# Are there any contemporaries of the Greats who exceed the "Great" in some manner?



## level82rat (Jun 20, 2019)

*Are there any contemporaries of the Greats who exceed the "Great" in some manner?*

The three Greats I have in mind are Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven but those more familiar with the other periods can include Monteverdi or Stravinsky or what have you.

Maybe there was some second-rate half-forgotten second cousin of JS who was even more skilled at writing fugues. Then again probably not.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Offhand I can't think of any contemporaries of Bach, Mozart and Beethoven, writing in the genres Bach, Mozart and Beethoven cultivated, who indisputably surpassed Bach, Mozart and Beethoven in quality. Schubert wrote many more first-rate songs than Beethoven, but a few of Beethoven's songs are wonderful (I'm thinking of "Adelaide" and "In questa tomba oscura"), and he could no doubt have turned out more fine ones had he chosen to. It wouldn't be outrageous to suggest that Handel surpassed Bach as a composer for chorus in his oratorios. Depending on one's estimate of _Fidelio,_ Weber and Rossini might be considered superior opera composers.


----------



## level82rat (Jun 20, 2019)

Woodduck said:


> It wouldn't be outrageous to suggest that Handel surpassed Bach as a composer for chorus in his oratorios.


For just some of his oratorios, correct? There's no way you are placing Messiah over SMP or Bm Mass?


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

Woodduck said:


> Offhand I can't think of any contemporaries of Bach, Mozart and Beethoven, writing in the genres Bach, Mozart and Beethoven cultivated, who indisputably surpassed Bach, Mozart and Beethoven in quality. Schubert wrote many more first-rate songs than Beethoven, but a few of Beethoven's songs are wonderful (I'm thinking of "Adelaide" and "In questa tomba oscura"), and he could no doubt have turned out more fine ones had he chosen to. It wouldn't be outrageous to suggest that Handel surpassed Bach as a composer for chorus in his oratorios. Depending on one's estimate of _Fidelio,_ Weber and Rossini might be considered superior opera composers.


I think that as opera composers, Weber and Rossini might have been superior to Beethoven just because their masterpieces came more naturally. Beethoven had to go through blood, sweat, and tears to get _Fidelio_ done. Of course, the outcome's own quality is another question - _Fidelio_ is very stunning!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

level82rat said:


> For just some of his oratorios, correct? There's no way you are placing Messiah over SMP or Bm Mass?


There's bo "correct" answer here. "It wouldn't be outrageous to suggest" is putting it pretty tentatively. I might have said, "Some might reasonably claim..." I wouldn't say that Handel's works are better in musical substance, but he did show amazing inventiveness in using the chorus for dramatic effect.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

In the late Romantic era, Brahms is hard to beat in almost any genre he turned his hand to, and the works of Verdi and Wagner, who wrote little besides opera, clearly occupy a higher plane than all but a few isolated works of their contemporaries.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

I think Telemann, Handel and Vivaldi might have a melodic edge over Bach. I also think Clementi wrote better solo piano music than Mozart.


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

Maybe in some neglected libraries, or lost to time. Vivaldi was possibly the greatest 20th century re-discovery of this sort.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

consuono said:


> I think Telemann, Handel and Vivaldi might have a melodic edge over Bach. I also think Clementi wrote better solo piano music than Mozart.


But Clementi lived more years in "contemporary" with Beethoven than he did with Mozart. (Also this sonata was written over 10 years after Mozart's death) This is like saying Beethoven's Eroica surpassed the "powdered wigs", or C.P.E. Bach's concertos surpassed the "sewing machines" in terms of expression. Direct comparison would be meaningless in this case.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Beethoven's concertos are marvelous, but Hummel's are also enjoyable:


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

level82rat said:


> For just some of his oratorios, correct? There's no way you are placing Messiah over SMP or Bm Mass?


I personally place Messiah WITH SMP and B Minor Mass.

Anyway, I prefer Israel in Egypt, Theodora, Solomon, and Saul to the Christmas Oratorio, Ascension Oratorio, Easter Oratorio, St. John Passion, and Bach's other mass settings.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

annaw said:


> blood, sweat, and tears


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

hammeredklavier said:


> But Clementi lived more years in "contemporary" with Beethoven than he did with Mozart. (Also this sonata was written over 10 years after Mozart's death) This is like saying Beethoven's Eroica surpassed the "powdered wigs", or C.P.E. Bach's concertos surpassed the "sewing machines" in terms of expression. Direct comparison would be meaningless in this case.


