# What you "like" and "don't like" on Haydn's music?



## peeyaj (Nov 17, 2010)

It seems that Haydn is not frequently discussed here in TC. I have never been an admirer of his music, and in some occasions criticized his musical compositions as being inferior to his contemporaries or the later generation of composers. I acknowledged the fact that he was referred as the "Father of Symphony" and "Father of String Quartet", and his innovations helped established chamber music, but, there are composers who surpassed him in those genres.. (Beethoven in symphonies; Beethoven and Schubert in chamber music). The image of old "Papa Haydn" is bastardized in classical music.










Some members of TC said that Haydn's strength lies on his masses, choral works and oratorios. I have listened to his "The Creation" and I admit that it is inspired. Unfortunately, I have never been to "choral music" so I can't really much appreciate him on this regard.

It is unfair to do, but I want to compare Haydn to Mozart, Beethoven and Schubert. They were sometime called the *"First Viennese School".*

*Mozart*

Mozart wrote the better operas and concertos. Haydn's concertos seemed to disappear on the repertoire. Mozart is the greater genius and arguably mastered all the genres in classical music.

*Beethoven*

No contest. Beethoven will beat Haydn in composition department. Beethoven's symphonies, chamber music and piano solo music are among the best on classical repertoire.



> Beethoven, however, seems to have harbored ill-will toward Haydn during some of his life. At the suggestion that he include the phrase pupil of Haydn, Beethoven bristled. According to the account left by Ferdinand Ries, "Beethoven was unwilling to because, as he said, although he had some instruction from Haydn he had never learned anything from him." The bad feelings produced by the Opus 1 Trios were compounded upon their first performance. Haydn, present in the audience, is reported to have recommended against the publication of the C minor Trio (Opus 1, no. 3) since he suspected the music would not gain public acceptance. Beethoven interpreted this as an indication of Haydn's envy and jealousy.


*Schubert*

For the sheer genius of compositions, Schubert is superior to Haydn. Haydn will beat Schubert in choral works, but Schubert is the greatest songwriter, the body of chamber music, the piano solos and two masterful symphonies. And Schubert had only 31 years to live.

I found these various comments on the internet:



> Haydn's primary character flaw was greed, particularly as it related to his business dealings. Webster writes, "As regards money, Haydn was so self-interested as to shock [both] contemporaries and many later authorities .... He always attempted to maximize his income, whether by negotiating the right to sell his music outside the Esterházy court, driving hard bargains with publishers or selling his works three and four times over; he regularly engaged in 'sharp practice' and occasionally in outright fraud. When crossed in business relations, he reacted angrily."[52] Webster notes that Haydn's ruthlessness in business might be viewed more sympathetically in light of his struggles with poverty during his years as a freelancer, and notes that outside of the world of business-in dealings with relatives and servants, and in volunteering his services for charitable concerts-Haydn was a generous man.[52]





> His symphonies, though, leave a lot to be desired, as he himself said on his deathbed, "I have just figured out how to use the winds." They are more like 1 symphony with 103 variations.





> http://pillageidiot.blogspot.com/2007/12/dissin-papa-haydn.html


*So, to end this rant, what you "like" and "don't like" on Haydn's music?*

Like: I dunno. His choral works??

Don't Like: There are composers who are much better.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

Like: Symphonies 1-60 something and a little less than two dozen of the rest (I really like 103 though), choral, piano trios AS LONG AS THEY ARE PLAYED ON A FORTEPIANO AND GUT STRINGS WITH CLASSICAL BOWS, string quartets, trumpet concerto. He was brilliant at Sturm und Drang especially in his 52nd symphony (my personal favourite).

Don't like: piano sonatas, piano trios played on modern instruments, violin concertos.



peeyaj said:


> Don't Like: There are composers who are much better.


Are you implying that you don't like the fact that there are better composers than Haydn?


