Schumann, Schubert, Berlioz are mere 'second rates' after Beethoven. How Mendelssohn's String Quartet in F minor Op.80 is a second rate 'copy' of Beethoven. Speaking of 'profundity', I never hear the profundity like Mozart's 6-minute K477 



 in Brahms' 4th. It just seems to me like Brahms is killing himself trying to achieve the flow, the balance, the clarity of the bygone age. Tchaikovsky's 6th is one of few orchestral pieces of the period I can relate to, but even this doesn't speak to me like the Mozart does.

No wonder why most of the Romantics disliked each other. Tchaikovsky even famously called Brahms "talentless b", they kept looking back to the old age for inspiration 'cause their own music wasn't inspirational enough' (probably). I'm often baffled why so many people pretend this is the universal greatest 'golden age' of music. I find the proto-minimalism of Schubert's impromptus or the repetitions of Grieg's Peer Gynt sillier than Haydn symphonies.

Chopin writes every note of last movement of 2nd sonata the same notes for both hands and ends in vuglar fortissimo chords. People call it "self-expression", but to me it sounds more like "I do what I want, regardless of how skill-less I am." It's one thing I don't think very positively about Romanticism; the extreme mentality that "I do what I want, I don't care what others think", which gets even worse in the next age. I wish I could ask him in person, 'is there a particular reason to double every note in a piece?'


----------



## Larkenfield

"Chopin writes every note of last movement of 2nd sonata the same notes for both hands and ends in vuglar fortissimo chords. People call it "self-expression", but to me it sounds more like "I do what I want, regardless of how skill-less I am."

Yes, it_ was_ rather brilliant of him after the 3rd movement Funeral March to sound like a ghostly wind whistling over a desolate graveyard, then punctuate it with the finality of his last emphatic chord-pure genius-though I suppose he could have tried substituting an impersonal fugue to pacify the Classicists after the world had changed. It takes_ imagination_ to fully understand Chopin... So, "Vulgar." Really? I don't think so. More likely he was being _ descriptive_. But let's not give Chopin credit for his powerful poetic imagination, his technical genius for writing something for two hands that only a world-class pianist could play... On the other hand, it seems highly _appropriate_ to write a brilliant passage in unison for two hands when one considers the imaginative poetry of what he was trying to convey after the 3rd movement:






Does it really need to be pointed out time and time again that Chopin was just as interested in telling a story (of course, without exactly spelling it out) as he was in brilliant technical displays?

Now, what was the problem with the Classical era despite the inventiveness of Haydn and the genius of Mozart? _These two great composers have often been easily mistaken for each other,_ or someone else, and just about everyone has done this, such as mistaking Mozart's Symphony No. 11 as being authentic when it was far more likely written by his father Leopold and Carl Ditters von Dittersdorf (discussed in another thread). THAT was sometimes the problem of Classicism, no matter how skillfully it was composed, and the Romantics never suffered from that to the same degree. There was a greater focus on nationalism and creative individuality that meant venturing into new territory.

The chance of mistaking Brahms for Tchaikovsky, or Liszt or Schumann for Chopin, was far less likely to happen because these composers were more interested in _conforming to their own ideals _than the Classicists were in _conforming to the ideals of Greece and Rome_, which had inspired Classicism in the first place, despite the great contributions of Haydn and Mozart. Unless this can be fully appreciated and understood, the dyed-in-the-wool Classicists have about as much insight into the Romantics as fingernails on a chalkboard. The Romantics represented the expanded imagination that was freed after the Classicism of Haydn and Mozart had run its course and the world had dramatically changed... They no longer had to genuflect before royalty and the aristocracy in order to survive, and inspiration could far more dictate form. That was necessary for the overall emotional expression and freedom in music. That expanded freedom overall was considered a contribution to composition, _a plus_, not a debility.

Mozart authorship confusion: https://www.talkclassical.com/58464-mozart-my-enemy-7.html#post1560268


----------



## Woodduck

Larkenfield said:


> [Hammeredklavier writes:] "Chopin writes every note of last movement of 2nd sonata the same notes for both hands and ends in vuglar fortissimo chords. People call it "self-expression", but to me it sounds more like "I do what I want, regardless of how skill-less I am."
> 
> *Yes, it was rather brilliant of him after the 3rd movement Funeral March to sound like a dry wind whistling over a desolate graveyard, though I suppose he could have tried writing an impersonal fugue to pacify the Classicists after the world had changed. It takes imagination to fully understand him.* So, "Vulgar." Really? Or more likely it's _ descriptive_. But let's not give Chopin credit for his powerful poetic imagination, his technical genius for writing something for two hands that only a world-class pianist could play... It seems highly _appropriate_ to write in unison for only two hands after the 3rd movement:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does it really need to be pointed out time and time again that Chopin was just as interested in telling a story (of course, without exactly spelling it out) as he was in brilliant technical displays?
> 
> *Now, what was the problem with the Classical era despite the inventiveness of Haydn and the genius of Mozart? These two great composers have sometime been easily mistaken for each other, or someone else, and just about everyone has done this, such as mistaking Mozart's Symphony No. 11, when it was actually written by his father Leopold and Carl Ditters von Dittersdorf. (There's a post on this in another thread.) THAT was the problem of Classicism, no matter how skillfully composed, and the Romantics weren't going to make the same mistake.* The chance of misidentifying Brahms for Tchaikovsky, or Liszt or Schumann for Chopin, was far less likely to happen because these composers were more interested in _conforming to their own ideals as composers _than the Classicists were to the ideals of Greece and Rome, despite the great contributions of Haydn and Mozart. Unless this can be fully appreciated and understood, the dyed-in-the-wool Classicists have about as much appreciationn and insight into the Romantics as fingernails on a chalkboard.


Bravo.

Mozart, Haydn and Beethoven do not define Classicism or represent the period we call by that name. Invoking their unquestionable genius against which to measure Romanticism as such, or Romantic music as a whole, is absurd and useless for that reason alone. The fact that most classical music listeners are under the impression that the Classical period consists primarily of the work of three composers, when in fact there were easily a hundred very successful composers of the time whose work is largely (and perhaps deservedly) forgotten, might just tell us something about the nature of Classicism as an aesthetic ideal. And the fact that it's easy to name ten times as many composers from the Romantic era - who, as you delightfully point out, are never going to be confused with one another - might tell us even more.

Hammeredklavier has been carrying on his anti-Romantic - and especially his anti-Chopin - campaign over numerous threads for some time now, and has been disguising his biases (poorly) as mere pique over excessive claims he feels are made for Romantic music. But he makes very clear how poorly he understands the music he criticizes. He writes: "The problem is that I don't really sympathize with people who compare Classicism with Romanticism in Romanticism-centric ideology." But that is really not "the problem." The fact that some people don't appreciate Classicism in music is a "problem" only for them, and if Hammeredklavier is annoyed by their lack of appreciation there is only irony in his obliviousness to the fact that he is merely exhibiting the same "problem" from the other side of the debate. Which really _is_ a problem.

Calling Chopin, Mendelssohn, Schumann, Schubert, Berlioz and Brahms (and who else, for God's sake?) mere "second rates" after Beethoven or Mozart is virtually meaningless. Mozart did Mozart's thing, Beethoven did Beethoven's, their legions of mediocre cut-and-paste contemporaries did what they did, and those Romantics had more interesting things to do than follow in well-worn footsteps laid down in an earlier time. This will be incomprehensible only to someone who, confronted with the _Symphonie Fantastique,_ thinks "Beethoven wrote better counterpoint" instead of "How could anyone have imagined a symphony like this?"


