# Haydn Symphonies - which are regarded as the best?



## Guest

I've been listening to the London Symphonies again and am aware that they are generally highly regarded. But which of all his symphonies, not just the London, are regarded as the best?

There have been threads (polls) asking folk to choose their personal favourites, but that's not what I'm asking.

And can anyone offer any insight into why some argue in favour of Haydn's symphonies over Mozart's?

Thanks.


----------



## DavidA

Certainly the London symphonies are among the best as they appear to be the most highly developed. I certainly would not prefer Haydn's over the best of Mozart's mature symphonies but that doesn't mean they are not good works


----------



## KenOC

#88 is a wonderful symphony. There are many others; it's easy to find your favorites simply by listening. Haydn didn't write many duds.


----------



## Guest

KenOC said:


> #88 is a wonderful symphony. There are many others; it's easy to find your favorites simply by listening. Haydn didn't write many duds.


C'mon Ken - I expressly said I was not looking for 'favourites'. Are you saying that #88 is widely regarded as his best, or it's just one your likes?


----------



## KenOC

I think it's highly regarded (as you asked). Give it a try and see! 

You may also see #88 as "Letter V" based on its old catalog designation in Great Britain.


----------



## chill782002

A difficult one to answer, given how many he wrote. Numbers 44 ("Trauer"), 45 ("Farewell) and 49 ("La Passione") tend to rank highly in surveys I've seen along with 93-104 ("The London Symphonies"). 

That said, my favourites are 59 ("Fire") and 64 ("Tempora Mutantur"). Sorry, I know you're not asking for personal favourites but I couldn't resist.


----------



## tdc

The ones I see referred to the most tend to be higher numbers roughly 80 and up, but also the 'Sturm and Drang' Symphonies, which occupy the mid 40-s I think. I would assume those are some of the best, but not my area of expertise.


----------



## Art Rock

The TC recommended 150 symphonies include Haydn's 104, 94, 103, 100, 88 and 82.


----------



## Guest

MacLeod said:


> I've been listening to the London Symphonies again and am aware that they are generally highly regarded. But which of all his symphonies, not just the London, are regarded as the best?
> 
> There have been threads (polls) asking folk to choose their personal favourites, but that's not what I'm asking.
> 
> And can anyone offer any insight into why some argue in favour of Haydn's symphonies over Mozart's?
> 
> Thanks.


The London symphonies of all his symphonies are regarded as his best by most concert programmers, performing artists, record labels etc. They sound most like Mozart and are played and recorded most often.

However, the non-London symphonies are equally worth listening to, whether it is early ones (the times of day), sturm and drang, opera influenced, Paris or the ones that fall between these groups. Personally, I treat them all (104?) equally, and play them all pretty much the same amount.

It is somewhat trite to argue in favor of one composers symphonies over another's. There is no useful insight to be gained there.


----------



## tdc

MacLeod said:


> And can anyone offer any insight into why some argue in favour of Haydn's symphonies over Mozart's?
> Thanks.


I suspect one reason has to do with Haydn's use of Sonata form, it fleshes out themes in a way quite rigorous and is more of a pre-cursor to Beethoven's approach. I think some people just prefer that kind of musical structure, to Mozart's seemingly more intuitive approach.


----------



## Heck148

MacLeod said:


> C'mon Ken - I expressly said I was not looking for 'favourites'. Are you saying that #88 is widely regarded as his best, or it's just one your likes?


 Haydn #88 is certainly regarded as one of his best....it also happens to be a favorite of mine...the London and Paris symphonies are highly regarded....Haydn wrote so many winners, it's hard to name them all....22, 31, 51, 59 are excellent...so are the fine ones between Paris and London - 88-91


----------



## bharbeke

The ones I see mentioned most often are the Farewell, London, Paris, Sturm und Drang, and a few of the other named symphonies (Hornsignal, Philosopher, etc.).


----------



## bz3

Yes mostly the named ones are held in best regard. 88 is the biggest exception IMO. The Clock and The Military (100 and 101) are my favorite of the Londons, with Oxford and Surprise close behind. The Bear is my favorite of the Paris and I like all the Sturm und Drang - particularly 43 and 49. He has some early gems too, though I'm less familiar with them, but 6-8 are great.

Haydn is easy to enter anywhere I think. I started with London and a 1-8 disc I somehow came into but I think I'd be just as much a fan if I'd started with a Sturm und Drang or Paris set. Or even the roughly 60 I'm not that familiar with.


----------



## EdwardBast

It is difficult for me to separate favorite from best. My preference is for the ones Haydn wrote when he felt unconstrained and free to follow his fancy. For me that means the Sturm und Drang, especially 44-47. But I'm with Heck148 on favoring the ones between the Paris and Londons as well, especially 88 and 89.


----------



## brianvds

MacLeod said:


> C'mon Ken - I expressly said I was not looking for 'favourites'. Are you saying that #88 is widely regarded as his best, or it's just one your likes?


"Best" is nothing more than the average of everyone's favourites.


----------



## Guest

Tulse said:


> It is somewhat trite to argue in favor of one composers symphonies over another's. There is no useful insight to be gained there.


I agree that comparisons can be odious, and I certainly resent the endless comparisons made here (between Mozart and Beethoven, or tonality and atonality, or any other x and y you care to name) which are aimed at establishing a supremacy of one over the other. However, that does not mean that there is no insight in identifying their comparative strengths. Note that I wasn't asking anyone to argue in favour of H over M or vice versa, but to share any knowledge they might have of such an argument that has evolved over time in CM circles.

I've done my own internet search and found some interesting articles about Haydn that tend to confirm the subjectivity in this. He may have been the father of the symphony, and there is unanimity about the groups of symphonies that are 'best' and that he is 'witty'. But not much beyond that. This is the most helpful so far.



> Haydn's questing, rigorously argumentative art rarely admits of the operatically inspired lyrical sweetness and almost voluptuous pathos with which Mozart captivates the most casual listener - though we might be thankful that this has at least saved him from mobile ringtones and kitsch merchandise. Yet if Haydn must always yield to the Salzburger in popular appeal, the power of his greatest music, its profundity and passion as well as its wit and exuberance, remains undimmed.


https://www.gramophone.co.uk/feature/haydn-the-poor-man’s-mozart

And then there's this...



> You know when Judi Dench turned up at the end of Shakespeare In Love for about 2 minutes and still managed to win an Oscar, despite doing very little apart from wearing some intimidating make-up? [...] symphony [63] is a bit like that. Impressive, but we're not sure why.


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



brianvds said:


> "Best" is nothing more than the average of everyone's favourites.


Yes, but some 'everyone's' are of more value than others!


----------



## CnC Bartok

I suppose received opinion would say that the London Symphonies are Haydn's best, and I am not going to argue with that; likewise the nicknames, which are better ways of identifying the works among so many than "the one in D major with a pretty little Menuet but no slow introduction", tend to point towards the more popular of the symphonies. 
Unfortunately for those not saddled with a nice little name tend to get overlooked. Having said that, No.88, mentioned quite a few times here, is pretty well-known, and yet has no name and isn't a London or a Paris. Good going!
But don't overlook the unnamed ones or the earlier ones, especially those labelled with the Sturm und Drang grouping. Among the Londons, No.95 (the one with no slow introduction!) and especially No.102 (shall we call it "The Nicknameless"?) are very special works, and of his earlier works, there are absolute masterpieces, such as The Farewell (No.45) and one of my absolute favourites, Lamentatione, No.26. 
I don't think there's a weak work among the 104 or whatever the correct number now is. True, I can survive without some of the earlier pieces - the first 20 don't really excite me, with the obvious three exceptions - and it is hard to find real favourites among the 60's or 70's without looking hard (they ARE there, though!)


----------



## Guest

Robert Pickett said:


> the first 20 don't really excite me, with the obvious three exceptions


6,7,8 ?


----------



## CnC Bartok

Yup! They're gorgeous and great! Following on from them, No.22, and of course 26 among the earlier numbered works.

Looked at your classic FM ranking article; what a daft idea. The bloke seems to dislike anything that has a "gimmick" in it. The Farewell is a lot better than he makes out, immensely dark and troubled until the joke at the end. At least he gets the Lamentations in about the right place, and I can't argue with the ones he finds the best, but he dismisses some of Haydn's finest, which is hardly fair.


----------



## Guest

MacLeod said:


> I've done my own internet search and found some interesting articles about Haydn that tend to confirm the subjectivity in this. He may have been the father of the symphony, and there is unanimity about the groups of symphonies that are 'best' and that he is 'witty'. But not much beyond that. This is the most helpful so far.


There is a myth that Haydn's music lacks depth, but he was in fact capable of melancholy and tragedy, such as XVII:6 Un Piccolo Divertimento, possibly inspired by the death of a lady friend.


----------



## Triplets

My favorite Haydn set is Trevor Pinnock leading a set of “Storm und Drag” works, all numbered in the 40s &50s. There is an experimentation and restless energy in these pieces which is missing from the finely polished Paris and London Symphonies


----------



## Funny

Whether "best" or "regarded as the best," any such categorization is still, as brianvds indicated, inevitably going to fall back on favorites of a smaller or larger number of people. So to some extent the distinction is useless. But I'll still cite two that are less heralded and give a rationale for grouping them among the best.

Symphony 80 has a lot of humor and whimsy to it, but it also either introduces or compellingly establishes a lot of devices and approaches that inform the approach of most of the rest of the symphonies in the 80s - to cite just one example, the first-movement pattern where the second theme is coda-like, insouciant and tossed-off, seeming too light and frivolous to do much with, but which ironically winds up noticeably dominating the development at the expense of the primary theme.

And while I'd always thought of #88 as the pinnacle of Haydn's most assured and perfectly-wrought inspiration (which is not equivalent to "best," but certainly one of them), I've now re-assigned that attribute to #92 after going numerically through the symphonies. That is, I'd heard 92 many times before, but on this round, I'm listening to each symphony in order, starting with Fischer and then comparing with at least a couple other conductors to get a real sense of it, and just the first movement of #92 is like a smack in the face in terms of manifesting Haydn's unerring control over his delivery of fun and meaning, especially in its very strong rhythmic intensity, which is a feature of Haydn that is too little remarked upon. His timing in switching from larger beats to skittering runs and back just fits like such precision clockwork it's impossible to imagine a note or beat being moved or replaced.