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

Very relaxing music. It's like Impressionism of the 18th Century. His slow movements take forever. Usually movement 2 of the Symphonies. Great to sleep to though as less herky jerky stuff that keeps you awake. But I tend to prefer more lively music though tbh.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

neoshredder said:


> Very relaxing music. It's like Impressionism of the 18th Century. His slow movements take forever. Usually movement 2 of the Symphonies. Great to sleep to though as less herky jerky stuff that keeps you awake. But I tend to prefer more lively music though tbh.


Says the unwitting audience member oblivious to the fact that soon during the premiere of the _Surprise_ (in the 2nd mvt) he will be awoken from his sleep, mwahahaha......:devil:


----------



## Arsakes (Feb 20, 2012)

Like: 
3/5 of his symphonies, mostly between no. 35-104.
Seasons
Piano Sonatas, Trios
Horn, Violin, Cello Concertos
String Quartets

dislike:

very few works


----------



## jalex (Aug 21, 2011)

People often don't appreciate the magnitude of the contribution Haydn made towards the development of Classicism (and thus indirectly large swathes of Romanticism, since much of this has deep Classical roots). He is possibly the single most influential composer in history: he more than anyone else established the dramatic sonata style which was the most important form in musical history, remaining central to practice well into the 20th century; he almost single-handedly developed modern chamber music by developing a method of writing which removed the need for a continuo part to fill in the gaps and thus allowed all parts to be written on equal terms; his op 20&33 quartets set the grounds for instrumental writing for a good number of years, with their exploration of form, balanced part-writing, synthesis of counterpoint with the dramatic sonata style and flexibility of phrase length (on a side note, those who complain of Classical conventions should pay attention to this - the alleged freedom of the early Romantic period often produced far more conventional 4-bar phrases than you will find in Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven). His London symphonies contain the richest instrumental writing to be found in any music of the time other than the late works of Mozart. His pioneering attitude to form has no parallel in any great music of his time. The London symphonies, along with the late quartets, the late masses, the final oratorios and perhaps a handful of other works stand among the greatest compositions in history. 

That comment on his symphonies was clearly written by someone who hasn't heard many of them. Sir Donald Francis Tovey Tovey says 'Haydn never wrote two mature sonata movements identical in form'.


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

peeyaj said:


> It seems that Haydn is not frequently discussed here in TC.


Here I agree with you. His neglect here is ridiculous and certainly disproportional to the outside world.

Here my agreement with you ends.



peeyaj said:


> I have never been an admirer of his music, and in some occasions criticized his musical compositions as being inferior to his contemporaries or the later generation of composers. I acknowledged the fact that he was referred as the "Father of Symphony" and "Father of String Quartet", and his innovations helped established chamber music, but, there are composers who surpassed him in those genres.. (Beethoven in symphonies; Beethoven and Schubert in chamber music). The image of old "Papa Haydn" is bastardized in classical music.


He is the composer that really validated pure instrumental music for the first time in history, and his is primarily the work, along with Mozart, that made instrumental music considered to be the pinnacle of the arts in the early Romantic period. This was not Beethoven - though he became their standard-bearer. Beethoven was the result of this attitude.



peeyaj said:


> Some members of TC said that Haydn's strength lies on his masses, choral works and oratorios. I have listened to his "The Creation" and I admit that it is inspired. Unfortunately, I have never been to "choral music" so I can't really much appreciate him on this regard.


I am not sufficiently acquainted with his masses to comment, and choral music isn't really my thing either (at least during this period), but The Creation is one of the few works of his I have found to be really dull.. The opening was great up to "And there was light!" But from then on it was a series of choruses and arias with little dynamic shape or drama.



peeyaj said:


> It is unfair to do, but I want to compare Haydn to Mozart, Beethoven and Schubert. They were sometime called the *"First Viennese School".*


Unfair? Why unfair? bar Beethoven's 9th and I would take him any day of the week without a second thought. To be frank, I would think long and hard with him vs the other three combined with it.



peeyaj said:


> *Mozart*
> 
> Mozart wrote the better operas and concertos. Haydn's concertos seemed to disappear on the repertoire. Mozart is the greater genius and arguably mastered all the genres in classical music.


