# How much inspiration did Beethoven get from Mozart?



## Amadeus Tentacles (Nov 17, 2016)

So while listening to Beethoven's piano concerto No. 2 In B - Flat 3rd Movement I realized it sounds a little familiar to Mozart's Piano Concerto K. 482 In E Flat Major 3rd Movement. Especially the first notes being played :lol: .

Just wanted to know what you guys thought about it??? I know Beethoven looked up to Mozart alot and also Haydn so its not surprising that you see some ideas and structure in his work.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

There are a few places where Beethoven acknowledged a debt to Mozart (like both composers' E-flat piano/wind quintets) but they tend to be relatively early in his output


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

MarkW said:


> There are a few places where Beethoven acknowledged a debt to Mozart (like both composers' E-flat piano/wind quintets) but they tend to be relatively early in his output


There are a few later places as well. Compare the opening of LvB's 3rd Razumovsky Quartet, Op. 59/3, with that of Mozart's "Dissonance" Quartet in C. Still, as you say, rare.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Beethoven owed Haydn big time, not Mozart. Much of early Beethoven was more "Haydn-esque" in character than Mozartean.

Beethoven knelt and kissed the hands of the dying Haydn after a performance of the latter's "The Creation", something hardly expected of Beethoven, so the debt was real and he acknowledged it. 

However, Beethoven did use Mozart's 24th Keyboard Concerto in C minor as a model for his own Third Keyboard Concerto in C minor and he did write famous cadenzas for Mozart's 20th Keyboard Concerto in D minor. So Mozart was in Beethoven's mind, so to speak. A few coincidental musical similarities then shouldn't be unexpected.

I learned here recently from poster EdwardBast, that Beethoven also owed a debt to CPE Bach as well.

In sum, more fruitful detective work would be in comparing Beethoven's early music to the music of CPE Bach and J. Haydn for similarities.


----------



## Amadeus Tentacles (Nov 17, 2016)

That is very true. I have read in a book that Beethoven owed alot to Haydn more than Mozart. I just remembered. Even though he does still have many ideas of mozart in his compositions. I think Haydn was a great teacher for Beethoven. Its sad to think that Beethoven never met Mozart (Historians think he didnt). Beethoven im sure did owe alot also to Bach as a great composer of counterpoint.


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

hpowders said:


> Beethoven owed Haydn big time, not Mozart. Much of early Beethoven was more "Haydn-esque" in character than Mozartean.
> 
> Beethoven knelt and kissed the hands of the dying Haydn after a performance of the latter's "The Creation", something hardly expected of Beethoven, so the debt was real and he acknowledged it.


As I recall he is also on record as claiming that he never learned a thing from Haydn. Of course it was just blather, to be expected from someone with a Wagner-sized ego. 

Something that strikes me is that Mozart actually left few clear musical descendants. His act was one that you can't really follow.


----------



## Haydn man (Jan 25, 2014)

I agree that it is easier to see the progression from Haydn to Beethoven and then on to Brahms.
Mozart was influenced by Haydn, perhaps even perfected the classical style.


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

Haydn man said:


> I agree that it is easier to see the progression from Haydn to Beethoven and then on to Brahms.
> Mozart was influenced by Haydn, perhaps even perfected the classical style.


Every time a composer perfects a style, he also kills it. What can you still do in the Baroque style after Bach? Or in high classical style after Mozart?

Brahms, too, is really the sunset of a stylistic tradition. But boy, what a sunset.


----------



## Janspe (Nov 10, 2012)

brianvds said:


> As I recall he is also on record as claiming that he never learned a thing from Haydn. Of course it was just blather, to be expected from someone with a Wagner-sized ego.


I think those are the words of a young man. I wonder if the old Beethoven would have said that...


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Beethoven no doubt respected Mozart - but he did not have the benefit of 20thC listeners who can survey the best works of a composer's ouvre. 
He may not have known many of Mozart's great works. I understand he knew pc24 - which he declared unsurpassable at the time - and he knew Die Zauberflote - which he praised. I think in truth he was too much up his own **** (sorry for the language) - as indeed was most of the romantic era - to really appreciate the full force of Mozart's musical output. I think we have to wait for Brahms and Wagner, Mahler and R Strauss, Schoenberg before we start to see fellow great composers giving him his due.


----------



## Animal the Drummer (Nov 14, 2015)

Amadeus Tentacles said:


> That is very true. I have read in a book that Beethoven owed alot to Haydn more than Mozart. I just remembered. Even though he does still have many ideas of mozart in his compositions. I think Haydn was a great teacher for Beethoven. Its sad to think that Beethoven never met Mozart (*Historians think he didn't*). Beethoven im sure did owe alot also to Bach as a great composer of counterpoint.