Also, listening to symphonies this many times in a row brings insights into how Haydn makes later episodes in the symphony stand out and/or appeal to the ear by preparing us with a similar device earlier. This is not the same as simple motivic reference, though it is sometimes that - it's also similarities in rhythm that affect us on a bodily level, even if we don't consciously pick up on them. Two quick examples of that: 1) how the opening of the finale has such a friendly instantly engaging feel because its pattern - five beats before the bar and then a downbeat scooping appogiatura - was introduced to us back in the intro to the first movement (the big, dramatic stretto/overlapping part), even though that was a completely different key, mode, meter and tempo; and 2) the bouncing-back 1-2 punch that defines the main theme of movement one, with the prominently accented second beat, pervades the first movement but also shows up in the second and third, and then helps Haydn trick us in the infamous trio, where we've been primed to hear what are actually downbeat "hits" as though they were strong second beats.

Now, I'm also cuckoo for 49, 46, 73, 39, 58, 21, 62, 44, 83 and 85, but these two probably get to the point where my subjective "favorite" comes closest to something I could rationally attempt to justify as "best."


----------



## PlaySalieri

Some seem to be suggesting Hadyn composed 87 duff symphonies before a decent one (88)

I haven't listened to all - but the earlier works are all good if not great - the pinnock recordings of the sturm and drang have been mentioned - 88 is one of my favourites (Jochum) and of course the London ones are all worth a listen.

and no - they sound nothing like Mozart.


----------



## KenOC

I hate to bring this up, but…

I read that some years ago there was an all-night classical DJ. He would stick Haydn symphony movements together willy-nilly and announce them as “Haydn’s 63rd Symphony” or some such. Nobody ever called him on it. :lol:


----------



## Haydn man

KenOC said:


> I hate to bring this up, but…
> 
> I read that some years ago there was an all-night classical DJ. He would stick Haydn symphony movements together willy-nilly and announce them as "Haydn's 63rd Symphony" or some such. Nobody ever called him on it. :lol:


Maybe no one was listening


----------



## KenOC

Haydn man said:


> Maybe no one was listening


That's certainly one possible explanation!


----------



## Donna Elvira

KenOC said:


> I think it's highly regarded (as you asked). Give it a try and see!
> 
> One of my early classical music listening guides by Melvin Berger, also listed #88 as one of the most highly regarded and popular.
> He based his selction of pieces chosen for the book on those which are most recorded and performed, based on CD catalogues, program booklets from both orchestras and radio stations, and spoke with conductors,performers, and other experts in the field.
> He lists 10 Haydn symphonies as the top masterpieces and 88th is among them.
> Haydn's biographer, H.C. Robbins Landon, writes, " Seldom did Haydn reach the pinnacle of perfection achieved in No. 88."
> Personally I like it as one of the best, even above most of the London Symphonies.


----------



## Donna Elvira

Not me, I love some of those Sturm and Drang, but there is something special about 88, and lots of people and experts think so too.

I guess I'm not catching on how to reply to a post without a quote.
This was in reply to Stomanek's post at 9:22


----------



## Brahmsian Colors

Still have no definitive statement regarding what is meant by "best". Most popular? Or is there a set of criteria that requires adherence? It's tough overlooking the subjective element.


----------



## Heck148

KenOC said:


> I read that some years ago there was an all-night classical DJ. He would stick Haydn symphony movements together willy-nilly and announce them as "Haydn's 63rd Symphony" or some such. Nobody ever called him on it. :lol:


a friend of mine would have, for certain....honestky, this guy knows EVERY Haydn symphony....ask him to sing the 2nd mvt of Sym #47, or trio of #23....he can do it!!


----------



## Brahmsian Colors

I'll just chuck the logic or any nod toward objectivity. Current faves:

#s 2,6,11,12,13,20 thru 24,31,32,34,36,38,42,44 thru 48,50,51,53 thru 56,59,69,73,the "Paris" lot,88,92,95 thru 99.


----------



## T Son of Ander

Funny said:


> And while I'd always thought of #88 as the pinnacle of Haydn's most assured and perfectly-wrought inspiration (which is not equivalent to "best," but certainly one of them), I've now re-assigned that attribute to #92 after going numerically through the symphonies. That is, I'd heard 92 many times before, but on this round, I'm listening to each symphony in order, starting with Fischer and then comparing with at least a couple other conductors to get a real sense of it, and just the first movement of #92 is like a smack in the face in terms of manifesting Haydn's unerring control over his delivery of fun and meaning, especially in its very strong rhythmic intensity, which is a feature of Haydn that is too little remarked upon. His timing in switching from larger beats to skittering runs and back just fits like such precision clockwork it's impossible to imagine a note or beat being moved or replaced.


I always more or less felt that way about 73, La Chasse. The first movement always makes me just shake my head in admiration, no matter how many times I listen to it.

I agree that even among so-called experts there is no way to take the favoriteness out of trying to be objective. No matter how many times I read someone say which of H's symphonies are the best, there is always a tendency toward the named ones: 6, 7, 8, 31, 45, the Paris, the Londons, among others. All very good, by the way. But is 45 really so much better than 34, which is never mentioned, except maybe by me? :lol: (34 is one of my favorites)

Speaking of my favorites, I realized recently that I don't listen to the Paris or Londons very often, certainly the least of all his symphonies. I think if I had to choose what I think are his best (ok, yeah, my favorites), they'd be: 6, 7, 8, 30-73, 88-92. I could get by a long time on those.


----------



## Guest

EdwardBast said:


> It is difficult for me to separate favorite from best.





brianvds said:


> "Best" is nothing more than the average of everyone's favourites.





Funny said:


> Whether "best" or "regarded as the best," any such categorization is still, as brianvds indicated, inevitably going to fall back on favorites of a smaller or larger number of people.





Haydn67 said:


> Still have no definitive statement regarding what is meant by "best". Most popular? Or is there a set of criteria that requires adherence? It's tough overlooking the subjective element.





T Son of Ander said:


> I agree that even among so-called experts there is no way to take the favoriteness out of trying to be objective.


I find this 'difficulty' - not being able to distinguish between, on the one hand, a personal preference ('favourite') and a widely held and justifiable opinion ('best') - curious. There are plenty of members here usually willing to claim the greatness of this or that composer or composition, and assert that it is nothing to do with personal preference, but based on objective criteria or 'wide' or 'universal' acclaim.

All I'm asking for is whether anyone is able to point to one (or more) of Haydn's symphonies and say, "This is regarded by many/the critics/Tovey/Hoffman/Schickelgruber/popular acclaim as among the best if not the best" or "See Groves for one opinion on haydn's best." Additionally, I was hoping someone might be able to point me to "Dr Expert reports that Haydn's use of modulation/Heisenberg's principle/catgut/shawm+krummhorn make him far superior to Mozart." Thanks to Funny for offering some insight, if a personal one.


----------



## larold

I'd say the "best" of the London symphonies is No. 102, the "best" of the Paris symphonies No. 86, and the "best" of the rest No. 60, one of Haydn's most hilarious and inventive creations in any format. I would say these are some of the other "best" of Haydn's symphonies: Nos. 6, 13, 41, 53, 70, 72 82, 83, 85 and 90.

As to the comment, "I find this 'difficulty' - not being able to distinguish between, on the one hand, a personal preference ('favourite') and a widely held and justifiable opinion ('best') - curious. There are plenty of members here usually willing to claim the greatness of this or that composer or composition, and assert that it is nothing to do with personal preference, but based on objective criteria or 'wide' or 'universal' acclaim,"

I think it easy to answer a question like this by applying it to another composer and his oeuvre such as "What Is the Best Beethoven Symphony," "What Is the Best Brahms Symphony," or "What Is the Best J.S. Bach Cantata?" I think the range of answers to those questions would be equal to this question about the "best" Haydn symphony.

This is why art is not the same as keeping score at a ball game.


----------



## EdwardBast

MacLeod said:


> I find this 'difficulty' - not being able to distinguish between, on the one hand, a personal preference ('favourite') and a widely held and justifiable opinion ('best') - curious. There are plenty of members here usually willing to claim the greatness of this or that composer or composition, and assert that it is nothing to do with personal preference, but based on objective criteria or 'wide' or 'universal' acclaim.


Maybe you happened to quote the five people who don't generally claim objective criteria? We exist but perhaps you don't notice us because we are less annoying than the other kind.


----------



## Luchesi

EdwardBast said:


> Maybe you happened to quote the five people who don't generally claim objective criteria? We exist but perhaps you don't notice us because we are less annoying than the other kind.


With long experience, can't we look at scores and conclude which will have the most enduring value (between two works of same type)? People do it all the time. Are we kidding ourselves? Do our conclusions change over time?


----------



## EdwardBast

Luchesi said:


> With long experience, can't we look at scores and conclude which will have the most enduring value (between two works of same type)? People do it all the time. Are we kidding ourselves? Do our conclusions change over time?


Or, one might say, we can look at scores and conclude which ones have remained highly appraised. Conclusions do change. Mussorgsky's contemporaries - in fact, the other four fingers of the Kuchka - all rated him an idiot at one time or another. Now he is the prominent middle finger raised to the doubters. CPE Bach's shadow has shrunk and grown elastically over the last couple of centuries. And Shostakovich was written off in nearly every history of modern music for a couple of decades as an anachronism of minor interest.


----------



## KenOC

Tchaikovsky considered Mussorgsky the most musically talented of The Five. In his letters, though, he wrote of Mussorgsky as "a hopeless case", superior in talent but "narrow-minded, devoid of any urge towards self-perfection."


----------



## Guest

larold said:


> I'd say the "best" of the London symphonies...[etc]


Except I didn't ask for 'the best'...I asked which _are regarded _as the best.

You're right to suggest I think of other composers, and if I ask, "Which of Beethoven's symphonies _are regarded _as the best" (and not 'which is your favourite'?) I know that there are likely to be one of three replies from those who esteem Beethoven's symphonies (and someone will say, "I've never liked those, I always much prefer the 1st!") AND someone would point me to critics old and new who will have offered some critical analysis and justification for

3rd
5th
9th

It seems Haydn has fewer critical followers - or as Edward suggests, they're not reading/replying to this thread!