Mozart is arguably the greatest genius in Classical music - not commenting on his compositions comparative to others, but his prodigious youth and his astounding mental capacities. His operas are fantastic, concertos are not my thing but they are good and Haydn's rather mediocre, at least the keyboard ones, and his chamber music is excellent. But unlike others I simply cannot compare the symphonies, and although Mozart's chamber music is good, Haydn's is thoroughly formidable too and much larger in quantity.

Mozart is cleverer than Haydn, and has a better sense of proportion and certainly scale. However, as my piano teacher once said of her own opinion, he is cold, Haydn is much warmer and more human. This I agree with.



peeyaj said:


> *Beethoven*
> 
> No contest. Beethoven will beat Haydn in composition department. Beethoven's symphonies, chamber music and piano solo music are among the best on classical repertoire.


Um this is a slightly odd statement - a somewhat Beethoven-centric spirit there. But ignoring that, given that Beethoven's output is so small, and in every single genre I prefer Haydn's music with few exceptions (overtures, concertos, the 9th although even this Haydn equalled for me), I find Haydn wins out again.



peeyaj said:


> *Schubert*
> 
> For the sheer genius of compositions, Schubert is superior to Haydn. Haydn will beat Schubert in choral works, but Schubert is the greatest songwriter, the body of chamber music, the piano solos and two masterful symphonies. And Schubert had only 31 years to live.


Haydn's songs are unfairly neglected, although they by no means in the league of Schubert's they are still good and no one knows about them so I thought I'd put that out there. Again chamber music Haydn wins, piano solos is debatable and I have never considered Schubert's 8th or 9th anything to write home about. I'd take his earlier symphonies any day, and these are of similar quality to about 50 that Haydn wrote. Choral music doesn't bother me.

Simply from what they wrote (not commenting on talent), Schubert and Haydn are generally placed in the same league, depending on the preferences of the person. I make no comment on Schubert's projected output, but certainly his early death is a great loss to Classical music. However Haydn was far more influential (actually than most), and would have been anyway.



peeyaj said:


> (from elsewhere) His symphonies, though, leave a lot to be desired, as he himself said on his deathbed, "I have just figured out how to use the winds." They are more like 1 symphony with 103 variations.


This comment is so utterly ridiculous that it is barely worth responding to, and certainly should not be given any kind of consideration and I was as shocked to read it the first time as to see it given sufficient attention to be posted here. There is far more variation over Haydn's symphonic output than any other major composer - the only one who even comes close is Mozart - simply because there are so many of them composed over so long a time. And as for the comment about winds, Haydn was IMO the best orchestrator before Mahler, Rimsky-Korsakov declared him to be "the greatest master of orchestration", and it should certainly be considered as Haydn gaining a deep and perhaps unique insight into the subject.



peeyaj said:


> *So, to end this rant, what you "like" and "don't like" on Haydn's music?*


I must admire that you create a thread dedicated to a composer you don't like, and such a long OP. So what do I like about his music?

1. His vision of beauty, the sublime, is - to me - by far the greatest of any composer in classical music I have heard. Beethoven (my next favourite) is excellent at portraying things, but they are generally earthly sort of emotions, even Mahler is the same in this respect, though very different of course. In Haydn though, I see all the beauty of nature, of longing, of joy and of so many things more specific to different pieces.

2. Other composers - Mozart particularly - always strike me as being a bit of a showman, a bit more theatrical. As if you are indeed in a concert hall being spoken to among many others. Whereas listening to Haydn I feel like I am talking to an old friend. This is why on the whole I like his earlier works better, and I like the later ones because it is the same man, but it is the middle period that gives him the edge over all the others for me.