I knew it. :lol: And yes yes yes...but still I think Clementi composed better solo piano music than Mozart. :lol:


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

consuono said:


> I knew it. :lol: And yes yes yes...but still I think Clementi composed better solo piano music than Mozart. :lol:


That Clementi sonata is ok, I find his Op.34 No.2 a bit better.
I still think that Mozart is top-rate of the late 18th century. I think Haydn sometimes tends to write "trivial" last movements like in his No.60 in C major, but this is rarely the case for Mozart. Also there's actually a lot of variety in Mozart: the way to use major seconds in the ending of the "proto-Beethovenian" Prelude & Fugue K.394 - So glorious, there are no parallels like that in the late 18th century. 
Clementi was also influential in terms of technique and stuff, but I still like to think Mozart was still the biggest source of inspiration in terms of keyboard music for Beethoven and Wagner in his time, musically. The slow movement of K.533 and Rondo K.511 all seem to me to point toward Wagner. (_"He (Wagner) had discovered the C minor Fantasy at his Uncle Adolf's house and had dreamt about it for ages afterwards."_) You're free to like/dislike whatever you want, but in terms of "intrinsic value" Mozart is in no way objectively worse than Clementi.



















_"There is only one person left today who knows how to play Mozart, and that's Pleyel, and when he is good enough to play a piano-duet sonata with me I learn from the experience."_ -Chopin


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

In my humble opinion, Vivaldi surpasses Bach in terms of instrumental non-chamber music, considering that he has (for me) concertos as good as those by the german and in a much greater number. I also think that Vivaldi is at least as good as Bach for writing arias, and my favorite baroque aria at the moment (_*Sovente il sole*_) is by the Italian. But I also think that in terms of solo keyboard (organ included) and chamber music, Bach is the indisputable master of the Baroque, at least from what I know.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

I'll throw out Max Reger. Often portrayed as a Teutonic academic who wrote musical sludge, he was in fact a brilliant - genius - composer who outdid most of in contemporaries in many ways. 

He was a first-rate contrapuntalist who could write complex fugues in 2, 3, 4 or more parts with ease. His harmonic skills and use of modulation is extraordinary. His orchestration is actually rather brilliant - better than most of his peers. As a musical technician and theorist he easily surpassed Brahms, Dvorak, Tchaikovsky, Mahler and other contemporaries. Alas, he lacked their melodic gifts and emotional power.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

I think everyone on this forum thinks there are composers who surpass the greats. They just don't agree. I once looked at 60 members' lists of favorite composers and only 9 I think had the Big 3 all on top.

Surpassing contemporaries "in some manner" is a difficult task, but not impossible. Taken from TC's Favorite Works:

Mussorgsky: Pictures at an Exhibition [1874] 
Berlioz: Symphonie fantastique, op. 14 [1830] 
Rimsky-Korsakov: Scheherazade, op. 35 [1888] 
Grieg: Piano Concerto in A minor, op. 16 [1868] 
Elgar: Cello Concerto in E minor, op. 85 [1919] 
Holst: The Planets, op. 32 [1916] 
Gershwin: Rhapsody in Blue [1924] 
Bizet: Carmen [1875] 
Borodin: String Quartet #2 in D [1881]
Kodály: Sonata for Solo Cello, op. 8 [1915] 
Smetana: Má Vlast (My Country), including Vltava (The Moldau) [1874-9]
Janáček: On an Overgrown Path [1911] 
Franck: Violin Sonata in A [1886] 
Nielsen: Symphony #5, op. 50 [1922]
Elgar: "Enigma" Variations on an Original Theme, op. 36 [1899]
Lalo: Symphonie Espagnole in D minor, op. 21 [1874] 
Respighi: Pini di Roma [1924] 
Canteloube: Chants d'Auvergne [1923-30] 
Janáček: Sinfonietta [1926]
Nielsen: Symphony #3, op. 27 "Sinfonia Espansiva" [1911]
Albéniz: Iberia [1905-9] 
Dohnányi: Piano Quintet #2 in E-flat minor, op. 26 [1914] 
Magnard: Symphony #4 in C-sharp minor, op. 21 [1913]
Rimsky-Korsakov: Russian Easter Festival Overture, op. 36 [1888] 
Chausson: Concerto for Violin, Piano, and String Quartet in D, op. 21 [1891]
Mussorgsky: St. John's Night on Bare Mountain (Night on Bald Mountain) [1867]
Ives: Symphony #4 [1910 to probably 1924]
Gershwin: An American in Paris [1928] 
Rimsky-Korsakov: Capriccio Espagnol, op. 34 [1887] 
Smetana: String Quartet #1 in E minor "From My Life" [1876]
Zemlinsky: Lyric Symphony, op. 18 [1923]