EdwardBast said:


> Maybe you happened to quote the five people who don't generally claim objective criteria? We exist but perhaps you don't notice us because we are less annoying than the other kind.


No, I quoted the five who seem to have the 'best/favourite' thing going on, and acknowledged the one who made an offer of criteria.


----------



## larold

What is the difference between asking which is the best and which is regarded as the best ... other than being passive aggressive, removing oneself from the decision-making process, and allowing some unstated third party to make the choice? It is all the same end.

Here's a quote about some Haydn experts that shines more light on the matter: "The preeminent Haydn scholar H. C. Robbins Landon salutes that first Haydn symphony as impeccably crafted with a sure sense of form, although leading Haydn biographer Karl Geiringer dismisses it as light, playful and with nothing to point to future greatness."

So, from this evidence, which one is right?

The same source also declares, "The most popular of all the twelve London symphonies was the one in G major, which received its premiere performance on March 31, 1794. (It is now known as Haydn's Symphony # 100)..."

Yet, when I look through my books on Haydn and his recordings, this isn't true. Herbert Russcol says No. 100, "Although popular, it is one of the lesser of Haydn's last symphonies." He claims No. 90 to be "small beer," No. 99 to be among the "noblest and richest," No. 101 to be "sparkling vintage," No. 102 to be "mature" and No. 103 to be "magnificent."

David Ewen doesn't seem able to make the judgment though he says the Paris symphonies are "gay and effervescent and continues to say, "The most famous of the Paris symphonies -- and the one which eluded Paris's title-giving passion -- is the G major (No. 88.)"

The Englishman Sackville-West: "Nothing shows up so clearly the faults and affectations of conductors as the latter symphonies of Haydn...The slightest miscalculation of tempo, inattention to woodwind detail, a mechanical beat, a flabby accent, tempi fluctuating with dynamics, and that habit of over-phrasing the 'female' themes...these things are ruinous."

He can't select a "best" though advises: "Readers who wish to start collecting these indispensable (Solomon) works are advised to stat with Nos. 91, 92, 96, 103 and 104."

Who around here thinks No. 91 among those considered the best?

David Hall perhaps says it best: "We must confess that when it comes to the symphonies of Haydn, our faculties of discrimination are at their weakest; for usually the one we like best is the one we heard last."

These are the opinions of Haydn scholars and musical experts that have studied his entire output.


----------



## Guest

larold said:


> [excised] Here's a quote about some Haydn experts that shines more light on the matter: [etc]


Excellent post, apart from the needless part I excised at the beginning. Thanks. You've offered exactly the kind of thing I was looking for - the kind of opinions that will have contributed to a public view about the merits of Haydn's symphonies, instead of either 'my favourite is...' or 'the best is (objectively speaking, but without criteria).

If I failed to make clear what I was looking for, please accept my apologies.


----------



## Olias

So if 82-87 are the "Paris" Symphonies and 93-104 are the "London" Symphonies, does that make 88-92 the "Channel" Symphonies?


----------



## CnC Bartok

The "Calais" symphonies might be a better label for them!!
I used to think these five very fine works tended to be overlooked, sandwiched as they are between the two big "sets" of symphonies; but the many comments of praise, especially towards No.88 here, seem to contradict that...
Nobody else here thinks No.26 is a magnificent gem, then?


----------



## jegreenwood

Olias said:


> So if 82-87 are the "Paris" Symphonies and 93-104 are the "London" Symphonies, does that make 88-92 the "Channel" Symphonies?


No. 92 is the Oxford Symphony. Perhaps he got on the wrong coach at Dover.


----------



## Donna Elvira

EdwardBast said:


> Or, one might say, we can look at scores and conclude which ones have remained highly appraised. Conclusions do change. Mussorgsky's contemporaries - in fact, the other four fingers of the Kuchka - all rated him an idiot at one time or another. Now he is the prominent middle finger raised to the doubters. CPE Bach's shadow has shrunk and grown elastically over the last couple of centuries. And Shostakovich was written off in nearly every history of modern music for a couple of decades as an anachronism of minor interest.


I think the problem with Shostakovich was twofold:
1) People too often wanted to attribute his music to the psychological profile of what he was experiencing at the time with regard to his government
2) As far as Shostakovich as an "anachronism," you have to look at the time period, when the modern music, without disernable melody, or other basic features of the previous music, was striving for a place in the repetoire, the reaction to Shostakovich could be seen as a fight to establish other forms by throwing off those forms not using the latest techniques. Now that the war has been fought and, generally, many forms of music are accepted there is no need to challenge themusic of Shostakovich.
I think that is not an example of changing conclusions, maybe the CPE Bach is a better one, but the even there might be other reasons for the reevaluation.
Enduring value to the public, combined with the opinion of those who play and conduct the music, plus opinions of impartial critics are good indications of the worth of a piece.
Having written such an enormous number of symphonies, it may be more difficult to evaluate all the symphonies of Haydn, thus many may just not have been exposed enough but, like all great music, i.e. JS Bach, it will eventually be appreciated for it's full value.
Meanwhile we can just enjoy those we are lucky enough to hear.


----------



## Funny

MacLeod said:


> You've offered exactly the kind of thing I was looking for - the kind of opinions that will have contributed to a public view about the merits of Haydn's symphonies, instead of either 'my favourite is...' or 'the best is (objectively speaking, but without criteria).


Not to beat this into the ground, but essentially it seems you're looking for an objective standard that derives from totally subjective sources. Even the experts don't agree, and even individual experts change their minds over time. On a larger scale, if you DO find a consensus of experts at one point, that consensus also evolves and changes over time. If you really want to pursue this with regard to Haydn I highly recommend Bryan Proksch's Reviving Haydn, which chronicles in detail how Haydn's reputation in general (but in some cases that of particular works) ebbed and flowed through the 19th and 20th centuries. And, spoiler alert, the big takeaway (IMO) is that a lot of the biggest changes were spurred by ancillary interests of individual "experts" rather than some high-minded objective clarity that they brought to the situation. (I know, the book is prohibitively expensive. That's why I used InterLibrary Loan.)


----------



## larold

I think, generally speaking, the great composers' work got better the longer they were at it. I also think a case could be made that all of Beethoven, Brahms, Mozart, Dvorak, Schumann, Tchaikovsky, Mahler and Bruckner wrote their "best" symphony last, something of a cherry on top. I would argue same for Mendelssohn though I think that may meet resistance all over the place.

A notable exception among great symphony writers was Shostakovich, whose No. 15 seems more experimental and does not stand scrutiny against his far greater symphonies Nos. 5, 8 and 10. But, in the main, most composers get better the longer they are at it.

If one made the leap to say Haydn's "London" Symphony No. 104 were his best, he could make a similar argument. I think this is probably why it is the final 20 or so symphonies of Haydn that are most often cited in this thread.


----------



## JeffD

Those of you with a better background in musicology and history need to correct me.

But I have thought that Mozart reached his heights because he stood on Haydn's shoulders. And I have heard the implication that Haydn's accomplishment was greater, because he did not have Haydn to stand on.

Is this historically supported?


----------



## Pesaro

I agree with Ken about Haydn No. 88. It is a supreme masterpiece. Technically, I think it is one of the most perfect works in the entire repertoire. IMO, with Haydn 83, 86, 88, 92, 95, 98, 99 and 102, Haydn reached his symphonic peak.


----------



## Orfeo

Haydn's Symphony XXII "The Philosopher" has gotten quite a but of mentioning over the years and is well recorded.


----------



## Guest

Funny said:


> essentially it seems you're looking for an objective standard that derives from totally subjective sources.


No, I'm asking if there is a received wisdom similar to that I've already cited for LvB. To give another example, it seems to be "received wisdom" that Mozart's last three were his best and that the Jupiter is _"widely regarded"_ as the pinnacle.

If there isn't - and no-one's yet pointed me to somewhere that asserts there is - then that's fine. I'm not an advocate of the objective - I'm an advocate of the "consensus subjective". And I'm not in the business of either lionising or knocking down FJH - I'm just curious.


----------



## Heck148

larold said:


> I think, generally speaking, the great composers' work got better the longer they were at it. I also think a case could be made that all of Beethoven, Brahms, Mozart, Dvorak, Schumann, Tchaikovsky, Mahler and Bruckner wrote their "best" symphony last, something of a cherry on top.


An equally compelling case can be made that earlier symphonies are the pinnacles of these composers' symphonic output.


----------



## larold

<<I think, generally speaking, the great composers' work got better the longer they were at it. I also think a case could be made that all of Beethoven, Brahms, Mozart, Dvorak, Schumann, Tchaikovsky, Mahler and Bruckner wrote their "best" symphony last, something of a cherry on top...an equally compelling case can be made that earlier symphonies are the pinnacles of these composers' symphonic output. >>

For some of them of course. Unlikely any early symphony from Mozart, Dvorak or Tckaikovsky would be considered by mostin league with the later ones. That's something that sets Haydn apart from most of these guys.


----------



## Luchesi

EdwardBast said:


> Or, one might say, we can look at scores and conclude which ones have remained highly appraised. Conclusions do change. Mussorgsky's contemporaries - in fact, the other four fingers of the Kuchka - all rated him an idiot at one time or another. Now he is the prominent middle finger raised to the doubters. CPE Bach's shadow has shrunk and grown elastically over the last couple of centuries. And Shostakovich was written off in nearly every history of modern music for a couple of decades as an anachronism of minor interest.


Those contemporaries couldn't review the history of musical progress and how Haydn or Mozart have added to it, like we can today. I mean, I'm not thinking of experts, but of performers and music enthusiasts at my level.


----------



## Donna Elvira

In his essay, "Music for Connoisseurs", that accompanies the the Franz Bruggen Paris Symphonies discs, Max Harrison claims that Haydn, at the time of the composition of these symphonies, was being asked to write for more sophisticated audiences, top-rank musicians, and greater orchestral forces.In these symphonies, he would ask the audience to pay greater attention to the design of the symphony. Rather than just appealing to popular tastes with the rustic elements in his earlier music, he wove these elements into works with more complex design. 
I say that perhaps that is why they are more often played and admired by the orchestras of today.
However, within the last couple of decades smaller orchestras have been exploring many of Haydn's earlier works and perhaps helped the public discover their value, as well.