3. Give and take. I mentioned the word conversation because with Haydn I feel myself much more an active participant in the music, as if I am contributing. This is of course not the case in reality, but it is not a surprising reaction since so many of his works play with expectation far more than most others, who simply set a standard at the beginning and then continue with it (it seems to me, perhaps Mozart is again an exception). This is why I am so keen to get to like CPE, because I suspect Haydn learnt this aspect of his music from him.

Don't like? The Creation, Piano Concertos, and I'm not a big fan of the piano trios but I have a very HIP recording of them all and can't stand the fortepiano etc. I have some modern ones as well, but unfortunately, they are delicately balanced for old instruments and sound a bit odd on modern ones as well so there is a problem here.



neoshredder said:


> Very relaxing music. It's like Impressionism of the 18th Century. His slow movements take forever. Usually movement 2 of the Symphonies. Great to sleep to though as less herky jerky stuff that keeps you awake. But I tend to prefer more lively music though tbh.


This I find odd as well. But hey, I find that Josquin makes me awake even in the middle of the night, and Mahler makes me sleepy (sometimes fall to sleep ) even though I like both a lot.


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

They all sound the same to me. Funny Vivaldi gets criticized for this but it seems that Haydn rarely went outside the boundaries of typical Classical Era sound. I enjoy Boccherini, CPE Bach, and Carl Stamiz more though. They may be less complex but they did great things with melodies. Something that I find harder to get into with Haydn. I'm not going to argue his historical importance though Beethoven said he got nothing from Haydn and it was mostly Mozart and Handel that influenced him. I forgot where that was said so maybe someone can find the direct quote.


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

neoshredder said:


> They all sound the same to me. Funny Vivaldi gets criticized for this but it seems that Haydn rarely went outside the boundaries of typical Classical Era sound. I enjoy Boccherini, CPE Bach, and Carl Stamiz more though. They may be less complex but they did great things with melodies. Something that I find harder to get into with Haydn. I'm not going to argue his historical importance though Beethoven said he got nothing from Haydn and it was mostly Mozart and Handel that influenced him. I forgot where that was said so maybe someone can find the direct quote.


Beethoven didn't like him as a teacher. The relationship failed. However he clearly got a great deal from his music and his basic motivic practice particularly is essentially directly following Haydn's.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

When I first started listening to classical music seriously, I was surprised to see Haydn's name placed among the greats (for example, Goulding places him at number 5). Since that time I have listened to a very large amount of Haydn's music. I am finishing all 104 symphonies (I have several left). I have heard almost all the string quartets and the majority of choral work. As I listen to more of his work, my assessment of Haydn has continually risen. His symphonies and string quartets are simply wonderful. He wrote a large number so not all are at the same level, but there are dozens of symphonies I adore and perhaps 15 or so wonderful quartets. His choral works (especially The Creation, The Seasons, and several of the masses, Lord Nelson, Harmoniemesse, Missa in tempore belli) are first rate. 

His concertos are generally not as good as his symphonies, quartets, and choral works; however, his cello concertos are excellent. I prefer the first to the second, but both are played regularly in the repertoire. His piano trios are also lovely. I love the 5th and 9th. 

Overall there's nothing I really don't like. 

Comparing him to Mozart, Beethoven, and Schubert is fine. I think most TC members would place him below those composers, but being placed below 3 of the greatest composers of all time does not say much negative about him. In my opinion he is a truly great composer.


----------



## StevenOBrien (Jun 27, 2011)

Ramako said:


> However, as my piano teacher once said, he is cold, Haydn is much warmer and more human. This I agree with.


Really? It's the polar opposite for me.


----------



## Mephistopheles (Sep 3, 2012)

I'm not sure I'd try comparing him to other composers like Mozart and Beethoven as most composers - some brilliant - would fail by that standard. I'm not sure how to feel about Haydn. I'm not that keen on choral music, but I love things like his trumpet concerto. The trouble is that he wrote so much it's hard to know where to start.


----------



## jalex (Aug 21, 2011)

Ramako said:


> Mozart is cleverer...however...he is cold, Haydn is much warmer and more human.