----------



## Knorf (Jan 16, 2020)

level82rat said:


> The three Greats I have in mind are Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven but those more familiar with the other periods can include Monteverdi or Stravinsky or what have you.
> 
> Maybe there was some second-rate half-forgotten second cousin of JS who was even more skilled at writing fugues. Then again probably not.


I'd argue Haydn in the very least equalled and occasionally surpassed Mozart and Beethoven, comparing as much as possible like for like. Boccherini was not far off, either.

And I'd argue that Bach was surpassed in terms of orchestral concerti grossi by the likes of Handel, Vivaldi, Telemann, maybe even Zelenka, but to be fair we have so few surviving examples by Bach... And I think it's totally unreasonable for the French Baroque masters to be left out of the conversation entirely. Does Bach have anything as glorious, and pompous in the best sense, as Charpentier's _Te Deum_? The quality of French orchestral composition in terms of Suites and Overtures, also nothing to sneeze at, with considerably greater adventure in terms of orchestral color and contrasts belonging to the French.

Bach's greatness however in cantatas and keyboard music is unequalled, much less surpassed, in my opinion, by anyone.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

hammeredklavier said:


> Also there's actually a lot of variety in Mozart:


Well hammered, whether it was because Mozart just didn't find it all that interesting or whether it was due to the pressures of what he felt he *had* to compose, I just don't think his solo piano music is among his best efforts. His piano concertos though to me are supernaturally great.


----------



## Eclectic Al (Apr 23, 2020)

Knorf said:


> I'd argue Haydn in the very least equalled and occasionally surpassed Mozart and Beethoven, comparing as much as possible like for like. Boccherini was not far off, either.


Disappointing that it took so long before anyone mentioned Haydn.
Weren't Mozart and Beethoven often just parroting forms that Haydn invented? I'm particularly partial to Haydn's Sturm und Drang symphonies.


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

I think Schubert's string quartets surpass the level of brilliance and profundity of his contemporaries, in that form.

Beethoven's symphonies are superior to Schubert's, though (Schubert's are pleasant but not particularly profound).

On Haydn, obviously he was a great pioneer, was a technically brilliant orchestrator, and both Mozart and Beethoven learned a great deal from him. But in my opinion, they both had more to _say_.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Eclectic Al said:


> Disappointing that it took so long before anyone mentioned Haydn.
> Weren't Mozart and Beethoven often just parroting forms that Haydn invented? I'm particularly partial to Haydn's Sturm und Drang symphonies.


I talked to you about this before. Haydn didn't "invent" the symphony. And Beethoven is as different from Haydn as Haydn is from G.B. Sammartini, C.P.E. Bach, A. Caldara. (In the 9th, Beethoven anticipates Mahler)

14.1 - Piano Concerto in D minor
"... Just as Haydn was more or less the inventor of the modern string quartet, so Mozart was the father of the piano concerto. He set out the structural framework of the piano concerto, one that lasted into the romantic era, here it is. Mozart developed a stereotypical approach to the first movement of the concerto. It goes by several names, concerto form, double exposition form are the two most common. Double exposition form is a good name for this form because there are as you can see, two expositions. We have one exposition as we had in sonata-allegro form development, recapitulation. But now we have another exposition added at the beginning. The first exposition allows the orchestra to present most of the themes by itself. The pianist will add a couple later on, and do so all in the tonic key.
...
Well I hope you'll share with me my beliefs that this is an extraordinary movement, and how different from the ethos or the feeling of a Baroque concerto of the sort that we experienced with Bach and Vivaldi. Baroque concertos usually just have one mood for a movement. Mozart is full of many different moods. And that helps make these classical movements very exciting, very dramatic. And with its D minor sound, it's almost demonic. ..."