As far as the above posts which dispute the accumulation of greater skill and more diverse means of expression,a composer would gain as he/she ages, one would have to realize that, barring physical or mental limitations that sometimes come with advancing age, in most professions one sees a greater degree of know-how along with the experience. Maybe, at times one will see a desire for the person to experiment more, after they have already established their credentials, and experiments sometimes fail, but, overall, I think maturity brings greater achievement.


----------



## Ras

In his book from faber and faber about Haydn *Richard Wigmore *picks the following symphonies for his *"Haydn Top 20":
44(Mourning),
88,
92(Oxford), 
93,
99, 
104 (London).*


----------



## EdwardBast

I agree with what Funny said above, except I know you are not looking for an objective standard. In my experience with musicologists, the sources I read for a doctoral seminar on Haydn, the works of Charles Rosen, composition teachers and theorists with an opinion, and random conversations with many professional musicians, I see a major consensus favoring the late symphonies, from the Paris on. There is a minor dissenting consensus favoring the Sturm und Drang works, or at least acknowledging them as another high point.


----------



## Luchesi

Ras said:


> "Haydn Top 20":
> 44(Mourning),
> 88,
> 92(Oxford),
> 93,
> 99,
> 104 (London).[/B]


Thanks Rasmus, that's helpful for me. I wonder what approach guided him.


----------



## Luchesi

EdwardBast said:


> I agree with what Funny said above, except I know you are not looking for an objective standard..


For me, music appreciation has three main parts.

Listening, to see what 'happens'.

expressing yourself with the great examples (playing)

and trying to understand the mysteries of those great examples, objectively as possible.


----------



## bz3

To me Haydn's symphony output is like Bach's organ output in that it just doesn't really compare to anyone else. Some composers reached similar heights but the breadth and sophistication will likely remain unsurpassed. I suppose the glaring argument against this view is that Bach was perfecting baroque contrapuntal forms that were (in some cases) already out of fashion while Haydn was pioneering the sonata form that would be explored much more in depth by later composers. Still, I think the comparison works since I doubt either man saw himself as a perfecter or innovator - just a professional composer tinkering away at the popular forms of his day.


----------



## nikon

Yeah... it's hard to say and clarify which ones are best... It's a matter of taste I believe 
For me is for example no 58 great but for someone else is not!
But Paris and London ones are widely popular...


----------



## Luchesi

bz3 said:


> Still, I think the comparison works since I doubt either man saw himself as a perfecter or innovator - just a professional composer tinkering away at the popular forms of his day.


Yes, it's difficult for us today to conceive of what it was like back then. The living conditions, even for 50 years later for LvB and Chopin, and the audiences. Also Haydn couldn't know how music would grow and develop in the ways that I think we look at it today. JsB had his own little world, compared to Haydn, the way I see it.


----------



## Larkenfield

I would imagine that if one were truly and deeply interested in Haydn's development there would not be as much focus on cherry picking his symphonies, though certain ones do stand out, such is number 88, especially when there's so little consensus from one so-called expert to another. Their opinions are no better than anyone else's other than they may have heard more of the symphonies. Instead, there would be more focus on his development as a whole from one symphony to another, as he essentially relied on his own inventiveness throughout his life by force of circumstances.

Well, there's something marvelous about that, perhaps even unique, and an opportunity to observe his evolution, his thinking, throughout his life. And yet it seems hardly noticed as another way of appreciating his symphonies as an enormous body of works that cannot be conveniently leaped through without missing many of his subtle touches, the delightful wit and humor, and details unique to each one as he matures in his great craftsmanship and creative inventiveness. It's a treasure trove waiting to be discovered, because I believe the changes in his thinking, what he was striving for in each one, is quite noticeable from one to another, and I doubt if he ever wrote a _bad_ one.


----------



## Guest

Larkenfield said:


> I would imagine that *if one were truly and deeply interested in Haydn's development * there would not be as much focus on cherry picking his symphonies,


Indeed. But perhaps I'm not, and that was not the purpose of my question.


----------



## Luchesi

Larkenfield said:


> I would imagine that if one were truly and deeply interested in Haydn's development there would not be as much focus on cherry picking his symphonies, ...


There's so much music, from every era. Many of us rank works for future reference and read ranked listings in order to save time - and to get directly to the better achievements. Of course, then we decide for ourselves.


----------



## Ras

Luchesi said:


> Thanks Rasmus, that's helpful for me. I wonder what approach guided him.


I don't know Luschesi I haven't read R. Wigmore's book about Haydn yet, but it's not very expensive if you are interested - it has about 60 pages on the symphonies. Here is a link to our "dear old" amazon:

https://www.amazon.com/Faber-Pocket...pID=41p-HhITocL&preST=_SY445_QL70_&dpSrc=srch


----------



## Funny

nikon said:


> Yeah... it's hard to say and clarify which ones are best... It's a matter of taste I believe
> For me is for example no 58 great but for someone else is not!


#58 is indeed one of the greatest and most innovative symphonies of the 18th century. If you've already recognized that you're way ahead of most!


----------



## Tallisman

The Paris Symphonies (82 - 87) are probably the best-regard after the London Symphonies. Some of the 'Sturm und Drang' ones are highly regarded too: especially 44


----------



## Haydn man

I think if is fair to say that the London Symphonies are the ones most highly acclaimed by 'experts' also evidenced by the greater number of recorded versions of this group.
Given the consistency of Haydn then choosing the best will I fear always be arbitrary, but since we have endless threads eulogising the best of 9 for Beethoven, Mahler et al then unanimity might be beyond even the 'experts' where Haydn is concerned
My favourite Haydn Symphony is usually whichever I happen to be listening to at the time, so I am no help here


----------



## Luchesi

Haydn man said:


> I think if is fair to say that the London Symphonies are the ones most highly acclaimed by 'experts' also evidenced by the greater number of recorded versions of this group.
> Given the consistency of Haydn then choosing the best will I fear always be arbitrary, but since we have endless threads eulogising the best of 9 for Beethoven, Mahler et al then unanimity might be beyond even the 'experts' where Haydn is concerned
> My favourite Haydn Symphony is usually whichever I happen to be listening to at the time, so I am no help here


Are you interested in reducing them and then objectively ranking them for yourself? I haven't done it with the Haydn symphonies. I don't know if it would be rewarding, because a symphonic score of that era doesn't give specific results like that of a solo piece.


----------



## Haydn man

Luchesi said:


> Are you interested in reducing them and then objectively ranking them for yourself? I haven't done it with the Haydn symphonies. I don't know if it would be rewarding, because a symphonic score of that era doesn't give specific results like that of a solo piece.


I have never considered doing this and my knowledge of music theory etc is that of a non musician.
Come to think of it I have never started with Symphony No.1 and listened to them all in order. Never seemed to have the time or inclination to do so.
Perhaps a post retirement project, but I doubt much wisdom beyond personal preference would be the result


----------



## Funny

Haydn man said:


> Come to think of it I have never started with Symphony No.1 and listened to them all in order. Never seemed to have the time or inclination to do so.
> Perhaps a post retirement project, but I doubt much wisdom beyond personal preference would be the result


Get started on it now, Haydn Man! Or don't, but I will say, I'm glad I did.

I thought I understood Haydn's symphonies but it wasn't until I started just this project (after hearing all the symphonies at least once, and the Paris and London all a handful of times) that my understanding has grown by a quantum level. You will likely not arrive at the same insights I did but I'm betting they'll be beyond what you would term "personal preference."

Just for one thing, having tracked (roughly, since the chronology matches inexactly with the numbers) them symphony by symphony, I now have a much clearer picture of which stereotypic devices Haydn uses just because they're there, and which, in a given symphony, he is using and re-using in order to create a more integrated experience for the listener. Get started today! (Wish I'd started sooner; I'm now on #95.)


----------



## Mal

Ras said:


> In his book from faber and faber about Haydn *Richard Wigmore *picks the following symphonies for his *"Haydn Top 20":
> 44(Mourning),
> 88,
> 92(Oxford),
> 93,
> 99,
> 104 (London).*


Rob Cowan in his Guinness 1000 guide picks: 44, 45, 48, 49, 60, Paris 82-87, 88, 92, London 93-104.
Gramophone guide "basic library": London Symphonies (93-104)
Rough Guide to Classical Music (individual picks): 44, 45, 48, 49, Paris 82-87, 88, 92, London 93-104
Third Ear (individual picks by Stephen Chakwin): 6-8, 22, 26, 31, 43, 44, 45, 49, 51, 59, 60, 64, Paris 82-87, 88-92, London 93-104

Fascinating that Rough guide & Cowan lists are almost identical, differing only by Cowan adding 60. Cowan isn't on the list of authors for the Rough Guide.


----------



## Blancrocher

Edit: I see the OP wasn't looking for "favorites." I agree with most of the posts in this thread regarding critical estimations of the works (though my sense of these things is based on relatively little). 

As an aside, a good introduction to many of his best esteemed works can be found in Michael Steinberg's "Symphony."


----------



## brianvds

Ras said:


> In his book from faber and faber about Haydn *Richard Wigmore *picks the following symphonies for his *"Haydn Top 20":
> 44(Mourning),
> 88,
> 92(Oxford),
> 93,
> 99,
> 104 (London).*


No surprises there... (Sorry, couldn't resist )


----------



## Mal

The "Oxford" is easy to miss, as are the other transitional symphonies between Paris and London. Chakwin picks out Szell's remarkable performance, and also points to his performances of 94 & 96, which are the best I've heard of those. Another version of Oxford I like is Marriner's, that most beautiful of adagios is built for the ASMF! But Szell's incisiveness, big band awareness, and contrapuntal mastery at least levels the field. I really enjoyed Bohm's 88 and 89 with the VPO, and don't know why I haven't listened to his 92. Chakwin recommends him along with Szell.


----------



## hpowders

The Paris Symphonies 82-87, plus 88 and London Symphonies, 93-104.