----------



## janxharris

Larkenfield said:


> "Chopin writes every note of last movement of 2nd sonata the same notes for both hands and ends in vuglar fortissimo chords. People call it "self-expression", but to me it sounds more like "I do what I want, regardless of how skill-less I am."
> 
> Yes, it_ was_ rather brilliant of him after the 3rd movement Funeral March to sound like a dry wind whistling over a desolate graveyard, then punctuate it with the finality of his last emphatic chord-pure genius-though I suppose he could have tried substituting an impersonal fugue to pacify the Classicists after the world had changed. It takes_ imagination_ to fully understand Chopin... So, "Vulgar." Really? I don't think so. More likely he was being _ descriptive_. But let's not give Chopin credit for his powerful poetic imagination, his technical genius for writing something for two hands that only a world-class pianist could play... On the other hand, it seems highly _appropriate_ to write a brilliant passage in unison for two hands when one considers the imaginative poetry of what he was trying to convey after the 3rd movement:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does it really need to be pointed out time and time again that Chopin was just as interested in telling a story (of course, without exactly spelling it out) as he was in brilliant technical displays?
> 
> Now, what was the problem with the Classical era despite the inventiveness of Haydn and the genius of Mozart? _These two great composers have often been easily mistaken for each other,_ or someone else, and just about everyone has done this, such as mistaking Mozart's Symphony No. 11 for himself, when it was actually written by his father Leopold and Carl Ditters von Dittersdorf. (There's a post on this in another thread.) THAT was the problem of Classicism, no matter how skillfully composed, and the Romantics never suffered from that to the same degree. There was a greater focus on nationalism and creative individuality that meant venturing into new territory. The chance of misidentifying Brahms for Tchaikovsky, or Liszt or Schumann for Chopin, was far less likely to happen because these composers were more interested in _conforming to their own ideals as composers _than the Classicists were in conforming to the ideals of Greece and Rome, despite the great contributions of Haydn and Mozart. Unless this can be fully appreciated and understood, the dyed-in-the-wool Classicists have about as much appreciation and insight into the Romantics as fingernails on a chalkboard. The Romantics represented the expanded imagination that was needed after Haydn and Mozart and the world had dramatically changed... They no longer had to genuflect before royalty and the aristocracy in order to survive.


Well said. Are you in fact hazarding that much (note: 'much' and not 'all') music from the Classical period sounds banal?


----------



## Enthusiast

Ras said:


> They are a good place to start and maybe even to finish yes, but *Starthrower* already bought the Angeles and I'm afraid the two sets on period instruments I am familiar with are out of print (that is :* Mosaiques on Naive and Festetics on Arcana* I believe…)


I'm not convinced that HIP vs non-HIP is the first criterion to use in sorting the more desirable accounts. Mosaique were definitely very good and what a shame they were on Naive, which has a terrible habit of deleting highly desirable records. But, personally, I have never found that HIP is a necessity in Haydn and Mozart. In general there are good performances in both camps (and there may be bad ones, too).


----------



## Mandryka

Enthusiast said:


> . In general there are good performances in both camps (and there may be bad ones, too).


In my experience that's not the case for Haydn op 33. The only satisfying ones are the HIP ones. I expect this is contingent, but still, you have to wonder.


----------



## Enthusiast

I listen to the Op. 33s mostly in the Cuarteto Casals recording - which I really like - but quite liked the Lindsays before that.


----------



## Mandryka

Enthusiast said:


> I listen to the Op. 33s mostly in the Cuarteto Casals recording - which I really like - but quite liked the Lindsays before that.


All I can do is report that as a matter of fact could never see what the fuss was about with op 33 when I heard those recordings. There were two events which started to make me appreciate what's in the music more. One was hearing one of them done in a concert by The Hagen Quartet. The other was hearing The London Haydn Quartet. This is just a reflection on me, probably.


----------



## Ras

Enthusiast said:


> I'm not convinced that HIP vs non-HIP is the first criterion to use in sorting the more desirable accounts. Mosaique were definitely very good and what a shame they were on Naive, which has a terrible habit of deleting highly desirable records. But, personally, I have never found that HIP is a necessity in Haydn and Mozart. In general there are good performances in both camps (and there may be bad ones, too).


I do like modern instrument recordings too. I just wish there was a greater selection of period recordings than two out of print boxes…

I like at least these on modern instruments:

Amadeus on DG (not a complete set), 
two cds with Quartetto Italiano on Decca/Phillips, 
Angeles 
and Aeolian both complete sets on Decca. 
Two cds with the Emerson Quartet on DG.
Opus 50 with Amati Quartet on the small label Divox.


----------



## Euler

Ras said:


> I do like modern instrument recordings too. I just wish there was a greater selection of period recordings than two out of print boxes…


I have a few bits & bobs on period instruments, these should be in print:

Amsterdam String Quartet on Channel Classics -- Op. 20 #3 and #4, Op. 64 #6, Op. 74 #1, Op. 76 #1, Op. 77 #1
Apponyi Quartett on Ars Musici -- Op. 33
Schuppanzigh Quartett on Accent -- Op. 9 #4 and #6, Op. 20 #2, Op. 50 #6, Op. 54 #1, Op. 64 #5, Op. 74 #1 and #3, Op. 77 #1

And the ones Mandryka and Bulldog mentioned are quite special IMO:

London Haydn Quartet on Hyperion -- Op. 9 to Op. 64
Salomon Quartet on Hyperion -- Op. 20 onwards except Op. 76 (all out of print but still sold on CD-R)

On modern instruments I think Haydn's quartets are quite well served, the limit there is my wallet


----------



## Guest

hammeredklavier said:


> Take one exemplary composer from this time, Chopin. In the vast number of Waltzes and Mazurkas he wrote, the focus is indeed sentimental melodies. [...] If you take away the sentimentalism- there's nothing there.


You make statements such as these as if "sentimentalism" is as concrete a component in the music as minims and crotchets. You might hear sentiment, others may not. Dismissing the entirety of Romanticism because you hear "sentimentalism" is just absurd.



hammeredklavier said:


> I think it's unfair it's always the Classicists who are blamed for writing 'easy music' compared with the Romantics, I'm just making sure everyone know Romantic music is not necessarily better music from Classical era music for everyone. Lots of people here seem to forget this. They said it.
> 
> "...And surely, this is the reason *Haydn and Mozart are continually challenged on this point,*..
> ...The reason *Classicism is recognized as Classicism is because of its relative failure*,.."


Who is "blaming" the Classicists for anything? And your quotations - where do they come from?


----------



## hammeredklavier

Woodduck said:


> Hammeredklavier has been carrying on his anti-Romantic - and especially his anti-Chopin - campaign over numerous threads for some time now, and has been disguising his biases (poorly) as mere pique over excessive claims he feels are made for Romantic music. But he makes very clear how poorly he understands the music he criticizes.


I'm sorry if I sounded like an as*** on those threads. But I've seen too many threads dealing with this issue. It's cliche now. It always starts with someone saying "Romantic music is better than classicism. Classicism is failure." And they always mention Haydn and Mozart as examples of the classical composers they have 'issues' with. What other effective way is there to convince them there's merit in Classicism, other than "discussing the weaknesses of Romanticism and the strengths of Classicism". Just repeating the same old phrase "Haydn wrote good, perfect music", won't do it. I hate to say negative things about any composer. Deep down I actually respect people who like Chopin. I'm just trying to be fair by giving counter-argument to an unfair argument; "balancing things out".
And look at the poll "who is greatest composer" on TC. Beethoven gets the highest votes. Berlioz isn't even in the list and nobody cares. Obviously there are 'first rates' as well as 'second rates' in terms of their influence and artistry, as proven in history. For example, Wagner called Chopin "composer for one right hand", because he thought Chopin uninspired.