The bolded part is not accurate. There's a lack of documentary evidence but most music historians I've read on the subject think the two of them probably did meet when Beethoven first went to Vienna as a teenager.


----------



## Genoveva (Nov 9, 2010)

brianvds said:


> Something that strikes me is that Mozart actually left few clear musical descendants. His act was one that you can't really follow.


Schubert was a big admirer of Mozart. Schubert's style is more akin to that of Mozart than Beethoven. Tchaikovsky is the next main 19th C composer who revered Mozart very highly, almost to the point of veneration, and thought much less of Beethoven.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

brianvds said:


> As I recall he is also on record as claiming that he never learned a thing from Haydn. Of course it was just blather, to be expected from someone with a Wagner-sized ego.
> 
> Something that strikes me is that Mozart actually left few clear musical descendants. His act was one that you can't really follow.


But he did on several occasions admit he "owed" Haydn, including The Creation" incident I mentioned.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Genoveva said:


> Schubert was a big admirer of Mozart. Schubert's style is more akin to that of Mozart than Beethoven. Tchaikovsky is the next main 19th C composer who revered Mozart very highly, almost to the point of veneration, and thought much less of Beethoven.


That's true about Schubert and probably explains why many like me whose 1st composer is Mozart like Schubert above Beethoven.


----------



## Genoveva (Nov 9, 2010)

brianvds said:


> Every time a composer perfects a style, he also kills it. What can you still do in the Baroque style after Bach? Or in high classical style after Mozart?
> 
> Brahms, too, is really the sunset of a stylistic tradition. But boy, what a sunset.


I think that J S Bach's style late baroque style was already in decline quite some time before he died, so it wasn't the fact that he perfected it that had much effect on its decline. The Galante school had already begun several decades earlier, and early "classical" music had arrived on the scene well before 1750.

It's a moot point but in the case of Mozart's "high classical" style, some musicologists believe that Beethoven remained largely "classical" in style - only dabbling in romanticism in some of his music - and that he took the "classical" style to a yet more complex stage which was not developed significantly any further after his death. Schubert didn't make any further significant advances that I'm aware of, and whilst his orchestral style remained classical (a la Haydn, Mozart), he was well into romanticsm with his lieder, later chamber and piano works. Schumann was an admirer of both Beethoven and Schubert, and was the "herald" of a new poetic age of romanticism.

The general point is that it seems rather unlikely that new forms of classical music emerged because some super composer supposedly perfected the old style, and there was nothing left for younger composers to do but either ape it or develop something new. New music emerges from other, wider influences going on all around the cultural scene.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Genoveva said:


> Schubert was a big admirer of Mozart. Schubert's style is more akin to that of Mozart than Beethoven. *Tchaikovsky is the next main 19th C composer who revered Mozart very highly, almost to the point of veneration, and thought much less of Beethoven.*


This is quite wrong. Tchaikovsky used religious language to express his attitudes to the two composers, likening Mozart to Jesus Christ, whom it was easier to love, while comparing Beethoven to God the father, who inspired awe and fear. This in no way suggests less veneration for Beethoven, arguably quite the opposite. Tchaikovsky expressed affection for Mozart, in part because he found him less intimidating than Beethoven. Finding Beethoven a daunting and awe inspiring figure to whom later composers feared comparison is emphatically the opposite of thinking "much less of." It is in fact an expression of overwhelming veneration.


----------



## Genoveva (Nov 9, 2010)

EdwardBast said:


> This is quite wrong. Tchaikovsky used religious language to express his attitudes to the two composers, likening Mozart to Jesus Christ, whom it was easier to love, while comparing Beethoven to God the father, who inspired awe and fear. This in no way suggests less veneration for Beethoven, arguably quite the opposite. Tchaikovsky expressed affection for Mozart, in part because he found him less intimidating than Beethoven. Finding Beethoven a daunting and awe inspiring figure to whom later composers feared comparison is emphatically the opposite of thinking "much less of." It is in fact an expression of overwhelming veneration.