----------



## Jacob Brooks

Funny said:


> #58 is indeed one of the greatest and most innovative symphonies of the 18th century. If you've already recognized that you're way ahead of most!


YES! I love this symphony and am so surprised few people talk about it. I love the three dance movements and then the great finale. Amazing work!


----------



## Phil loves classical

His London symphonies didn’t thrill me like they used to last time I listened. I prefer his Lamentatione No. 26.


----------



## Guest

Mal said:


> The "Oxford" is easy to miss, as are the other transitional symphonies between Paris and London. Chakwin picks out Szell's remarkable performance, and also points to his performances of 94 & 96, which are the best I've heard of those. Another version of Oxford I like is Marriner's, that most beautiful of adagios is built for the ASMF! But Szell's incisiveness, big band awareness, and contrapuntal mastery at least levels the field. I really enjoyed Bohm's 88 and 89 with the VPO, and don't know why I haven't listened to his 92. Chakwin recommends him along with Szell.


Looking for Szell's Oxford, I can find two with the Cleveland - 1949 and 1961...are either of these the ones you're referring to?


----------



## Mal

MacLeod said:


> Looking for Szell's Oxford, I can find two with the Cleveland - 1949 and 1961...are either of these the ones you're referring to?




The OP deleted the link in a fit of pedantry. Here it is (1961):





l


----------



## Mal

Who puts in a good performance of 58? Quite a few choices on utube. Plump for the most likely! Three minutes into Dorati, and I'm very bored, looking like this guy:

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

Oh well, this might have saved me £100, I'm now not buying the Dorati box set. Mr ClassicFM ranks it low, at 76, and says: "76. Symphony No. 58 After the righteous anger and heartfelt melancholy of the 40s, the 50s seems to be Haydn's rather less exciting comedown. 58 is pleasant enough, but there must've been a legion of music lovers at the time who were willing him to recapture the magic of his previous glories. There's even some musical dragging here, as Haydn hobbles the minuet with incessant dotted rhythms."

Six minutes in and I want to die, this is a tedious trudge, and *not* pleasant at all. I'm feeling like evil trolls have lured me into listening to this. It's as bad as Fischer's 15-27. (though 28 and 29 are like messages from God - why are Haydn performances so uneven. It's either trudge through mud or ascent to heaven, nothing in between.)

Can't face listening to another take, any brave volunteers prepared to go over the top, and into the mud/fields-of-heaven and check out Solomon/Hogwood 58, they might liven it up...

Mr ClassicFM is only to be trusted when he agrees with me, though. Here's what he says about my "ascent to heaven" 29:

"... it's what you might call a hallmark Haydn symphony, a step up from mere filler but not among the top flight."

Not a ringing endorsement, maybe he was listening to a bad period performance.


----------



## Mal

Third Ear (3E) and Classic FM (CF) top 36:

3E: 6 7 8 22 26 31 43 44 45 49 51 59 60 64 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 
CF: 6 11 14 20 21 22 25 26 28 31 39 44 46 49 53 59 60 61 64 71 79 81 82 84 87 88 90 93 96 97 98 99 101 102 103 104

Classic FM guy starts getting increasingly snarky about the symphonies after the top 36, so I think it's reasonable to end his list of "greats" there. CF has some glaring omissions - half of the Paris symphonies, almost half of London. Though they tend to creep into his top fifty, with snark, e.g., "41 Symphony No. 91 Once it gets going, though, it's pretty good. Still worthy of inclusion in his late-period run of symphonic excellence, just about."

And now for Me! I've just listened to Fischer's box set, and some other performances, through to 29, and here's my choices of what I "like without significant reservation", in at least one performance, alongside the serious critics:

3E: 6 7 8 22 26 
CF: 6 11 14 20 21 22 25 26 28 
Me:1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 17 20 26 28 29

The standout here is I'm really liking the the first 14 a lot more than our critics - though I had to try a few different performances in some cases before getting to "like".

Besides not working hard enough to find the "right" performance, I reckon our "serious" critics have a "too easy for me" snobbishness going on, e.g, CFM guy:

99. Symphony No. 5 "... It is a delight to listen to, sure, but it's an ephemeral pleasure that doesn't last as long as it might. An early sign of huge promise, but one that lacks maturity."

A delight is a delight! I mean a square of chocolate is an ephemeral delight that doesn't last as long as a five course meal, but I wouldn't give it up 'cause of that. So 5 is on my playlist for heaven.


----------



## Enthusiast

I do think Pinnock chose well:

View attachment 102707


I suppose a quick way I identifying critical favourites from any period in his output is to go for those that have names. The very early symphonies 6, 7 and 8 (Morning, Midday and Evening) are often well thought of (given how early they were, perhaps). In general, though, so many of them are great and it is well worth listening to them in the context of the others. It gives you a sense of Haydn experimenting with different keys and different moods that serves to amplify the greatness of each of the works.

As for Mozart vs. Haydn, it is probably wise to avoid such matters. They were different people approaching music in different ways and for different purposes. Both amaze even if you think you know them well.

Of course, the late symphonies are the greatest.


----------



## Mal

Enthusiast said:


> I do think Pinnock chose well


Yes, shame he couldn't afford proper instruments, star players, a reasonably large orchestra, or good recording engineers. He plays fast though, and he's historically informed, that's something, not much, but something. Penguin didn't even give him three stars, and they give everyone three stars.

Marriner produced a box set of all 29 named symphonies in, mostly, great performances that gets round Pinnock's problems: 








It could form the core of a collection, but there are too many other good symphonies to stop at the named symphonies.


----------



## Enthusiast

Mal said:


> Yes, shame he couldn't afford proper instruments, star players, a reasonably large orchestra, or good recording engineers. He plays fast though, and he's historically informed, that's something, not much, but something. Penguin didn't even give him three stars, and they give everyone three stars.
> 
> Marriner produced a box set of all 29 named symphonies in, mostly, great performances that gets round Pinnock's problems:
> View attachment 102708
> 
> 
> It could form the core of a collection, but there are too many other good symphonies to stop at the named symphonies.


Umm. I like that we all have such different views. They even sometimes open my ears to something I have closed them to. I actually love the sound of the Pinnock set and I'm not sure what you mean by "star players". This is not the first time I have had very different experiences to the Penguin reviewers! Their HIP preferences, from what I can remember, all seem to lack joy, to be pedantic and to sometimes to even achieve the apparently impossible - making Haydn dull! I have listened to some of the Marriner recordings but don't remember liking them very much. I am not a HIP purist and do like, say, Jochum or Bernstein in Haydn. But I often feel Marriner smooths out or "beautifies" classical music.


----------



## Guest

Enthusiast said:


> *As for Mozart vs. Haydn, it is probably wise to avoid such matters.*


Why? If you reduce my OP question to a 'versus', I _would _avoid it. But I thought my question was rather less crude than 'versus' seems to imply.


----------



## Enthusiast

MacLeod said:


> Why? If you reduce my OP question to a 'versus', I _would _avoid it. But I thought my question was rather less crude than 'versus' seems to imply.


OK. But I meant that it is because they are so different as composers that it is inevitable that different people's preferences will go either way. I am not sure that going beyond this is possible in a simple post. And, perhaps because I love both, I have never explored the critical literature on the subject. Others may have and this part of your question has been more or less neglected so far.


----------



## Gottfried

Haydn's symphonies seem to me almost a genre of their own, combining in various permutations formal development, great charm, a kind of exuberant rusticity, and wonderful slow movements that join dignity, wistfulness and poignancy (try the 2nd movement of #51)

In terms of all four movements being memorable: 21, 31 (Hornsignal), 45 (Farewell), 52, 56, 92 (Oxford), 102, 103 (Drumroll), 104 (London). 

Others that strike me as particularly good: 23, 24, 26, 28, 29, 39, 44, 47, 48, 54, 86, 97, 98 – but, as is evident from other contributers to this thread, a high proportion of Haydn symphonies are worth repeated listening.


----------



## Mal

Enthusiast said:


> ... not sure what you mean by "star players". This is not the first time I have had very different experiences to the Penguin reviewers! Their HIP preferences, from what I can remember, all seem to lack joy... I have listened to some of the Marriner recordings but don't remember liking them very much. I am not a HIP purist and do like, say, Jochum or Bernstein in Haydn. But I often feel Marriner smooths out or "beautifies" classical music.


By "star players" I'm thinking of Iona Brown who did a lot to inject vim and vigour into Marriner's, admittedly, sometimes, over-smooth style. Also I'm thinking of Fischer's set, which has key soloists from the Vienna Philharmonic and the like (they certainly don't always click, but when they do...)

Did you do a direct comparison of Marriner and Pinnock in the same symphonies? I rate Marriner in 43, 44, 49, 59, but am not adverse to those who breathe greater fire. For instance, I like OAE/Bruggen in 43, probably make it my choice above Marriner (though I want both...) Also Harnoncourt/CMW is special in 45, 59, 60.

Penguin give the HIP Kuijken/OAE their highest accolade - rosette, key, four stars for their Paris symphonies, and much deserved I feel.


----------



## Mal

Gottfried said:


> 21, ..., 23, 24, 26, ...


Who would you recommend in these symphonies? I think Fischer drops the ball with these.


----------



## Enthusiast

Mal said:


> By "star players" I'm thinking of Iona Brown who did a lot to inject vim and vigour into Marriner's, admittedly, sometimes, over-smooth style. Also I'm thinking of Fischer's set, which has key soloists from the Vienna Philharmonic and the like (they certainly don't always click, but when they do...)
> 
> Did you do a direct comparison of Marriner and Pinnock in the same symphonies? I rate Marriner in 43, 44, 49, 59, but am not adverse to those who breathe greater fire. For instance, I like OAE/Bruggen in 43, probably make it my choice above Marriner (though I want both...) Also Harnoncourt/CMW is special in 45, 59, 60.
> 
> Penguin give the HIP Kuijken/OAE their highest accolade - rosette, key, four stars for their Paris symphonies, and much deserved I feel.


Useful. Thanks. I know (I think) that I don't like Bruggen's set very much - but, as I have it, I will try to give it a fourth chance at some point. I generally like Harnoncourt with CMW but I don't think I know them in 45, 59 and 60. I'll try to search it out. I have the Fischer: I enjoy many of his accounts but have never done a work by work comparison with Pinnock. I don't know the Kuijken. Maybe I should try it. None of this, though, will stop me loving the Pinnock set. It is filled with joy for me.