14.2 - Don Giovanni
"... Now we're going to go on to a trio, a very short one, that's an excellent example of a vocal ensemble by Mozart. What's a vocal ensemble? Well, obviously, it's a group of singers. But in the case of Mozart, it's a very special kind of ensemble, three, four, five, even six soloists, each of whom has a different point of view. They don't speak their emotions in succession as they would in an older Baroque opera seria, but all together vocal counterpoint here. Using a vocal ensemble, Mozart can move the drama along faster. Mozart's kind of opera is more fluid, faster paced, and more realistic. Here's how this little vocal ensemble plays out. Don Giovanni is over top of him. Mozart wrote this exquisite little trio here. It goes by very quickly. No body ever noticed it, but it's some of the most beautiful music that he ever wrote. ..."



hammeredklavier said:


> "... it is interesting that, having influenced Haydn, Bach (CPE) later allowed himself to be influenced by the younger composer, just as Haydn later influenced and was influenced by Mozart. ..."
> 
> Compare the string figures in measure 9 of Confitebor tibi domine from Mozart Vesperae solennes de confessore (1780)
> with those of Gloria from Haydn Schöpfungsmesse (1801)
> ...


----------



## pjang23 (Oct 8, 2009)

I prefer Hummel's piano trios over those of Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven.


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

Allerius said:


> In my humble opinion, Vivaldi surpasses Bach in terms of instrumental non-chamber music, considering that he has (for me) concertos as good as those by the german and in a much greater number. I also think that Vivaldi is at least as good as Bach for writing arias, and my favorite baroque aria at the moment (_*Sovente il sole*_) is by the Italian. But I also think that in terms of solo keyboard (organ included) and chamber music, Bach is the indisputable master of the Baroque, at least from what I know.


I prefer the Brandenburgs to anything by Vivaldi. But Vivaldi composed better solo/double concertos than Bach did.


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

Haydn surpassed Mozart in terms of string quartets and piano sonatas. Although Mozart's late symphonies exceed what Haydn was capable of, I prefer Haydn's symphony cycle overall. And do not crucify me for this, but I prefer The Creation over Mozart's Requiem. *ducks head*


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

MatthewWeflen said:


> I think Schubert's string quartets surpass the level of brilliance and profundity of his contemporaries, in that form.
> 
> Beethoven's symphonies are superior to Schubert's, though (Schubert's are pleasant but not particularly profound).
> 
> On Haydn, obviously he was a great pioneer, was a technically brilliant orchestrator, and both Mozart and Beethoven learned a great deal from him. But in my opinion, they both had more to _say_.


Beethoven's late quartets are better than even Schubert's. If you meant Mendelssohn and Haydn, though, I'd agree with you.

As for symphonies, Schubert's Great symphony invigorates me.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

consuono said:


> Well hammered, whether it was because Mozart just didn't find it all that interesting or whether it was due to the pressures of what he felt he *had* to compose, I just don't think his solo piano music is among his best efforts. His piano concertos though to me are supernaturally great.


Hahahahahahaha, Mr. consuono. I know your frequent bashing of Mozart's keyboard music in this forum. It's amusing because it makes me think of the reason* you said why you prefer Chopin's nocturnes over Wagner's Ring cycle any day. ( *It was something like George Sand's quote: _"There is more music in Chopin's tiny C-minor Prélude than in the four hours of the trumpeting in Les Huguenots."_ )
So I can apply the same logic in this case, right? Can I say that "the contrast of feelings in the slow movement of K.330 moves me more than a lot of other music. That's all that matters."
I also remember those instances when you said something like "come on, not everything Mozart wrote was gold", 
and so I have suspicions; if you're doing it just because you're bitter about Mozart being so good, and trying to nitpick and fault-find his music. (Just saying. You're still entitled to your opinions).
Anyway, I'm curious who are you going to compare Mozart with (in keyboard music) next time you do. First you did it with Haydn, then Beethoven, and now, Clementi, and who'll be next? I can't wait to find out.


----------



## Eclectic Al (Apr 23, 2020)

MatthewWeflen said:


> On Haydn, obviously he was a great pioneer, was a technically brilliant orchestrator, and both Mozart and Beethoven learned a great deal from him. But in my opinion, they both had more to _say_.


Picking up on the "had more to say" point, there is a lot in whether it feels like a composer speaks to you. Bach, Haydn and Brahms are three who particularly speak to me: Beethoven quite often, and Mozart rarely.

Beethoven clearly has a lot to say, but can on occasion be a bit shouty. Where he particularly speaks to me is when he ventures into the musical unknown (- incomparably in the late quartets and late piano sonatas).