If you are going to deride someone for making ridiculous comments, you shouldn't do so yourself. There isn't the faintest hint of coldness in Mozart's music; this assertion is about as well grounded as the claim that Haydn wrote one symphony and 103 variations on it.


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

jalex said:


> If you are going to deride someone for making ridiculous comments, you shouldn't do so yourself. There isn't the faintest hint of coldness in Mozart's music; this assertion is about as well grounded as the claim that Haydn wrote one symphony and 103 variations on it.


Um, I was talking about my personal reaction and my piano teacher's. If this is not clear then I apologize. I do very much like Mozart's music, but find him more theatrical (except Haydn's late works which make a point of it). Cold was a relative term when first said.

EDIT: I have made the post more clear.


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

I guess I should also say the positive of Haydn. His first movements usually have a lot of energy and slightly similar to CPE Bach. It might've been better if he wasn't so prolific. Spent more time on each Symphony.


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

I don't think you can meaningfully compare Haydn with the composers who came after him. Particularly from Beethoven on, composers began to compose with at least one eye (if not both) on posterity and personal fame. Haydn was primarily concerned with first, pleasing his employer and later, making a living.

I don't mean to imply that Haydn never thought of how he might be remembered, but he was no Brahms- destroying as much of his output as he preserved for fear of anything less than his very best surviving him. Ironically, had he been a little less musically fecund, I imagine his reputation might be even higher than it is. But, the judgment of posterity wasn't what he was all about. To have produced so many truly wonderful pieces of music without that goal, is actually pretty incredible.


----------



## Ondine (Aug 24, 2012)

It is hard to unlike something from Haydn.

_Maybe_ a few specific works from here and there that can be felt as a repetition -more of the same substance- of a previous work.

I still have some trouble with some of his Piano Trios and some early Piano Chamber music.

Anyway it is not a real 'dislike' but just a lack of careful examination.

In general terms I love his entire oeuvre but what has caught my soul completely are his symphonic works.

The opening section of the 'Le matin' symphony is an outstanding demonstration of beauty and perfection and like that one, we can found hundreds of them along his oeuvre.


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

Yeah true. Comparing it to some of the stuff of the Romantic Era and later, I will gladly take Haydn. All his music is pretty likeable. Not the case of some later music.


----------



## TresPicos (Mar 21, 2009)

I like Haydn in the same way that I like vanilla ice cream.


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

TresPicos said:


> I like Haydn in the same way that I like vanilla ice cream.


Do you eat Haydn's Symphonies? I eat Vivaldi's Concertos.


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

peeyaj said:


> (Beethoven in symphonies; Beethoven and *Schubert in chamber music*).


No, Schubert did not exceed Haydn in chamber music.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

neoshredder said:


> They all sound the same to me. Funny Vivaldi gets criticized for this but it seems that Haydn rarely went outside the boundaries of typical Classical Era sound. .


Yes, but Haydn was the one who really developed and defined the classical sound and nearly all the typical forms... I.e. the symphony, sonata, string quartet etc...


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

Sonata goes to Corelli and Biber though.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

neoshredder said:


> Sonata goes to Corelli and Biber though.


Im afraid not. Im talking about the Sonata form which is structure rather than a _sonata_ (i.e. a piano sonata), which simply means a piece that is played.

CPE Bach laid the foundations for the sonata form, but one could argue that it was Haydn who cemented it and defined it in the way that we now know it.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

Haydn's music is brimming with personality. Some of his music just makes me laugh, in a good way. Parts are just so cute, or silly. Its just really fun music alot of the time. But he's also capable of pretty intense expression in the dramatic side too. The finale for Symphony 45, while the theatrics of it can be amusing, if you really just listen to it, its heartbreaking. The imaginative orchestration helps this. Even though Haydn is probably the quintessential classical composer, some of his ideas are pretty forward thinking, and we get to hear their evolution into full-blown romanticism in his student Beethoven's work.