Larkenfield said:


> The chance of mistaking Brahms for Tchaikovsky, or Liszt or Schumann for Chopin, was far less likely to happen because these composers were more interested in _conforming to their own ideals _than the Classicists were in _conforming to the ideals of Greece and Rome_, which had inspired Classicism in the first place, despite the great contributions of Haydn and Mozart.


Sadly, this is nonsense created by Romantic music enthusiasts. Listen to Kalkbrenner piano concertos, 



 Hummel concertos 



 , Field Nocturnes. https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php?topic=58113.0 There isn't that much difference between these guys to Chopin compared the difference there is between Haydn to Mozart. I even consider Hummel concertos superior to Chopin's. Tchaikovsky, Brahms are of different nationality and decades apart from Chopin. And Chopin mostly wrote keyboard works, unlike them. Non-classical listeners can't tell the difference between Tchaikovsky and Brahms not any more than they can between Haydn and Mozart. Boccherini is actually very different from them.
A few weeks ago in another community forum, someone uploaded an unnamed recording file (that contains a section of an 'unknown' Romantic, dance-like piano music) and he asked for the name of the piece. Everyone was like "it sounds like Chopin. Isn't one of his Mazurkas? Perhaps?" I correctly told him it was _Liszt's Valse Impromptu._



janxharris said:


> Well said. Are you in fact hazarding that much (note: 'much' and not 'all') music from the Classical period sounds banal?


Well I don't particularly dislike Chopin, but his bassline is banal, as Wagner himself confirmed it. ("a composer for one right hand.") The difference is-- I don't say these 'negative things' unless there is a good reason to. For example, if someone says "Romanticism on the whole is better music than Classicism", or "Chopin is the greatest harmonist since Bach" as in Great melodists?)
I get the impression that Romantic music enthusiasts (on the other hand) like to bash Classicists like Haydn in every thread about them at every opportunity-- like how you've been doing, in your "anti-Mozart campaign". 



MacLeod said:


> You make statements such as these as if "sentimentalism" is as concrete a component in the music as minims and crotchets. You might hear sentiment, others may not. Dismissing the entirety of Romanticism because you hear "sentimentalism" is just absurd.


Good point. I'm just saying that Romanticism is not some sort of "Musical Utopia" compared to Classicism as some would have us believe. There are uninspired Romantic music and the examples are plenty.


----------



## Dimace

I'm not Haydn's biggest fan, but Mozart's and Beethoven's appreciation to his face shows how big composer and teacher he was. Many comments (from my side) for such colossal personalities are useless.


----------



## wkasimer

Euler said:


> Apponyi Quartett on Ars Musici -- Op. 33


The Apponyi Op. 33 set is my absolute favorite Haydn quartet recording. It's a shame that the group didn't record more Haydn.


----------



## Mandryka

wkasimer said:


> The Apponyi Op. 33 set is my absolute favorite Haydn quartet recording. It's a shame that the group didn't record more Haydn.


I think that London Haydn Quartet is a bit more played for expression rather than excitement, for better or for worse.


----------



## wkasimer

Mandryka said:


> I think that London Haydn Quartet is a bit more played for expression rather than excitement, for better or for worse.


I haven't heard the LHQ, but their op. 54 and 55 should be in my mailbox when I arrive home tonight.


----------



## Woodduck

hammeredklavier said:


> I'm sorry if I sounded like an as*** on those threads. But I've seen too many threads dealing with this issue. It's cliche now. *It always starts with someone saying "Romantic music is better than classicism. Classicism is failure." And they always mention Haydn and Mozart as examples of the classical composers they have 'issues' with. What other effective way is there to convince them there's merit in Classicism, other than "discussing the weaknesses of Romanticism and the strengths of Classicism". *Just repeating the same old phrase "Haydn wrote good, perfect music", won't do it. I hate to say negative things about any composer. Deep down I actually respect people who like Chopin. I'm just trying to be fair by giving counter-argument to an unfair argument; "balancing things out".


It's worth recalling that Romantic music and aesthetics have come in for a good deal of bashing.This was virtually obligatory during the ascendancy of Modernism (first neoclassicism, then serialism post-Schoenberg) in the 20th century, when people who should have known better and probably did - not your "average classical Joe" but distinguished composers and academics - turned up their sophisticated snouts and snickered at great and beloved composers like Tchaikovsky, Verdi, Sibelius, and Rachmaninoff. Stravinsky sniffed and said drily disparaging things about Wagner; Boulez sneered at Schoenberg for his failure to leave Romanticism behind. Even today I could find you plenty of comments on this forum caricaturing Romantic music as bombast and sentimentality. As a matter of fact... 

There is usually some truth in stereotypes. Plenty of Romantic bombast and sentimentality exists to feed the sniffers and sneerers. But there was also more than enough glib, cookie-cutter tafelmusik cranked out during the age of "enlightenment" to make _Wozzeck_ as welcome as a vacation at the beach (well, you know what I mean...) The greatest composers could justify the aesthetics of their time, exploit their virtues and transform their faults, in works of universal and timeless value. Nevertheless, nothing will stop some people from considering Mozart a fairy and Wagner a disease. We won't convince them otherwise by striking back at the music they prefer.


----------



## Larkenfield

"Well I don't particularly dislike Chopin, but his bassline is banal, as Wagner himself confirmed it. ("a composer for one right hand.") The difference is-- I don't say these 'negative things' unless there is a good reason to. For example, if someone says "Romanticism on the whole is better music than Classicism", or "Chopin is the greatest harmonist since Bach" as in Great melodists?)"

When Chopin is praised as being a melodic and harmonic genius, which many observers consider him to be, his writing is often treated with dismissal and apparent contempt as every imaginable fault of the Pole is enumerated going back to his student exercises, including the worst possible performances that can be found online. So no one's fooling anyone. And what exactly makes Wagner, the occasional composer of such potboilers as the American Centennial March, an expert on Chopin? Composers are constantly insulting and limiting each other and being proven wrong. If one listened to what Rossini said about Wagner, no one would consider him a great composer. Famous composers have constantly made fools out of themselves with their often false and shortsighted criticisms.

It was the Chopin biographer James Huneker who said that he was "the greatest harmonist since Bach," which I fully agree with at the time that Chopin was doing it. Considering that virtually everything Chopin wrote is still on the repertory, Wagner would have been better off to add, "But what a right-hand!" though Chopin gave equal attention to both hands in many of his works, and the notable dominance of the right hand of just about anyone who wrote for the keyboard or piano is commonplace, including Mozart and Haydn, in case no one ever noticed... The thunderous Chopin Polonaises are not just one-handed right-handed narrative wonders with their great measure of left-handed power. Such foolishness and such highly inaccurate prejudicial criticism is what one might expect from shortsighted or immature listeners, such as Dr. David Wright, or anyone else.

Not everyone is attempting to praise the romantics over the classicists. There are many here who speak equally well of both without making foolish comparisons between apples and oranges and who have some understanding appreciation of both that goes beyond misconceptions, superficialities, and outright fabrications that deserved to be pointed out, if only there were enough hours in the day to cover them all. One does not necessarily have to like a composer not to make foolish or misleading statements about them. There's far more going on with Chopin's left hand rhythmically and harmonically than Wagner's cheap and inaccurate dismissals, including Chopin sometimes shifting the melody to the left hand. With whatever he wrote, both the left and right hands were written with care, purpose, and precision.

https://www.cmuse.org/harshest-composer-on-composer-insults-in-classical-music/


----------



## hoodjem

The _Sturm und Drang_ symphonies are wonderful.