Mozart, on the other hand, seems to speak in very well constructed sentences, but he doesn't often say anything to me. (Don't have a go at me about this - I had a whole thread about my relative indifference to much Mozart, and got plenty of slating on that.  )

Haydn achieves a marvellous balance: he has the qualities you list, and is also fascinatingly quirky (which is a thing I don't find in Mozart) and frequently delightful. He speaks to me, and the symphonies he composed around 1770 stand comparison with anything of the time. One of the Mozart symphonies I do like a lot is No 25, but isn't that just a Haydn copy? Maybe for me, Beethoven is too dramatic, whereas Mozart is too much about formal elegance, and Haydn achieves a balance between drama and formal elegance, laced with wit.

Haydn also brings more smiles to my face than any other great, and that's a quality which is unreasonably treated as not significant. In a way people underrate Haydn because he can convey happiness: well isn't that a great gift that few can match.

Also, the volume of symphonies, string quartets, piano trios etc seems to put people off, but isn't the number of great pieces that he produced another area where he exceeded other greats of his time.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

hammeredklavier said:


> Anyway, I'm curious who are you going to compare Mozart with (in keyboard music) next time you do.


 Ultimately I compare it to Mozart's other work. There are some gems in the piano music but overall there's less "meat" there than the other genres.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Although I also appreciate J. Haydn, his harmony feels like "textbook counterpoint" (essentially self-taught with Fux's book after he got kicked out of choir), he's not the kind of "harmonist" in the way Bach and Mozart were. And to me, Haydn seems lacking in melody and seems to rely heavily on scholarly monothematicism because of that. It makes his 100+ symphonies and 60+ string quartets a daunting task to go through. There's some good stuff in the late ones though, like the Fantasia of Op.76 No.6. Seven last words of christ is a bit long. Many people rate his sturm und drang highly, but that sort of typical Gluckian drama stuff seems a little generic to me. Like Pavel Wranitzky's Grand symphony for peace with France Op.31, or the ballet music from Mozart's Thamos king of Egypt K.345.


----------



## Eclectic Al (Apr 23, 2020)

hammeredklavier said:


> Although I also appreciate J. Haydn, his harmony feels like "textbook counterpoint" (essentially self-taught with Fux's book after he got kicked out of choir), he's not the kind of "harmonist" in the way Bach and Mozart were. And to me, Haydn seems lacking in melody and seems to rely heavily on scholarly monothematicism because of that. It makes his 100+ symphonies and 60+ string quartets a daunting task to go through. (There's some good stuff in the late ones though, like the Fantasia of Op.76 No.6). Seven last words of christ is a bit long. Many people rate his sturm und drang highly, but that sort of typical Gluckian stuff seems a little generic to me. Like Pavel Wranitzky's Grand symphony for peace with France Op.31, or the ballet music from Mozart's Thamos king of Egypt K.345.


I think I know what you mean about melody, but that doesn't seem to bother me. I think any particular piece has to have elements which are emphasised and other elements that are less present (- more or less piquant orchestration, more or less contrapuntal ingenuity, more or less melodic fluency, etc), and a piece which was weighted down by being "more" in all elements would not represent a successful balance. Music is about achieving a balance, and less of a role for singable melody may be part of a successful balance in a particular piece.

On number, though, I decided at one point to listen to all his symphonies and nothing else, and I thought it might be a bit boring or daunting or whatever. In fact, when I'd finished I struggled to listen to anything else for a while, and weaned myself off by listening to all his string quartets (and nothing else). I still know that if I want to listen to some music and don't feel strongly drawn to any particular piece at the time, then I can listen to some Haydn and be delighted. Bach, Haydn and Brahms are my go to composers if I am not feeling that I really want to listen to X now, for any particular X. I need to be in a particular mood to reach for Beethoven, for example.

This is not a criticism, but a thing about your posts is that you are fascinated by how composers (particularly Mozart) produce their effects from a technical perspective. As an amateur listener I am positively keen not to look into that: I don't want to know how they do it, as I'm concerned that if I tried to explore that it might "ruin the mystery". I want to be transported without any desire to know the detail of how the vehicle works. Lazy maybe, but I am happy to be a well-nourished parasite on the body of musical excellence. And I get a lot of sustenance from Haydn.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Knorf said:


> I'd argue Haydn in the very least equalled and occasionally surpassed Mozart and Beethoven, comparing as much as possible like for like. Boccherini was not far off, either.
> 
> And I'd argue that Bach was surpassed in terms of orchestral concerti grossi by the likes of Handel, Vivaldi, Telemann, maybe even Zelenka, but to be fair we have so few surviving examples by Bach... And I think it's totally unreasonable for the French Baroque masters to be left out of the conversation entirely. Does Bach have anything as glorious, and pompous in the best sense, as Charpentier's _Te Deum_? The quality of French orchestral composition in terms of Suites and Overtures, also nothing to sneeze at, with considerably greater adventure in terms of orchestral color and contrasts belonging to the French.
> 
> Bach's greatness however in cantatas and keyboard music is unequalled, much less surpassed, in my opinion, by anyone.