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

brianwalker said:


> No, Schubert did not exceed Haydn in chamber music.


As much as I love Haydn, I think Mozart, LvB, and Schubert surpassed. Testament to that phenomenal era and the (r)evolutionary process.


----------



## Sonata (Aug 7, 2010)

My favorite Haydn pieces in general don't seem to be the big works he was "Known for". (except for his cello concertos, which I believe they were well regarded, and the Nelson Mass which I don't love, but I have really grown to like). His string quartets and symphonies for example have not really reached me yet. To be fair, I haven't clicked with classical era symphony at all yet, preferring other styles of music in this era. My favorite Haydn pieces in addition to those already mentioned is his lighter music. His piano sonatas, piano trios, and divertimenti. I like them because I find them invigorating but not over-the-top bouncy.


----------



## Ondine (Aug 24, 2012)

Sonata said:


> I like them because I find them invigorating but not over-the-top bouncy.


I like this criteria, Sonata and the term 'over-the-top bouncy'. I think that music do not has -by force- to be 'monumental' to be meaningful.

'Small is beautiful'


----------



## poconoron (Oct 26, 2011)

I put myself firmly in the "Haydn lovers" camp. Like others, I don't care for his concertos, but the symphonies, chamber music, oratorios, masses are for the most part excellent. Haydn is among my top 5 favorites - Mozart, Beethoven, Bach, Schubert and Haydn.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

I have not heard a single Haydn composition that was not pleasing and good to listen to.

I have also not heard a single Haydn composition that left me thinking "now there is an absolute masterpiece". The late string quartets come closest.

There are dozens of Haydn CD's in my collection, but if I were hard pressed to make a substantially smaller selection from my collection, I don't think a single Haydn disc would make the cut.


----------



## Carpenoctem (May 15, 2012)

Papa Haydn is great. I love his symphonies, some of them are generic, but most are great (especially London Symphonies, you can't miss with any of them, all 12 are great)

Late string quartets are also cool, his trumpet concerto I didn't like at first hearing though, but later I started to enjoy it and I love it now.

I don't like his piano concertos and operas (I haven't heard all of them though). That doesn't mean that they are not good, but I'm spoiled with Mozart's output in those areas in classical era.

One of the most influential composers for sure, but I miss that spark of a genius in his works.


----------



## peeyaj (Nov 17, 2010)

Thanks for the nice response, guys! The discussion id going very well..  ^_^


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

So, to end this rant, what you "like" and "don't like" on Haydn's music?

Like: I dunno. His choral works??

Don't Like: There are composers who are much better.

This whole question seems absurd to me. Am I to never again listen to Mozart and Beethoven... or anybody else... because I believe (know) that J.S. Bach is a greater composer than anyone else? When I'm listening to Haydn I'm enjoying his music for what it is... not what it is not (Beethoven, Mozart... Bach). Regardless of whether Beethoven wrote a number of symphonies greater than any by Haydn, Haydn still wrote more great symphonies than anybody else... and I would say the same of his string quartets. His choral music...? Well the finest examples (ie. _The Creation_) stand shoulder to shoulder with the finest choral works... the finest music in general... by any composer.


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

Try the Nelson Mass and the Opus 64, 76 quartets. That will change your mind.


----------



## TrazomGangflow (Sep 9, 2011)

When I'm listening to Haydn (one of my most favorite composers) I try to focus on how great Haydn is, not how much greater Mozart, Beethoven, and Schubert are. Are they greater than Haydn? Yes. Does that make me think less of his music? No.


----------



## KRoad (Jun 1, 2012)

poconoron said:


> I put myself firmly in the "Haydn lovers" camp. Like others, I don't care for his concertos, but the symphonies, chamber music, oratorios, masses are for the most part excellent. Haydn is among my top 5 favorites - Mozart, Beethoven, Bach, Schubert and Haydn.


Couldn't have said it better myself - so I won't. Ditto.