----------



## Haydn70

stevens said:


> I find Hayden a little bit ...boring.
> -But I have only heard around 20 of his symphonies (and the trumpet concerto
> and that cello thing).


Haydn boring???? Ah, my friend you must expand your listening of his music. Start here:


----------



## Gallus

I just discovered Haydn's violin concertos, no idea why they aren't more popular! Absolutely delightful works with some beautiful Italianate melodies and clever turns, and Grumiaux of course takes them so well.


----------



## gellio

Haydn is up there with Beethoven, Mozart and Schubert for me. The one area for me that separates Mozart and Beethoven from Haydn is opera. Haydn's just aren't very good. It is such a shame, because _The Creation_ and _The Seasons_ prove that Haydn could have been a great opera composer. I'm not really sure what happened. I love Papa Haydn.


----------



## Eclectic Al

Recently I listened to all the Haydn symphonies, and nothing else in between. I was a bit worried at the start that it would be a chore or boring, or that the pieces would become "samey". On the contrary, when I finished I found it difficult to want to listen to anything else, and I had to wean myself off by listening to ....... Haydn String Quartets!
There does seem to be a problem with Haydn in that if you write 1 masterpiece and little else then you are great, but if you write 100 masterpieces and a lot of other great pieces, then people mark you down because of the sheer amount of stuff. It makes no sense to me, but there you go.
Perhaps some don't seem to rate him highly because, as a person, he seems to have been well adjusted and to have lived a good long life - obviously he can't therefore have written great music, because to do that you must be tormented, or die early, or go deaf, or whatever. Again, it makes no sense to me. The fact that Mozart or Schubert (say) died at a young age does not make their works better; it just makes you regret the pieces that were never to be. You can't criticise Haydn's work because he lived long enough to write so many masterpieces - and works of maturity (as someone noted earlier).
As an aside, I really struggle with Mozart. Clearly the problem is with me. I say that because Haydn was a great fan of Mozart, and his is an opinion I do feel the need to respect.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

Haydn is one of the most consistent composers around. Whenever I can't decide what to listen to and just want to bask in the glory of music, he's who I go for. For me the Nelson Mass and Creation share the title for his magnum opus. All of his keyboard sonatas, quartets, and piano trios are pure delight. And his pair of cello concerti are two of my favorite in the genre, surpassed only by the Dvorak. I also agree with Gallus above that his violin concerti are lovely and quite underrated.


----------



## Guest002

The trouble with Haydn was that he was just too damned happy! To write great music, you need to lard it with grief and anguish. Haydn could only ever dilute his tunes with joy.


(I'm joking. Slightly.).


----------



## Eclectic Al

Sorry. Accidental duplicate.


----------



## Eclectic Al

So many problems. As noted by dizwell above, one problem is that great music can't be happy. The composer also has to have mental health problems, die young, go deaf, go mad: any of those is really helpful. Living under a totalitarian regime can also be useful, so long as you jot down a few things to indicate that you're not really a supporter. A further tip is not to write much: 1 or 2 masterpieces are enough; loads of masterpieces plus many, many other great pieces is not what is required.
If you're unlucky enough just to write an endless supply of marvellous music, and live to a good age having enjoyed a successful and apparently well-adjusted life, and been lauded by colleagues such as Beethoven and Mozart - well, that's not going to cut it.


----------



## ORigel

Both Mozart and Beethoven matured a great deal...probably more than Haydn who was more consistent through his career.


----------



## ORigel

_So many problems. As noted by dizwell above, one problem is that great music can't be happy. The composer also has to have mental health problems, die young, go deaf, go mad: any of those is really helpful. Living under a totalitarian regime can also be useful, so long as you jot down a few things to indicate that you're not really a supporter. A further tip is not to write much: 1 or 2 masterpieces are enough; loads of masterpieces plus many, many other great pieces is not what is required.
If you're unlucky enough just to write an endless supply of marvellous music, and live to a good age having enjoyed a successful and apparently well-adjusted life, and been lauded by colleagues such as Beethoven and Mozart - well, that's not going to cut it._

Anyone claiming that should listen to Haydn's Sturm und Drang symphonies, Stabat Mater, and Seven Last Words! Haydn is capable of darkness...he was just _sane._


----------



## Eclectic Al

ORigel said:


> _So many problems. As noted by dizwell above, one problem is that great music can't be happy. The composer also has to have mental health problems, die young, go deaf, go mad: any of those is really helpful. Living under a totalitarian regime can also be useful, so long as you jot down a few things to indicate that you're not really a supporter. A further tip is not to write much: 1 or 2 masterpieces are enough; loads of masterpieces plus many, many other great pieces is not what is required.
> If you're unlucky enough just to write an endless supply of marvellous music, and live to a good age having enjoyed a successful and apparently well-adjusted life, and been lauded by colleagues such as Beethoven and Mozart - well, that's not going to cut it._
> 
> Anyone claiming that should listen to Haydn's Sturm und Drang symphonies, Stabat Mater, and Seven Last Words! Haydn is capable of darkness...he was just _sane._


I wasn't making any such claim, and would agree with you about Haydn being sane. The point I was making is that some people don't rate music because it is cheerful, and underrate Haydn because he was able to write great music which comes across as happy (and sane). I wasn't remotely implying that Haydn couldn't write dark music.


----------



## Bigbang

Eclectic Al said:


> Recently I listened to all the Haydn symphonies, and nothing else in between. I was a bit worried at the start that it would be a chore or boring, or that the pieces would become "samey". On the contrary, when I finished I found it difficult to want to listen to anything else, and I had to wean myself off by listening to ....... Haydn String Quartets!
> There does seem to be a problem with Haydn in that if you write 1 masterpiece and little else then you are great, but if you write 100 masterpieces and a lot of other great pieces, then people mark you down because of the sheer amount of stuff. It makes no sense to me, but there you go.
> Perhaps some don't seem to rate him highly because, as a person, he seems to have been well adjusted and to have lived a good long life - obviously he can't therefore have written great music, because to do that you must be tormented, or die early, or go deaf, or whatever. Again, it makes no sense to me. The fact that Mozart or Schubert (say) died at a young age does not make their works better; it just makes you regret the pieces that were never to be. You can't criticise Haydn's work because he lived long enough to write so many masterpieces - and works of maturity (as someone noted earlier).
> As an aside, I really struggle with Mozart. Clearly the problem is with me. I say that because Haydn was a great fan of Mozart, and his is an opinion I do feel the need to respect.


I really don't think Haydn is slighted. He is well represented in spite of all the competition but as you say, musical works known for "emotional" and storm and stress seems to attract market shares for the fickle audience. Think about this: the vast audience of buyers are uneducated listeners but in the time of 1700-1800's the families were trained in music education. So many people in music today generally are not interested in getting to know classical music so how to get the few who focus on the few to focus on the many. Anyway, unfortunately, people are in "pain" and they need to have many moments of intense activity to avoid the inner pain.

See, E Al, I try to stay with your post, the same ideas you present, but other posts are recycled over and over...Haydn was wonderful, he wrote many great works, he was so witty, he was humorous, he knew how to belch, fart, and............


----------



## ORigel

Eclectic Al said:


> I wasn't making any such claim, and would agree with you about Haydn being sane. The point I was making is that some people don't rate music because it is cheerful, and underrate Haydn because he was able to write great music which comes across as happy (and sane). I wasn't remotely implying that Haydn couldn't write dark music.


I know that you were deconstructing that idea rather than agreeing with it.