----------



## Mal

Let's try a sample. Here's Pinnock in 43, opening allegro:






That, to me, sounds rather harsh with digital glare. It's fast and generates some excitement, but lacks all charm. The negatives, for me, outweigh the positives.

My goto choice for 43 (note it's OAE not O18thC...):


----------



## Mal

Here's Marriner 49, with a gorgeous opening movement, superb passion and energy in the outer movements, and a minuet that trips happily along. Super stuff, my go to choice for this symphony:


----------



## Josquin13

In my view, Leonard Bernstein had greater insights into Haydn Symphonies than most other conductors of modern instrument ensembles, including Dorati, Marriner, & Jochum, however much I may enjoy their Haydn. I also find a humanity in Sir Colin Davis' Concertgebouw readings that makes his Haydn very special, and sets it apart from most other recordings by modern ensembles that I know.

Unfortunately, Bernstein only recorded the later symphonies (for Sony/Columbia & DG), as did Davis; however, there is a Bernstein/New York Philharmonic recording of No. 49 from a 1977 radio broadcast on You Tube (not in the best sound), which, for me, shows what is lacking in Marriner's 'rosette' winning interpretation of No. 49 (which I like too), as the Bernstein 49 is less smoothed over, and has a greater sense of urgency, which I prefer. Bernstein's phrasing is also more interesting than Marriner's, IMO--though the NYP doesn't play quite as well as the ASMFs:






Among more recent Haydn conductors, Adam Fischer, Frans Bruggen, Trevor Pinnock, Rene Jacobs (esp. in The Seasons), Manfred Huss (on BIS), William Christie (esp. in The Creation), Hans-Martin Linde, Nicholas Harnoncourt, Bruno Weil, Nicholas McGegan, Christopher Hogwood, & Sigiswald Kuijken have all won me over, to varying degrees. (Kuijken's Haydn with La Petite Bande are the best recordings I've heard from him to date, as a conductor.) Of interest, it looks like McGegan may be recording Haydn Symphonies more extensively than his very fine initial Philharmonia Baroque recording of Nos. 88, 101, & 104:

https://www.classicstoday.com/review/mcgegan-haydn-57-67-68/


----------



## Captainnumber36

Just came in to say I put on London Symphony No. 104 by Haydn b/c of this thread. It's so good!


----------



## Gottfried

Hogwood with the Academy of Ancient Music. Hogwood divided his Haydn symphony project into the phases of Haydn's career (at least as he understood them), and I have the set including 21, 22, 23, 24, 28, 29, 30, 31 & 34 . It remains one of my favorite purchases. 

My first hearings of #26 were the Naxos version with the Northern Chamber Orchestra under Ward. I have the Fischer complete set and agree with you that, as might be expected for a set covering such a large number of works, that some of its renderings are preferable to others.


----------



## joen_cph

I actually tend to listen mostly to those prior to #94 or so. Personally I hear more sprawlishness in them. The later ones can be somewhat ~majestic or ~abstract, though.


----------



## Mal

I've really enjoyed Fischer 28-33, hope this purple patch continues! I'm liking that sense of urgency and phrasing (and harpsichord mania!) from Lenny in 49, especially in the final movement - great!


----------



## Jacob Brooks

Haydn -- the greatest symphonist of all time!!


----------



## Pugg

Jacob Brooks said:


> Haydn -- the greatest symphonist of all time!!


With this box, live is perfect.


----------



## Mal

Another purple patch from Fischer 42-49 culminating in my new goto choice for 49! Combines the urgency and phrasing of Bernstein with the beauty and great sound of Marriner.


----------



## Funny

Mal said:


> Who puts in a good performance of 58? Quite a few choices on utube. Plump for the most likely!


Of those on YouTube probably Solomons gets the closest for me. I also found Dorati pretty draggy in the early movements, though he handles the finale well. My go-to on #58 is Fischer, who does not seem to be available via that channel.

It's true there's a lot of variety in how this work gets handled, but it has a sturdy unifying idea that comes through no matter who's in charge of it, and that is the second beat pulling the "downbeat" feel away from the first beat and onto itself. Haydn may be tipping us to this by calling the minuet "alla Zoppa," referring to a gypsy dance where the second beat is strongly emphasized. Thing is, though, that that dance form is actually in two, while the minuet of course is in three. So something's up.

I think Haydn was cueing us that the "Zoppa" concept can be heard throughout the whole symphony. And if you listen from this perspective as the work proceeds movement-to-movement it's pretty clear, progressing from a constant subtle (and no, not tremendously exciting) accent shift in Mvt. I through Mvt II which features two isolated but striking 8-bar passages where the second beat suddenly sounds for all the world like it's the downbeat, to the more in-your-face treatment in the minuet, and finally the exhilarating finale where beat two wrestles with beat one in a tight struggle throughout, and perhaps even wins, considering that the whole symphony very strangely ends on an accented second beat.


----------



## Mal

I look forward to Fischer's #58. Wigmore's book on Haydn indicates what individual symphonies are trying to get at, which could be useful in learning to enjoy some I've found bland. Interesting that #58 was written right after No.49 'La Passione', so might be intended as a bit of light relief! For Wigmore the turbulence of Sturm and Drang is still there, but as this is a major key work, it uses, "the language of opera buffa with a new rhetorical force and - as in the limping (alla zoppa) minuet and zanily disjointed finale... - comic eccentricity... allied to a tight logic."

I'm thinking Mr ClassicFM is a flawed guide. He says of #50, "After a run of some really strong symphonies throughout the ‘40s, no. 50 is a total squelch. Stately, boring, fusty, disappointing." In Fischer's hands, yes, it is stately, but I found it far from boring, and not at all fusty or disappointing.


----------



## Mal

Yup I enjoyed Fischer's #58; Haydn's 50s aren't as bad as some people make out (if you ignore 55-57 :devil


----------



## Funny

Mal said:


> I'm thinking Mr ClassicFM is a flawed guide. He says of #50, "After a run of some really strong symphonies throughout the '40s, no. 50 is a total squelch. Stately, boring, fusty, disappointing." In Fischer's hands, yes, it is stately, but I found it far from boring, and not at all fusty or disappointing.


In doing roundups like that one it's always too tempting to exaggerate small differences to generate trends or patterns that will make more sense of the music. Compared to the 40s, the 50s - and certainly #50 itself - are not as intense in affect nor as dense in easily discernible, innovative musical ideas -- but boring? At that point Haydn was essentially incapable of writing a boring symphony.


----------



## Mal

Perhaps Mr ClassicFM is guilty of looking for too much affect, I'm happy if the music is just entertaining. One critic suggested that in the 50s Haydn, influenced by light opera, was pursuing an aesthetic of simple joy & entertainment, not an aesthetic of intense emotion.

I don't think you can say Haydn was "essentially" incapable of writing a boring symphony. *You* might find none of his symphonies after (say) 41 boring, but that might be due to you having more knowledge of Haydn and his techniques than the average classical music listener and Mr ClassicFM, who might be a BA in music in his first job. Like a good plumber, if the surface is boring then you can find interest in how the pipes are put together. But, for me, I only have the surface to go on, and it better be interesting, otherwise I'll be listening to Sibelius.

I have found most of the symphonies between 50 and 78 interesting and enjoyable, but I have found several boring enough to strike off my "playlist for heaven", e.g.: 55-57, 62, 64, 65, 69-71. It might, of course, be my knowledge that is deficient, or it might be Fischer's lapse in performance, but it might also be Mr Haydn spending to much time putting on comic operas and not devoting enough time to composition.


----------



## Luchesi

Mal said:


> Perhaps Mr ClassicFM is guilty of looking for too much affect, I'm happy if the music is just entertaining. One critic suggested that in the 50s Haydn, influenced by light opera, was pursuing an aesthetic of simple joy & entertainment, not an aesthetic of intense emotion.
> 
> I don't think you can say Haydn was "essentially" incapable of writing a boring symphony. *You* might find none of his symphonies after (say) 41 boring, but that might be due to you having more knowledge of Haydn and his techniques than the average classical music listener and Mr ClassicFM, who might be a BA in music in his first job. Like a good plumber, if the surface is boring then you can find interest in how the pipes are put together. But, for me, I only have the surface to go on, and it better be interesting, otherwise I'll be listening to Sibelius.
> 
> I have found most of the symphonies between 50 and 78 interesting and enjoyable, but I have found several boring enough to strike off my "playlist for heaven", e.g.: 55-57, 62, 64, 65, 69-71. It might, of course, be my knowledge that is deficient, or it might be Fischer's lapse in performance, but it might also be Mr Haydn spending to much time putting on comic operas and not devoting enough time to composition.


* 
* boring -
* tedious, dull, monotonous, repetitive, unrelieved, unvaried, unimaginative, uneventful; characterless, featureless, colorless, lifeless, insipid, uninteresting, unexciting, uninspiring, unstimulating, uninvolving; unreadable, unwatchable; jejune, flat, bland, dry, stale, tired, banal, lackluster, stodgy, vapid, monochrome, dreary, humdrum, mundane; mind-numbing, wearisome, tiring, tiresome
* 
* It's an interesting way to look at his symphonies with these descriptions. Perhaps more pertaining to individual movements? Would Haydn agree with us today?
* 
The symphonies of Mozart, movement by movement, to me are more stimulating BUT they seem to stand outside of the flow of the history of music so they seem less interesting to go back to, year after year. IOW, there are more hidden subtle treasures in the Haydn, or when I think more about this - it might just be an accident of what I've heard and when I've heard them..

Composing as a conceptual activity and then writing down all the parts of a symphony requires so much thinking and reviewing and effort. It's curious how we think about these symphonies, when we're merely listening to the final product.


----------



## Mal

I just finished the Paris symphonies, from my run through Fischer's box set, and I think I can now say I prefer Haydn's symphonic output to Mozart's. Many of Mozart's symphonies were written when he was very young, probably with a lot of help from his father, while even Haydn's earliest symphonies were written when he was an adult. When it comes to other genres, piano concertos, opera, Mozart seems to me superior.