----------



## jurianbai (Nov 23, 2008)

Likes all Haydn string quartets. I tryto spin his sq as much as I can get in the mix with other pieces. Other Haydn I am into are his chorale works, Creation, Season . Others I rarely listen. So I don't have 'dislike'....

Do you know Haydn was so god like status that when he died, his head was stealth from the body? Check wiki for details.


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

I feel I was too polemical earlier. So I figured I'd post the reasons I value Haydn so highly.

I tend to think of his ouvre in 4 periods.

Early -> Sturm und Drang
Middle (sudden shift in style) -> Late

Firstly, understand that the classical style, certainly early-mid, is much less tense (dissonant) than late classical or late Baroque; it's more relaxed and less pretentious, if mannered. It's a bit like Renaissance music in being less dissonant - and less popular

This early work is what first made me look beyond (or behind) the London symphonies (not a fan of this recording, but Youtube has what Youtube has)






In general there are few early works that are generally popular. Others include symphonies 6-8 and 22, though I must confess this latter, however nice, sends me off to sleep.

The Sturm und Drang, my favourite period. The farewell (symphony 45) is the most famous piece here, and other good works include the op. 20 quartets, and many other symphonies, particularly in the 40's; but I would like to post the two last movements of two consecutive symphonies to point out the enormous variety in Haydn's work, even within a short space of time.

These are 43 and 44, and are among my favourite works ever written. 43 is the chamber symphony _par excellence_, intended for reflection even in a finale, whereas 44 is in the new Sturm und Drang style, much more dramatic and dynamic. Notice not only the drama, but the sheer relentless, motor energy in this latter work which is IMO lost in later styles, though of course with many pay-offs.











Then we move on to the middle style. Here Haydn's works become much less consistent than in the symphonic 40's. Here is symphony 53, a work which looks forward to his later style if any ever did. This is what I like to think of as the Haydn fan's music - stuff I doubt people who are not into the composer will go for at first. About 17:55 is the last movement, which is the one I wanted to point out (can't find it separately).






The middle style goes roughly from symphony 53 to the Paris symphonies, and the most obviously notable one here is 73, "La Chasse".

Note that despite the fun in this movement, there are moments of awkwardness. So far I have used the symphonies, but this middle style achieved true coherence in the astonishing op. 33 string quartet set. These are light works (including the famous 'joke' quartet), but don't let their lightness obscure their depth. Here is my favourite quartet, the op.33 in b minor. I strongly recommend the Casals version of this opus, although this version I also have and is respectable. Regrettably it does not perform all the repeats which are essential to the proportions of the classical style, particularly of a chamber work.






I would include the quartets up to op. 64 in this style. There is a natural break between these and op. 71


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

Now we move into the late style which needs much less advertisement. Here I think his age, or his new style, begins to obscure his earlier passion, though everything is still very good, and more technically accomplished. This is where he mastered the motivic technique which was to make Beethoven's achievements possible. There is more of a 'touch of class' to things like the op. 76, which I have to work my way around in approaching. This is the style to which some would term, with some justice, 'second-rate Mozart'. This following work however could not have been written by Mozart; it has Haydn written all over:






I post the following as a personal favourite of the London symphonies. The slow movement is also a superb example of Haydn's orchestration, although there are many examples in previous works, which demonstrate that in this aspect his time at Esterhaza with practically his own personal orchestra was not wasted. About 9:05 is the right point.






Among these links are some of my most treasured moments in Classical music. However many people seem to have different favourites in Haydn even if they do like him, partly because he is not a 'masterpiece' composer, who set out to write great works (at least before The Creation).

Perfect Cadence.

The End.


----------



## Xaltotun (Sep 3, 2010)

Haydn is great, love the cello concertos, string quartets, etc. The only thing I don't like about him is the gigantic amount of his symphonies. Now, if he had written 9 of them like all the sensible composers, I'd be listening to them all the time. But with 104, the sheer number crushes any and all of my hopes of ever coming to "understand" them, so I'm not even starting this quest.


----------