----------



## consuono

Eclectic Al said:


> So many problems. As noted by dizwell above, one problem is that great music can't be happy. The composer also has to have mental health problems, die young, go deaf, go mad: any of those is really helpful. Living under a totalitarian regime can also be useful, so long as you jot down a few things to indicate that you're not really a supporter. A further tip is not to write much: 1 or 2 masterpieces are enough; loads of masterpieces plus many, many other great pieces is not what is required.
> If you're unlucky enough just to write an endless supply of marvellous music, and live to a good age having enjoyed a successful and apparently well-adjusted life, and been lauded by colleagues such as Beethoven and Mozart - well, that's not going to cut it.


:lol: I think that sums it up pretty well. The Richard Strauss-Gustav Mahler and Chopin-Liszt cases come to mind too.


----------



## Eclectic Al

consuono said:


> :lol: I think that sums it up pretty well. The Richard Strauss-Gustav Mahler and Chopin-Liszt cases come to mind too.


Another related issue which comes to mind is the indication that a composer struggled to produce a work, or their work. There seems to be a feeling among some that this struggle makes the work greater in some way, than if the composer had been able to produce the same work easily. Why, exactly? You could argue that it means that the piece is the culmination of great thought, and if there are previous drafts then you can point to improvements and say that the effort made it greater than the first thoughts: isn't that marvellous? Well no! Perhaps another composer was just better at composing, and got to the final superb outcome more readily because of their superior ability, possibly helped in that by being more sane. The final work is great, or it is not.
It's biographically interesting if a composer had a block or struggled, or whatever, but it doesn't mean we should give the work extra "greatness points". Thinking of a composer like Sibelius, say, I just think it is a pity that he didn't write more music, not that what he produced should be rated more highly because he found difficulties in the process.
Haydn was a composing juggernaut and wrote a lot. So did Bach: it doesn't mean any one piece should therefore get a negative deduction from their "greatness points" because of some hypothesis about ease of production.


----------



## Guest002

Eclectic Al said:


> Another related issue which comes to mind is the indication that a composer struggled to produce a work, or their work. There seems to be a feeling among some that this struggle makes the work greater in some way, than if the composer had been able to produce the same work easily. Why, exactly? You could argue that it means that the piece is the culmination of great thought, and if there are previous drafts then you can point to improvements and say that the effort made it greater than the first thoughts: isn't that marvellous? Well no! Perhaps another composer was just better at composing, and got to the final superb outcome more readily because of their superior ability, possibly helped in that by being more sane. The final work is great, or it is not.
> It's biographically interesting if a composer had a block or struggled, or whatever, but it doesn't mean we should give the work extra "greatness points". Thinking of a composer like Sibelius, say, I just think it is a pity that he didn't write more music, not that what he produced should be rated more highly because he found difficulties in the process.
> Haydn was a composing juggernaut and wrote a lot. So did Bach: it doesn't mean any one piece should therefore get a negative deduction from their "greatness points" because of some hypothesis about ease of production.


Britten was perennially slagged off by the critics in the 30s for being "too technically clever", with the implication that his music, whilst having a brilliant surface sheen, lacked emotional 'depth'.

He was also pretty quick to slag off in turn anyone who, he felt, wasn't as technically gifted as himself (Vaughan Williams, for the most part!). And he himself doubted he was as 'profound' as Tippett.

I suppose it's just what we're taught to expect from an early age, isn't it? If it comes easily, it probably isn't worth it, or there's not much to it. The "if a job's worth doing, it's worth doing well" school of thought.

I think I'm more like you, though: if you can express it with technical ease, so much the better. But it does go against the grain of what we're taught to expect.


----------



## Eclectic Al

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> Britten was perennially slagged off by the critics in the 30s for being "too technically clever", with the implication that his music, whilst having a brilliant surface sheen, lacked emotional 'depth'.
> 
> He was also pretty quick to slag off in turn anyone who, he felt, wasn't as technically gifted as himself (Vaughan Williams, for the most part!). And he himself doubted he was as 'profound' as Tippett.
> 
> I suppose it's just what we're taught to expect from an early age, isn't it? If it comes easily, it probably isn't worth it, or there's not much to it. The "if a job's worth doing, it's worth doing well" school of thought.
> 
> I think I'm more like you, though: if you can express it with technical ease, so much the better. But it does go against the grain of what we're taught to expect.


Yes. I'm a mathematician by training, and I remember from university many examples where we had to come up with proofs of this or that. Some people would quickly come up with a proof, and others would struggle more. But the interesting thing is that the quick ones were nearly always more insightful, more elegant (which matters a lot in maths), more illuminating, and very often shorter. Those who struggled often produced efforts which involved many pages of laboured progress showing little appreciation of the heart of the topic.
I suspect characters like Bach and Haydn would have been in the former camp, penning one page proofs of surpassing insight and elegance. Sibelius would have generated a two pager, of very high quality, but missed the deadline for submission. Some others, who shall remain nameless, would have turned in ten pagers of turgid reasoning getting there in the end, but unlikely to be put into the repertoire of standard proofs for others to ponder.


----------



## millionrainbows

shangoyal said:


> I haven't read many music articles, but of all that I have read, there is not one on Haydn which takes him as seriously as the other Vienna masters - Mozart and Beethoven. What is it with Haydn? When I first heard classical music I became a Beethoven fanatic, and a minor Mozart one. But I think Haydn's music is as good as those other two - and in fact has a few things they don't, like *maturity* (barring maybe a couple of Beethoven's late quartets). He's usually passed off as some old master whose works only served as teaching for the "geniuses". Father of the symphony and all that jazz. I don't get it.
> 
> Do people usually only get Haydn later in life?
> 
> Do people not listen to him that carefully and just pass judgement from a distance?
> 
> Is it high fashion to keep Haydn on a lower pedestal?
> 
> I would like to see some article where Haydn is handled with more care and understanding.


I think the "problem" with Haydn is that his work is in primordial, prototype form, like simple arithmetic. I think listening to his symphonies is the best way to prepare for what came later. But on its own, it has an elegant simplicity that holds up.


----------



## ORigel

Eclectic Al said:


> Another related issue which comes to mind is the indication that a composer struggled to produce a work, or their work. There seems to be a feeling among some that this struggle makes the work greater in some way, than if the composer had been able to produce the same work easily. Why, exactly? You could argue that it means that the piece is the culmination of great thought, and if there are previous drafts then you can point to improvements and say that the effort made it greater than the first thoughts: isn't that marvellous? Well no! Perhaps another composer was just better at composing, and got to the final superb outcome more readily because of their superior ability, possibly helped in that by being more sane. The final work is great, or it is not.
> It's biographically interesting if a composer had a block or struggled, or whatever, but it doesn't mean we should give the work extra "greatness points".  Thinking of a composer like Sibelius, say, I just think it is a pity that he didn't write more music, not that what he produced should be rated more highly because he found difficulties in the process.
> Haydn was a composing juggernaut and wrote a lot. So did Bach: it doesn't mean any one piece should therefore get a negative deduction from their "greatness points" because of some hypothesis about ease of production.


I hardly know any of Bach's cantatas or Haydn's string quartets because they wrote _so many_ that I would have to spend a long time devoting myself to them to get familiar with them. If they wrote just a handful each, I would know their works well by now. But that means that their output would remain fresh for years to come! So a short-term disadvantage (long-term for a casual "Classic FM" type listener or one who is not very interested in Baroque/Classical Period), long-term gain.