I don't know either Bach or Charpentier well enough to comment, but I wonder whether Bach wasn't influenced by Grands Motets by Charpentier and Lully in some of the music for the cantatas. There's a lot of French Overture style music in Bach, including cantatas, indeed they are literally central as French Overtures are the central sections of the Partitas and Goldberg Variations.


----------



## Knorf (Jan 16, 2020)

Mandryka said:


> I don't know either Bach or Charpentier well enough to comment, but I wonder whether Bach wasn't influenced by Grands Motets by Charpentier and Lully in some of the music for the cantatas. There's a lot of French Overture style music in Bach, including cantatas, indeed they are literally central as French Overtures are the central sections of the Partitas and Goldberg Variations.


Oh, yes, very clearly Bach knew and appreciated the French style as much as the Italian style, and imitated both.


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

ORigel said:


> I prefer the Brandenburgs to anything by Vivaldi. But Vivaldi composed better solo/double concertos than Bach did.


I think I can understand the importance of the Brandenburgs - they are rich in polyphony and use very daring instrumental combinations - but I must say that they never really clicked with me. I never saw any particular reason for them to be so much more popular than, say, the organ trio sonatas BWV 525-530, that also are very daring and innovative and, to me, more profound. Other Bach concertos such as BWV 1052 and BWV 1043 are more dear to me than any Brandenburg at this moment.

This said, perhaps I didn't get the _right_ performance of them yet. I have the Maier/Collegium Aureum, Suzuki/Bach Collegium Japan, Tafelmusik and Pinnock/The English Concert performances. Do you have a reference recording to the Brandemburg?


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

There are many works of Bartok that equal or exceed many of Stravinsky (but then he might be defined as "great" himself.)


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Knorf said:


> I'd argue Haydn *in the very least equalled and occasionally surpassed* Mozart and Beethoven, comparing as much as possible like for like.


I think that Haydn was outstanding and innovative at working monothematically with themes in sonata-form, and had certainly some impact on Beethoven in that regard. But on what basis are you claiming he _"in the very least equalled and occasionally surpassed Mozart and Beethoven"_?
Here are similar passages in both classicists:

*[ 0:30 ~ 0:50 ]*





*[ 14:30 ~ 14:50 ]*





Likewise, I don't find harmonies like these in Haydn:









In the G minor quintet K.516, after all its 3.5 movements of pathos, Mozart jokes in the end "I'm ok" to fool us into thinking he's happy, but he's crying in the inside. This feeling of "happy sadness and sad happiness", which I can't describe in words, is unique from Beethoven's variant: "triumph over tragedy",
Haydn on the other hand I think always uses jokes for comedy and rarely ever goes beyond that. 
And He doesn't explore "darkness" like Mozart does:


----------



## level82rat (Jun 20, 2019)

hammeredklavier said:


> I think that Haydn was outstanding and innovative at working monothematically with themes in sonata-form, and had certainly some impact on Beethoven in that regard. But on what basis are you claiming he _"in the very least equalled and occasionally surpassed Mozart and Beethoven"_?
> Here are similar passages in both classicists:
> 
> *[ 0:30 ~ 0:50 ]*
> ...


Oh boy this post has rekindled my love for Mozart. His grasp on the language of music really is unmatched


----------



## erudite (Jul 23, 2020)

Allerius said:


> This said, perhaps I didn't get the _right_ performance of them yet. I have the Maier/Collegium Aureum, Suzuki/Bach Collegium Japan, Tafelmusik and Pinnock/The English Concert performances. Do you have a reference recording to the Brandemburg?


I hesitate to claim these are "Reference Recordings" or will be to everyone's taste, but my personal favourite Brandenburg recordings are:

*Alessandrini - Concerto Italiano
*
and

*Freiburger Barockorchester
*
They make me happy to be alive… and most importantly, I can't keep still!


----------