P.S. I thought Fischer's Paris set was "typical Fischer", the first two were a bit of a plod, the last four were wonderful. All through the set I've had a binary reaction to his performances - a few wonderful ones, then a few boring, then a few wonderful, and so on. Having listened to other sets of Paris I've listened to interesting versions of the first two by Marriner and Kuijken, so either Fischer has lapses of form, or the chemistry between him and me isn't working in some cases. To try and answer the OP's question I think is impossible. He'll just have to listen to all the box sets and make up his own mind about which are the best.


----------



## hpowders

In addition to the Haydn Paris Symphonies (82-87), No. 88, and the London Symphonies (93-104) that I have already recommended, I must add as "must listens": No.26 in D minor (Lamentatione); No. 45 in F Sharp minor (Farewell); No. 48 in C Major (Maria Theresia); No. 49 in F minor, (La Passione); No. 59 in A Major (Fire), and No. 68 in B Flat Major. 

Apart from these, Symphonies: in D Major, (Le Matin); C Major (Le Midi) and G Major (Le Soir) are delightful listening. However these are early works written in concertante style with major solos given to individual string instruments-not indicative of the Haydn symphonic style to come.


----------



## Funny

Mal said:


> *You* might find none of his symphonies after (say) 41 boring, but that might be due to you having more knowledge of Haydn and his techniques than the average classical music listener and Mr ClassicFM, who might be a BA in music in his first job. Like a good plumber, if the surface is boring then you can find interest in how the pipes are put together. But, for me, I only have the surface to go on, and it better be interesting, otherwise I'll be listening to Sibelius.


If I have more knowledge of Haydn it's because I've listened to Haydn more, and that's because his music was, to my ear, not at all boring even on the first listen; it encouraged me to pay more attention, not less. And sure, obviously what's boring to one person may not be to another. But Haydn's enduring fame and renown over a quarter of a millennium suggests that if there's a disconnect between what he's saying and what a particular listener is hearing, it may not be wise for that listener, whether it's you or Mr ClassicFM, to ascribe the fault to Haydn. The onus is on that listener to explain why so many people across centuries - few of whom had the chance to delve deeply below the surface of the music - failed to notice that the work is, in fact, "boring," not on Haydn to prove that he captivates every single human being.



Mal said:


> It might, of course, be my knowledge that is deficient, or it might be Fischer's lapse in performance, but it might also be Mr Haydn spending to much time putting on comic operas and not devoting enough time to composition.


Yes, and there are other possibilities too - for instance, a lack not of knowledge but of willingness to pay attention - but I'd say of all the potential explanations we could possibly generate for finding so many of his symphonies boring, that of Haydn not having spent enough time and attention on symphony-writing is far and away the most risible.


----------



## Haydn70

With apologies to the OP, I am going to go off topic and rant a bit about the ClassicFM idiot, sorry, person who ranked all the Haydn symphonies. I read that article a few years ago…it irritated me (to put it mildly) then and it irritates me now.

I am a HUGE admirer of Haydn's music. Twice I have listened to all the symphonies in order. Numerous symphonies I have listened to scores (hundreds?) of times and I have analyzed quite a few of them. The man was a *brilliant* composer, an artist of the highest order, one of the very greatest in the history of Western Art Music, one I rank 4th just behind the Top 3: Bach, Beethoven, Mozart…and some ways he is superior to the #3 man, Mozart.

I probably shouldn't be as critical of the ClassicFM fellow as he was probably hearing 90% of the symphonies for the first time and was overwhelmed and oversaturated. That said, many of his remarks and criticisms were ridiculous, smarmy and condescending.

And I question his ear and his technical knowledge. Here is what he wrote about the 70th symphony:

"Go straight to the second movement. Like two snakes doing a weird choreographed courtship ritual, the string lines encircle each other in the most unusual and delightful ways, before the whole thing gives over to a series of pastoral themes. The rest is sort-of fun, but you know, not mega."

The cutesy, 20-something tone is bad enough but he makes no specific mention of the finale, one of the greatest movements in all 104 symphonies.

This movement is a triple fugue in double counterpoint (marked by Haydn "a 3 soggetti in contrapunto doppio"). Leading Haydn scholar H.C. Robbins Landon called it "…a gigantic, flaming triple fugue…" It is a contrapuntal tour de force, a dazzling achievement.

Composing a really good fugue is a challenge (as I know having written many myself). Composing a good double fugue even more so…but to compose even just a decent triple fugue in double counterpoint is a monstrous challenge. Haydn wrote a masterpiece.






That Mr ClassicFM made no mention of this movement speak volumes. They picked the wrong guy for the assignment.

And for those of you bothered by my making rankings and my categorical statements regarding Haydn's excellence as a composer, too bad…I make no apologies.


----------



## KenOC

On another forum, we did actually rank the 104 numbered symphonies in a voting game. It lasted for months. The results were generally pretty good, though I thought several symphonies were mis-ranked.


----------



## Haydn70

KenOC said:


> I think it's highly regarded (as you asked). Give it a try and see!
> 
> You may also see #88 as "Letter V" based on its old catalog designation in Great Britain.


Indeed, #88 is very highly regarded. Good post, KenOC. (And is just happens to be one of my favorites  )


----------



## Mal

I wasn't impressed by Fischer's performance of #70. Maybe the "triple fugue in double counterpoint" is a clever technical production, but can it be performed so that it actually sounds good to the average Classical Music listener? I'll listen to Hogwood's performances to see if it lifts it in my estimation, thanks for posting it ArsMusica.

P.S. I loved Fisher's #88...


----------



## Jacck

I like his Sturm und Drang symphonies (in fact, I like the whole Sturm und Drang movement, but have known it mostly from literature). This trumps all of Mozart symphonies





and found this ranking on a sister website
http://www.classicfm.com/composers/haydn/guides/definitive-ranking-haydn-symphonies/


----------



## Mal

I listened to Hogwood 70, as recommended in post 61, and thought it was great! Fischer is repeatedly on record saying he wishes he could re-record half the symphonies, I'm guessing this is one he might wish to re-record.


----------



## Mal

ArsMusica said:


> And I question his ear and his technical knowledge. Here is what he wrote about the 70th symphony:
> 
> "Go straight to the second movement. Like two snakes doing a weird choreographed courtship ritual, the string lines encircle each other in the most unusual and delightful ways, before the whole thing gives over to a series of pastoral themes. The rest is sort-of fun, but you know, not mega."
> 
> The cutesy, 20-something tone is bad enough but he makes no specific mention of the finale, one of the greatest movements in all 104 symphonies.


Gramophone have a very critical review of Fisher's 70, saying he slipped up badly here, e.g., by not playing the final movement presto as specified. So if Mr ClassicFM had only listened to Fischer then maybe we can excuse him slightly. But, really, a more experienced reviewer, or five, should have spent a year on the project, comparing different performances and specifying performances that are good or bad. No reviewers have done that, it's a job that needs doing!


----------



## Mal

KenOC said:


> On another forum, we did actually rank the 104 numbered symphonies in a voting game... The results were generally pretty good...


Could you provide a link for that? I did find one where people were asked to choose their favourite 15:

http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php?topic=21169.0

The results aren't an optimal guide to what's worth listening to, I feel. For instance, I think 3-5 are excellent pieces, not to be missed by anyone who likes simple, enjoyable, joyous music. But they get no votes, which is fair enough, under that ranking system, as there are more than fifteen other symphonies that are as enjoyable & joyous, but deeper.

I've marked 64 as "excellent" but couldn't pick fifteen from that 64. I think it's more useful to pick out the ones you think are "excellent". By "excellent" I mean something you'd want to listen to again in your next run though your 1000-3000 favourite pieces of classical music

So I think the poll should be held again, but with people picking what they think is "excellent" from Fischer's box set, and then for every other box set. Then we might recognise some weak spots in Haydn for the average modern listener and/or what the various weak spots of Fisher/Dorati/Naxos, et. al. are.


----------



## RevAvery

I don't have any Joseph materials. I do have Michael's 20 Symphonies by the Slovak Chamber Orchestra.

How does Michael compare to Joseph?


----------



## EdwardBast

Symphony 64 in A is amazing! The Largo, the finale! Like an answer to CPE Bach's D Major. A new favorite for me.


----------



## JosefinaHW

EdwardBast said:


> Symphony 64 in A is amazing! The Largo, the finale! Like an answer to CPE Bach's D Major. A new favorite for me.


I saw your post in the "What's New" stream. I don't know what is going on here, but it is wonderful to see you so happy and enthused!!!


----------



## Funny

Mal said:


> I wasn't impressed by Fischer's performance of #70. Maybe the "triple fugue in double counterpoint" is a clever technical production, but can it be performed so that it actually sounds good to the average Classical Music listener?


Great that you found Hogwood's to deliver the goods for you, and hope that takes 70 off your list of those not worth listening to. I appreciated the passion and force of ArsMusica's defense of #70. But it does play into your thing, Mal, of maybe only people listening on some rarified music theory/history level can enjoy these, and I want to add one more thing to counter that.

I do enjoy the finale and am not downplaying what ArsMusica said about it but #70 also has a fun little moment of musical comedy in its first movement. If you'll indulge me, listen to the gag at 4:17 here: 



 Near the beginning of the Concerto for Horn and Hardart, the orchestra winds up seemingly out of sync (though of course it's been written to sound that way) and the conductor has to get them back on track by shouting "1, 2, 3, 4!" - a classic Schickele gag. Now if you'll check the passage starting at 0:43 here 



 (and yes, this performance is a little slow but that may allow more perceptive time to appreciate this) Haydn - obviously more subtly but still audibly - does a very similar thing where the different string voices start off in a pretty straightforward, easily-grasped back-and-forth pattern but quickly start monkeying around with it, getting "out of sync," to the point where we, the listeners, have almost totally lost our sense of where the downbeat is supposed to be. Right at that point, wind blasts come in on those downbeats, loudly marking off ("shouting") 1, 2, 3, 4! to reestablish the beat.