----------



## Eclectic Al

ORigel said:


> I hardly know any of Bach's cantatas or Haydn's string quartets because they wrote _so many_ that I would have to spend a long time devoting myself to them to get familiar with them. If they wrote just a handful each, I would know their works well by now. But that means that their output would remain fresh for years to come! So a short-term disadvantage (long-term for a casual "Classic FM" type listener or one who is not very interested in Baroque/Classical Period), long-term gain.


There is no obligation to get to know them - in the sense of them all. One of the benefits of sites like this is that you can view the opinions of others, who might say (for example) that Haydn's Symphony 104 or 44 or 82 is a favourite, or that his Op 76 string quartets are great, and you might have noticed from other posts that their opinions chime with yours on other matters. So have a bash at those, and only look into others if the fancy takes you.
One thought I had was getting people who are into Haydn to pick their favourite from the first 10 symphonies, then one from the next 10, etc. We could run 11 polls on this site. Ultimately you would end up with 11 symphonies, which would be referred to as Haydn's Single Digits Symphony, Teens Symphony, Twenties Symphony, etc. You could then view him as the composer of 11 symphonies, and take it from there. That wouldn't be too many, surely. By the way, Haydn's Single Digits Symphony would almost certainly be number 6.


----------



## Eclectic Al

millionrainbows said:


> I think the "problem" with Haydn is that his work is in primordial, prototype form, like simple arithmetic. I think listening to his symphonies is the best way to prepare for what came later. But on its own, it has an elegant simplicity that holds up.


More mathematical geekiness. Many would say that Number Theory is the deepest part of maths, and that's really just arithmetic. Also, any axiomatic system which is complex enough to represent arithmetic (such as the system derived from Peano's axioms) will be uncertain: that is it will contain propositions which are true but unprovable within the system. This is Godel's first incompleteness theorem. The point is that there is no such thing as simple arithmetic if you look into it deeply.
I think there's a parallel with music such as Bach's and Haydn's, or with the idea of sticking within a tonal system (say), where you operate within a system that has norms (akin to your axioms, but more artistic!) and explore. The search for truth (where the musical parallel is perhaps beauty) can never end. You can never exhaust the possibilities. It's been proved!


----------



## ORigel

Eclectic Al said:


> There is no obligation to get to know them - in the sense of them all. One of the benefits of sites like this is that you can view the opinions of others, who might say (for example) that Haydn's Symphony 104 or 44 or 82 is a favourite, or that his Op 76 string quartets are great, and you might have noticed from other posts that their opinions chime with yours on other matters. So have a bash at those, and only look into others if the fancy takes you.
> One thought I had was getting people who are into Haydn to pick their favourite from the first 10 symphonies, then one from the next 10, etc. We could run 11 polls on this site. Ultimately you would end up with 11 symphonies, which would be referred to as Haydn's Single Digits Symphony, Teens Symphony, Twenties Symphony, etc. You could then view him as the composer of 11 symphonies, and take it from there. That wouldn't be too many, surely. By the way, Haydn's Single Digits Symphony would almost certainly be number 6.


I like Haydn's symphonies and string quartets I've heard beyond the London and Op 76. I am doing this because Haydn's music is rewarding, not because I'm a completionist.

I _do_ feel obligated to listen to the well-known works of the major composers. So I feel Haydn's symphony 104 and 94 are a must in any collection, for example.


----------



## hammeredklavier

ORigel said:


> Anyone claiming that should listen to Haydn's Sturm und Drang symphonies, Stabat Mater, and Seven Last Words! Haydn is capable of darkness...he was just _sane._


Also, the late masses, particularly Missa in Angustiis (Nelson Mass),

*[ 5:20 ]*






A famous composer around this time who doesn't get beyond a certain level (in expression of angst through use of contrast or dissonance) in my view is Schubert. (a fine composer alright, it's just that I don't think he should he "exempt from criticism" whereas others aren't). Listen to Haydn's Theresienmesse, for example, -Et incarnatus est from Schubert Mass D452 kind of pales in comparison. And Schubert certainly never gets to anything like Mozart's chromaticism. It's weird to me cause (so far) I have seen people on TC criticizing Haydn, Mozart, Chopin, Tchaikovsky (for being "sugary and sentimental"), Liszt (for being "empty and showy") for writing "tafelmusik" or "salon music", but haven't really seen anyone criticizing Schubert this way (as far as I remember, people like eugeneonagain only criticized him on the grounds of composition skills). By the same logic that Haydn wrote "tafelmusik", we could say Schubert wrote sentimental "pop songs". And Schubert was for the lieder the same way Vivaldi was for the concertos (not in a good way). Why is it always Haydn who gets criticized for having "written too much"? I don't get it.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

Eclectic Al said:


> There is no obligation to get to know them - in the sense of them all. One of the benefits of sites like this is that you can view the opinions of others, who might say (for example) that Haydn's Symphony 104 or 44 or 82 is a favourite, or that his Op 76 string quartets are great, and you might have noticed from other posts that their opinions chime with yours on other matters. So have a bash at those, and only look into others if the fancy takes you.
> One thought I had was getting people who are into Haydn to pick their favourite from the first 10 symphonies, then one from the next 10, etc. We could run 11 polls on this site. Ultimately you would end up with 11 symphonies, which would be referred to as Haydn's Single Digits Symphony, Teens Symphony, Twenties Symphony, etc. You could then view him as the composer of 11 symphonies, and take it from there. That wouldn't be too many, surely. By the way, Haydn's Single Digits Symphony would almost certainly be number 6.


Someone did this Haydn's Symphonies: Overview in a set of polls. This link has a link for all of them.


----------



## Eclectic Al

Johnnie Burgess said:


> Someone did this Haydn's Symphonies: Overview in a set of polls. This link has a link for all of them.


Cool, thanks for that. It doesn't quite get down to my suggestion of 11 symphonies, each the most highly regarded of a group of 10, but it does winnow them down to around 20 recommendations.


----------



## Knorf

Someone thinks Schubert isn't chromatic? WTF. Tell you what, if you can correctly and thoroughly analyze the first movement of his String Quartet No. 15, then we'll talk, and move on to the second movement. There is nothing in Mozart as chromatic as that, not even close. And the songs are full of chromaticism and dissonance. To see otherwise is bizarre. 

As for Haydn, I actually think Haydn was every bit as good as Mozart or Beethoven, and superior in some regards. That his music is much less popular says something about the cultural Zeitgeist, but little to nothing about the quality of his music.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Knorf said:


> Someone thinks Schubert isn't chromatic? WTF. Tell you what, if you can correctly and thoroughly analyze the first movement of his String Quartet No. 15, then we'll talk, and move on to the second movement. There is nothing in Mozart as chromatic as that, not even close. And the songs are full of chromaticism and dissonance. To see otherwise is *bizarre*.


Bizzare. Look at the development of string quintet K515, or the introduction of string quartet K465, which "consists of a string of long-delayed suspensions so that the harmonic definition at any given instant is as blurred as anything in Wagner." (Schubert tried in vain to copy these expressions with his own string quintet in C, I can see that). [And in reality, Schubert did not inspire Wagner to the extent Mozart did: see Harmonic Similarities in Wagner and Mozart , which is why Wagner called Mozart a "grosser Chromatiker".] Where do we see Schubert using 12 tones of chromatic scale in melody, contrapuntally with chromatic bassline, like Mozart 24th piano concerto 1st movement? Or the development of symphony no.40 4th movement, or symphony 38th 2nd movement, or Gigue in G major K574, which inspired Schoenberg. 
These are what I would call subtle use of chromaticism. Schubert on the other hand is just too full of vamps and padding. His Songs are full of dissonance? Where?








hammeredklavier said:


> The way he modulates and everything.. sounds too much like compositional exercises rather than actual serious works.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If look at certain sections of the Rosamunde quartet, in each measure it goes like - all the voices start on note A, the next measure, on note D, the next, on G, the next, on C.. (Wow..)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> in the development section, this gets multipled 4~5 times. (Wow..)