It's just one little funny moment, but it requires no extra background or education or below-the-surface understanding, it's something that comes across, that can be felt, directly through listening, and that's what many of Haydn's greatest moments do. (This doesn't rank all that high in my list of his greatest moments, and you know damn well that I do indeed keep such a ranked list, but it is in #70, a piece under discussion.) So I once again want to take this opportunity to appeal to anyone who finds any Haydn work "boring" to Just Listen, and then Listen Again!


----------



## Mal

RevAvery said:


> I don't have any Joseph materials. I do have Michael's 20 Symphonies by the Slovak Chamber Orchestra. How does Michael compare to Joseph?


Michael is generally regarded as very minor compared to Joseph. Why not try some Joseph, I recommend starting with Davis in the London symphonies:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Haydn-London-Symphonies-Vol-1-Joseph/dp/B0000041AQ


----------



## Mal

JosefinaHW said:


> I saw your post in the "What's New" stream. I don't know what is going on here, but it is wonderful to see you so happy and enthused!!!


I'm not sure Edward is all that "happy and enthused", he may just be dismayed with me and Mr ClassicFM not liking #64! As I quite liked Hogwood's #70 I though'd give his #64 a try:






Nope, not liking his treatment of the slow movement of #64 any more than Fischer's! And that minuet really drags.

Hurwitz doesn't like Hogwood at all, even, or especially not his, #70:

"the performances themselves stand as the dullest available. Hogwood's approach to this music lacks any vestige of emotional involvement. He's completely mechanical. Slow movements, with their vibrato-less strings and thin tone sound completely soulless, while the quicker ones move with a choppy, routine vigor. As an example, compare the brilliant triple-fugue finale of Symphony No. 70 to a couple of past versions. David Blum with the pick-up Esterhazy Orchestra on Vanguard offers a swifter basic tempo with more vivid dynamic contrasts and far richer instrumental color. Dorati's classic version (on Decca) has more weight, and while heavier, really brings out the minor-key mystery and threat latent in the movement's quieter passages. Both versions not only characterize the music infinitely more strongly than does Hogwood, they reveal more inner detail and tension, and order the movement in big, sweeping paragraphs rather than in short, clipped phrases."

Oh well, at least he has vigor, unlike Fischer in #70.

Anyway, here's Dorati in #64, I'm really liking that largo! And that final movement... Now I'm enthused.






Can anyone recommend others in #64 or #70? Drahos on Naxos? Fey? Blum?


----------



## CnC Bartok

Tempora mutantur (No.64) has had more than a couple of mentions here, I think. If so, I'm hardly surprised! It's a great piece, I find it oddly intimate. 

I'm not a fan of Hogwood in this one, a bit abrasive, matter-of-fact, and frankly cold. Tafelmusik under Bruno Weil is wonderful, though. Drahos is also very good. Dorati? Well obviously!!! I also think Fischer is in his element here. Lots of great choices.

It's got a nickname, so it must be good! :devil:


----------



## Haydn70

Symphony 60 was mentioned in a few posts but I thought I would discuss it a bit more in depth.

It is in six movements and contains some very striking and some very beautiful music. Most (all?) of the music was first used by Haydn as incidental music for a play by Jean Francois Regnard entitled _Le Distrait_. The overture and entr'acte music was so popular he put them together to form this symphony, known as _Il distratto_.

Haydn expert H.C. Robbins Landon wrote that Haydn "takes special pains to create an uproariously mad tonal picture".

This from the Wikipedia article about the symphony:

"The conductor Kenneth Woods describes it as "the funniest and most modern work" on his list of top twenty C-major symphonies, and "possibly the funniest and most modern symphony ever written", going on to say that "Haydn uses most of the 20th-century 'isms' in this piece-surrealism, absurdism, modernism, poly-stylism, and hops effortlessly between tightly integrated symphonic argument and rapid-fire cinematic jump-cutting. This is Haydn at his absolute boldest-he undermines every expectation, and re-examines every possible assumption about music."

I can't say I agree with everything Wood says but I definitely appreciate his great appreciation for the work...and I definitely agree with the that last sentence. It is a great symphony.


----------



## Muse Wanderer

...............................


----------



## Muse Wanderer

Over the past 5 years I have been on a mission to listen to all of Haydn's symphonies. It took time to really digest Haydn's music as he does not get hold of you like Mozart with his emotional perfection or Beethoven's contrasts and surprises. Haydn's pieces tend to quickly turn into background music if one does not give his full attention to it. That said Haydn is a brilliant jolly composer, full of humour with lots of twists and turns in his music that puts a smile on my face.

I was already familiar with Davies' set from 92 till 104 with favourites being 94 'Surprise', 101 'The Clock' and 104 'London'. I have Dorati's set as a benchmark for repeated listens with Pinnock, Colin Davies, Russell Davies, Goodman and Fischer as added listening.

When I started from his 1st ten symphonies I was struck by his use of counterpoint earlier on in his career with symphony no 3. I posted my impressions in the 'What is it about Haydn thread' back then. His 6th 'Le matin' impressed me. 'Lamentatione' (26nd) showed some darkness (finally). His Sturm and Drang phase (40s symphonies) was awesome! His 39th, 45th 'Farewell', 44th 'Trauer' and 49th 'La Passione' were dark and at times furious.

His 60s symphonies were all a treat to listen to and truly remarkable. The 64th symphony 'Tempora Mutandur' stood out as a wonderful example of this period. As soon as I reached his 80s, it started to really rock with great pieces like the 82nd 'The Bear', 83rd 'The Hen' and 85th 'Le Reine'.

Finally this week I went through his last few symphonies to finish off once and for all the whole Dorati set and here I stumble on his perfect masterpiece. The only piece that is great from start to finish (even the minuet!!)... symphony number 88!! This is my absolute favourite...


----------



## EdwardBast

Not long ago I listened to the whole cycle again and I have new favorites. In addition to the ones cited earlier in this thread (late ones and those in the 40s) I specially noted 23, 56, 60, 63, 64, 66, 67 and 71.


----------



## Moosh88

*My must listen to new listeners*

After listening to all the symphonies, my top 10 are,

1. 88
2. 44
3. 49
4. 31
5. 90
6. 6
7. 101
8. 98
9. 45
10. 60


----------



## hammeredklavier

The 44th, 80th (especially the slow movement), 102nd. The one I found most memorable in the middle range of the symphonies is the 56th, with an extended slow movement somewhat reminiscent of the solemness of the 49th and the elegance of the C major cello concerto, which I think are just as decent. 






RevAvery said:


> Michael


the harmonies in


----------



## Chilham

For me:

104
94
101
100, 102, 103
82, 85, 86
45, 83, 84, 87, 99
44, 93, 97, 98
49, 88, 96
6, 48, 92
39
2, 7, 8, 22, 26, 47, 60
11, 28, 31, 41, 43, 52, 53, 56, 57, 62, 64, 73, 78, 80, 81, 89, 90, 91
All the rest


When I listen to Giovanni Antonini and Giardino Armonico, the symphony always jumps a little in my estimation.


----------



## Luchesi

Chilham said:


> For me:
> 
> 104
> 94
> 101
> 100, 102, 103
> 82, 85, 86
> 45, 83, 84, 87, 99
> 44, 93, 97, 98
> 49, 88, 96
> 6, 48, 92
> 39
> 2, 7, 8, 22, 26, 47, 60
> 11, 28, 31, 41, 43, 52, 53, 56, 57, 62, 64, 73, 78, 80, 81, 89, 90, 91
> All the rest
> 
> When I listen to Giovanni Antonini and Giardino Armonico, the symphony always jumps a little in my estimation.


Wow. I imagine how much time was involved in listening, re-listening and then deciding (over years) about that list. What other life activity is similiar to this pursuit.. I did this with pop songs when I was young. It helps immeasurably with appreciation. You could look back at the list 10 or 20 years later -- and we never know exactly what the whys were, at the time.

The later works are higher. That's good that Haydn was succeeding in his personal creativity, against all the outside pushes and pulls around him.


----------



## FrankinUsa

I love FJ Haydn. Haydn is the composer that I most often go to late at night and the last music of the day. There is a sense of “completeness.” I have the complete set by Adam Fischer and I occasionally go from One until the end. Generally speaking,the Paris Symphonies onwards are considered the apex of Haydn. I don’t think it is appreciated to compare Haydn to Mozart. Yes,it is the “classical” period but two different sensibilities. 

Ummm,,,I have come across one person here who seems to be on a crusade to denigrate FJ Haydn. His cause is beyond comprehension.


----------



## Chilham

Luchesi said:


> Wow. I imagine how much time was involved in listening...


April 2021. Just Haydn. I enjoyed it.

It helps that many are quite short.


----------



## HerbertNorman

Chilham said:


> April 2021. Just Haydn. I enjoyed it.
> 
> It helps that many are quite short.


Now that's an idea!


----------



## Kreisler jr

1st tier: 82, 86, 88, 90, 92-95, 97-99, 101-104
2nd tier: 31, 42, 44-52, 54, 56, 57, 60, 69, 70, 73-78, 80, 81, 83-85, 87, 89, 91, 96, 100, 105 (sinfonia concertante)
3rd tier: 6-8, 13, 21, 22, 26, 30, 34, 39, 41, 43, 53, 55, 58, 59, 63, 71, 79
4th tier rest

I have heard all the works multiple times but the great listening project was around the anniversary 2009 and I don't know/remember all of them well. 
61,62,64-68 are very probably better than 4th tier but I don't remember enough about them, only that none became particularly noteworthy for me. There are also some among the first 40 I might rate higher if I re-listened to them. And I would differentiate a bit finer, especially in the "2nd tier".

Three without nicknames or included in the more famous sets/groupings that belong with the best are 70,80,90. I also consider the other "pre-Paris" symphonies 74-79 and 81 underrated.


----------



## hammeredklavier

EdwardBast said:


> There is a minor dissenting consensus favoring the Sturm und Drang works, or at least acknowledging them as another high point.


Btw, I think the difference between the "sturm und drang" ones and the "regular" ones are exaggerated in some quarters. A 'turbulent' work isn't 'turbulent' all the way; a 'mild-sounding' work isn't 'mild-sounding' all the way throughout. - the nature of a Classical symphony.

45th/i: 



60th/i: 



85th/i: 




44th/iv: 



60th/iv:


----------