----------



## consuono

ORigel said:


> I hardly know any of Bach's cantatas or Haydn's string quartets because they wrote _so many_ that I would have to spend a long time devoting myself to them to get familiar with them. If they wrote just a handful each, I would know their works well by now. But that means that their output would remain fresh for years to come! So a short-term disadvantage (long-term for a casual "Classic FM" type listener or one who is not very interested in Baroque/Classical Period), long-term gain.


As far as Bach's cantatas are concerned the ones discussed in this article are good places to start:
https://dw.com/en/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-bach-cantatas/a-44150152

... although I think Cantata 80 should be in that list. I've listened to a LOT of Bach cantatas...maybe 70 or so, which is still not half of the total. But I haven't listened to a weak one yet. When you consider that the bulk of Bach's cantata writing was concentrated within a period of about three years, the achievement is amazing.


----------



## ORigel

Knorf said:


> Someone thinks Schubert isn't chromatic? WTF. Tell you what, if you can correctly and thoroughly analyze the first movement of his String Quartet No. 15, then we'll talk, and move on to the second movement. There is nothing in Mozart as chromatic as that, not even close. And the songs are full of chromaticism and dissonance. To see otherwise is bizarre.
> 
> As for Haydn, I actually think Haydn was every bit as good as Mozart or Beethoven, and superior in some regards. That his music is much less popular says something about the cultural Zeitgeist, but little to nothing about the quality of his music.


Genre Comparison: Mozart vs. Haydn

Symphonies: Edge to Haydn. Mozart's last four symphonies are above Haydn's level, but Haydn has lots of good symphonies.

Concerti: Mozart by wide margin. Haydn has two cello concerti I love, a good trumpet concerto, and a good keyboard concerto. Meanwhile, Mozart is the best at piano concerti. His wind concerti alone, _minus_ the masterly Clarinet Concerto, would beat Haydn's concerti, IMO.

Solo piano: Tie or slight edge to Haydn, perhaps. Haydn's late piano sonatas are wonderful.

String Quartets: Haydn. Though Mozart's Haydn Quartets are great too.

Other chamber: Mozart by wide margin. He has string quintets, a clarinet quintet, a quintet for piano and winds, etc. while Haydn has a couple good piano trios.

Sacred works: Edge to Mozart, IMO.

Operas: Mozart, obviously.

Haydn vs. Beethoven:

Symphonies: Beethoven's are the benchmark.

Concerti: Beethoven by good margin. Any of his piano concerti beat Haydn's No. 11. Beethoven's violin concerto is the best or one of the best.

Piano solo: Beethoven's piano sonatas are the benchmark. Not to mention his variations.

String Quartets: Beethoven's are the benchmark. Although his Opus 18 are not quite up to Haydn's standard, there are his middle and late quartets to consider.

Other chamber: Beethoven has the Archduke Trio, Kreutzer Sonata, and Septet.

Sacred music: Haydn's oratorios and Masses beat Beethoven's Missa Solemnis (which is above Haydn's level) and small sacred output.

Opera: I don't know Fidelio.

Of course, both are indebted to Haydn for sonata form and the Opus 20 quartets.


----------



## ORigel

consuono said:


> As far as Bach's cantatas are concerned the ones discussed in this article are good places to start:
> https://dw.com/en/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-bach-cantatas/a-44150152
> 
> ... although I think Cantata 80 should be in that list. I've listened to a LOT of Bach cantatas...maybe 70 or so, which is still not half of the total. But I haven't listened to a weak one yet. When you consider that the bulk of Bach's cantata writing was concentrated within a period of about three years, the achievement is amazing.


I know 11, 21, 23, 57, 80, 140, 147, 208, and 211 so far.


----------



## consuono

ORigel said:


> Concerti: Mozart by wide margin. Haydn has two cello concerti I love, a good trumpet concerto, and a good keyboard concerto. Meanwhile, Mozart is the best at piano concerti. His wind concerti alone, _minus_ the masterly Clarinet Concerto, would beat Haydn's concerti, IMO.
> 
> Solo piano: Tie or slight edge to Haydn, perhaps. Haydn's late piano sonatas are wonderful.


The whole comparison looks pretty solid, and I'd agree that Mozart's writing for piano and orchestra is almost supernatural. His writing for solo piano though, apart from a few isolated pieces, is relatively weak and glockenspiel-ish to me. Haydn's much better there.


----------



## Bulldog

Poor Haydn! A thread devoted to his music morphs into a thread about Bach and Mozart. And even Schubert enters the scene thanks to our resident Schubert hater.


----------



## Knorf

Bulldog said:


> And even Schubert enters the scene thanks to our resident Schubert hater.


Ah, that's what that's about. Sorry I shook the hornets nest. I won't bother continuing with that digression, which frankly is pointless and silly. Anyone can see that Schubert wrote a lot of chromatically adventurous music.

Haydn was an amazing composer. He was really only weak in opera, but even that is exaggerated. It blows me away that I can randomly choose any of 104 symphonies, and there will always be at least one thing remarkable or distinctive about it. The only other body of work I think of that comparably vast, deep, and consistently good would be cantatas by J. S. Bach.


----------



## ORigel

Knorf said:


> Ah, that's what that's about. Sorry I shook the hornets nest. I won't bother continuing with that digression, which frankly is pointless and silly. Anyone can see that Schubert wrote a lot of chromatically adventurous music.
> 
> Haydn was an amazing composer. He was really only weak in opera, but even that is exaggerated. It blows me away that I can randomly choose any of 104 symphonies, and there will always be at least one thing remarkable or distinctive about it. The only other body of work I think of that comparably vast, deep, and consistently good would be cantatas by J. S. Bach.


And Haydn's own string quartets cycle.


----------



## Knorf

ORigel said:


> And Haydn's own string quartets cycle.


Good point! So many amazing pieces. The keyboard sonatas, too.


----------



## Bigbang

Bulldog said:


> Poor Haydn! A thread devoted to his music morphs into a thread about Bach and Mozart. And even Schubert enters the scene thanks to our resident Schubert hater.


Well, I have more or less posted about this: Really it seems we are a varied group of people. And for some they can focus on the musical points or subject but others it is about them, not that there's anything wrong about that either. So Haydn does not seem to arouse the animal passions as much as discussions on composers who are used as weapons to quarrel or debate our differences. "My composer is better than your composer!" "My favorite composition/cycle shows I have better taste than you do!"

Yet, Haydn is beyond this and reveals he may well be lifted higher as we learn to focus less on each other.

Let me get out of here before any trouble starts....My Beethoven is better than your "no name" and "who" composer I have to look up in google to see what exactly I have been missing....not!


----------



## hammeredklavier

consuono said:


> The whole comparison looks pretty solid, and I'd agree that Mozart's writing for piano and orchestra is almost supernatural. His writing for solo piano though, apart from a few isolated pieces, is relatively weak and glockenspiel-ish to me. Haydn's much better there.


I agree that Haydn can at times be more interesting in terms of development, with his intricate monothematicism. [ I think Mozart finally "gets it" (cultures his own way) in his late years and demonstrates with his surprising use of "secondary developments / false recapitulations". ] But still, at the time, Mozart was a virtuoso keyboardist, (while Haydn was not). Mozart dueled Clementi, I don't think Haydn could. 
Mozart: Sonata for two fortepianos, K 448. Lubimov, Martynov.
Fantasia in D minor K 397, Andante - Adagio - Presto - Allegretto


----------



## consuono

hammeredklavier said:


> I agree that Haydn can at times be more interesting in terms of development, with his intricate monothematicism. [ I think Mozart finally "gets it" (cultures his own way) in his late years and demonstrates with his surprising use of "secondary developments / false recapitulations". ] But still, at the time, Mozart was a virtuoso keyboardist, (while Haydn was not). Mozart dueled Clementi, I don't think Haydn could.


No doubt, but overall Mozart's solo piano music just...isn't that great. It might be that a lot of it was intended for students. I don't know. But I was always a little disappointed in playing his piano sonatas.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

consuono said:


> No doubt, but overall Mozart's solo piano music just...isn't that great. It might be that a lot of it was intended for students. I don't know. But I was always a little disappointed in playing his piano sonatas.


I've found that Mozart's piano music has grown on me. I've learned quite a bit of it as a piano student, and recently studying the Fantasia and Sonata in C Minor has significantly elevated my opinion of his piano writing. It's not virtuosic or thickly-textured like the Romantics, and yes, there are a lot of repeated accompanying figures and harmonic devices. But I do think it's a somewhat underappreciated corner of his ouevre. The Sonata for Two Pianos and the last sonata in D major are also superb. I do enjoy playing Haydn more, though.


----------



## hammeredklavier

consuono said:


> No doubt, but overall Mozart's solo piano music just...isn't that great. It might be that a lot of it was intended for students. I don't know. But I was always a little disappointed in playing his piano sonatas.


I can understand what you mean; there is a certain quality like K545 about them. Not totally ambitious works by Mozart, but I don't necessarily think they're musically "weak". I'm inclined to think his piano sonatas are an "acquired taste", from the modern standpoint, -more than other composers' (Haydn and Clementi who lived into the 19th century), -since I feel that you can't fully appreciate them without loving the sound of the late 18th century fortepiano first; the aesthetics is totally based around the instrument. Nowadays, I can't stand any performances of the works on the modern grand.

The way this resolves ( 6:00 ~ 6:20 ) is gorgeous:




Like parts of Fantasie K475 (which Allegro Con Brio mentioned a moment ago), this feels strangely "abstract", with its chromaticism:
(btw, here's one fun fact about this work I recently discussed with regards to Wagner):


----------



## consuono

hammeredklavier said:


> I can understand what you mean. There is a certain quality like K545 about them. Not totally ambitious works by Mozart, but I don't necessarily think they're musically "weak". I'm inclined to think his piano sonatas are an "acquired taste", from the modern standpoint, -more than other composers' (Haydn and Clementi who lived into the 19th century). Since I feel that you can't fully enjoy them without loving the sound of the late 18th century fortepiano first;


Yeah, maybe his sonatas were written more for private use or exercises for his students or whatnot rather than Beethoven-like monuments, and the fact that they're not "monumental" makes me look at them unfairly. I actually do like sonatas 12 and 13.


----------



## tdc

Mozart's piano sonatas are brilliant in my view. Whether they were exercises for students or not to me is not really relevant, Bartok's Mikrokosmos is pedagogical and many of Bach's keyboard works likely are as well. It doesn't change the quality of the music. Rosen didn't focus much on the idea they were student pieces and praises some of the Mozart piano sonatas highly in his book _The Classical Style_, he doesn't criticize any of them as far as I remember.

Personally I don't much listen to any classical era piano sonatas other than Mozart's, and out of Mozart's entire oeuvre I am just as likely to listen to his piano sonatas as any of his other works.


----------



## consuono

tdc said:


> Mozart's piano sonatas are brilliant in my view. Whether they were exercises for students or not to me is not really relevant...


Hey, I'm just trying to cut Mozart some slack. And you would just as soon hear the last 6 or 7 sonatas as the last 6 or 7 piano concertos? Not I, with all due respect to the late Mr Rosen.

At any rate, as far as Haydn vs Mozart piano sonatas go, I'd agree with Sviatoslav Richter: Haydn is better.


----------



## tdc

consuono said:


> Hey, I'm just trying to cut Mozart some slack. And you would just as soon hear the last 6 or 7 sonatas as the last 6 or 7 piano concertos? Not I, with all due respect to the late Mr Rosen.
> 
> At any rate, as far as Haydn vs Mozart piano sonatas go, I'd agree with Sviatoslav Richter: Haydn is better.


Yes, often I am more in the mood to listen to Mozart's piano sonatas than any of his PC's. Sometimes I would rather listen to a concerto, a string quintet, the requiem etc. I'm not suggesting the piano sonatas are _better_ than the concertos, they are different. They are a unique facet of his oeuvre that I derive a lot of enjoyment from.

Richer performed Haydn well. I once thought I was getting into Haydn because I do enjoy his piano sonatas when performed by pianists like Brendel and Richter, but I've come to the conclusion I am more drawn to the work of those particular musicians, than I am to the music of Haydn, but that is just my tastes.


----------



## consuono

tdc said:


> ...
> Richer performed Haydn well. I once thought I was getting into Haydn because I do enjoy his piano sonatas when performed by pianists like Brendel and Richter, but I've come to the conclusion I am more drawn to the work of those particular musicians, than I am to the music of Haydn, but that is just my tastes.


Not that it really matters one way or the other, but do you play piano yourself, or are you just sharing a listener's perspective? Either way, you like what you like.


----------



## hammeredklavier

consuono said:


> And you would just as soon hear the last 6 or 7 sonatas as the last 6 or 7 piano concertos?


I guess it mostly comes down to how much you appreciate the aesthetics. For me, the reason I appreciate the 1st movement of K533 is the same reason I appreciate symphony in C K551. It's governed by the same idea: nobody combines counterpoint with Classical forms like Mozart does. I don't think even Beethoven produced masterpieces for 4 hands. =)


----------



## tdc

consuono said:


> Not that it really matters one way or the other, but do you play piano yourself, or are you just sharing a listener's perspective? Either way, you like what you like.


I play piano. I enjoy Mozart's sonatas from a listening and playing perspective.


----------



## Couchie

Haydn is a lot like Telemann. Throw a dart and whatever you pick to listen to, you're always in for a good time, just never a _great_ time.


----------



## DaddyGeorge

Couchie said:


> Haydn is a lot like Telemann. Throw a dart and whatever you pick to listen to, you're always in for a good time, just never a _great_ time.


I agree (probably not completely as well) just about Telemann in this case. For me, there are a lot of Haydn pieces that I would classify as Great. Anyway, very nice idea!


----------



## Art Rock

Couchie said:


> Haydn is a lot like Telemann. Throw a dart and whatever you pick to listen to, you're always in for a good time, just never a _great_ time.


Apart from the inclusion of Telemann (whom appreciate a lot less), this is exactly what I like and do not like about Haydn. Except perhaps the late string quartets, there's nothing that really stands out for me. But it's all good to listen to.


----------



## ORigel

Couchie said:


> Haydn is a lot like Telemann. Throw a dart and whatever you pick to listen to, you're always in for a good time, just never a _great_ time.


I disagree. I think the Creation, Cello Concerto No. 1, and the late string quartets are great, at the very least.


----------



## Bulldog

ORigel said:


> I disagree. I think the Creation, Cello Concerto No. 1, and the late string quartets are great, at the very least.


Even Telemann gives me a great time with his sacred choral works.


----------



## ORigel

Bulldog said:


> Even Telemann gives me a great time with his sacred choral works.


I only listened to his Tafelmusik Production I so far.


----------