Sorry but you are wrong. It's common knowledge that Tchaikovsky had a far higher regard for Mozart than he did for Beethoven. Any simple google search should quickly demonstrate that. Whilst being respectful of Beethoven, he was sceptical of the enormous adulation that Beethoven attracted, and felt that it was overdone by many of his contemporaries:

For example, I quickly found some relevant diary quotes from Tchaikovsky's on the matter of the "Trinity" that you refer to:

_I bow before the greatness of some of his works, but I do not love Beethoven. My attitude towards him reminds me of how I felt as a child with regard to God, Lord of Sabaoth. I felt (and even now my feelings have not changed) a sense of amazement before Him, but at the same time also fear. He created heaven and earth, just as He created me, but still, even though I cringe before Him, there is no love. Christ, on the contrary, awakens precisely and exclusively feelings of love. Yes, He was God, but at the same time a man. He suffered like us. We are sorry for Him, we love in Him His ideal human side. And if Beethoven occupies in my heart a place analogous to God, Lord of Sabaoth, then Mozart I love as a musical Christ. Besides, he lived almost like Christ did. I think there is nothing sacrilegious in such a comparison. Mozart was a being so angelical and child-like in his purity, his music is so full of unattainably divine beauty, that if there is someone whom one can mention with the same breath as Christ, then it is he.
…

It is my profound conviction that Mozart is the highest, the culminating point which beauty has reached in the sphere of music. Nobody has made me cry and thrill with joy, sensing my proximity to something that we call the ideal, in the way that he has.
…

Beethoven also caused me to shudder. But it was rather out of something akin to fear and painful anguish. I do not know how to talk about music and so I cannot go into details. However, I will point out two details: In Beethoven I like the middle period, occasionally the first, but at bottom I hate the final period, especially the last quartets. There are in these flashes, but no more. The rest is chaos over which there hovers, surrounded by impenetrable darkness ...."_

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

Thus, it would seem pretty clear from the above that Tchaikovsky's great musical hero was Mozart. You have rather misconstrued what Tchaikovsky meant in his references to the Divine Trinity. His liking for Beethoven was clearly far less than it was for Mozart, but he felt that he had to say a few nice things about him because that was the prevailing opinion at the time, even though he put the boot in as regards Beethoven's late works.

If you care to read up further on the subject I'm sure you might gain some useful knowledge on the subject. It's all easily googleable material, and hits you right in the face as you soon as you start.


----------



## pcnog11 (Nov 14, 2016)

Please check this out:






This was a duet sung by Papageno and Pamina in Magic Flute. Lovely arrangement from Beethoven into Piano and Cello. I have yet to got to a wedding and hear it. This piece was originally sung in the opera about the love between husband and wife.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Genoveva said:


> Sorry but you are wrong. It's common knowledge that Tchaikovsky had a far higher regard for Mozart than he did for Beethoven. Any simple google search should quickly demonstrate that. Whilst being respectful of Beethoven, he was sceptical of the enormous adulation that Beethoven attracted, and felt that it was overdone by many of his contemporaries:
> 
> For example, I quickly found some relevant diary quotes from Tchaikovsky's on the matter of the "Trinity" that you refer to:
> 
> _I bow before the greatness of some of his works, but I do not love Beethoven. My attitude towards him reminds me of how I felt as a child with regard to God, Lord of Sabaoth. I felt (and even now my feelings have not changed) a sense of amazement before Him, but at the same time also fear. He created heaven and earth, just as He created me, but still, even though I cringe before Him, there is no love. Christ, on the contrary, awakens precisely and exclusively feelings of love. Yes, He was God, but at the same time a man. He suffered like us. We are sorry for Him, we love in Him His ideal human side. And if Beethoven occupies in my heart a place analogous to God, Lord of Sabaoth, then Mozart I love as a musical Christ. Besides, he lived almost like Christ did. I think there is nothing sacrilegious in such a comparison. Mozart was a being so angelical and child-like in his purity, his music is so full of unattainably divine beauty, that if there is someone whom one can mention with the same breath as Christ, then it is he._


You should have included the first sentence of this paragraph, in which he says: "To begin with Beethoven, whom I praise unconditionally, and to whom I bend as to a god." If you put the paragraph in this context, the whole amounts to just what I said: having more affection and liking for Mozart, being overawed by Beethoven and regarding him as the lord of the universe. This higher evaluation of Beethoven is followed through elsewhere in his writing. In a letter to Nadejda von Meck (16 March 1878): "… Mozart reaches neither the depths nor heights of Beethoven. And since in life, too, he remained to the end of his days a careless child, his music has not that subjectively tragic quality which is so powerfully expressed in Beethoven." And Tchaikovsky is careful to separate his love for Mozart from his evaluation of his work. Thus: "Although I love everything in Mozart, I will not assert that every one of his works … should be considered a masterpiece. I know quite well that no single example of his sonatas is a great creation, and yet I like each one …" (Diary 20 Sept 1886) Although I don't have quotations at hand, I would bet he had a far higher evaluation of Beethoven's masterworks in the genre.



Genoveva said:


> It is my profound conviction that Mozart is the highest, the culminating point which beauty has reached in the sphere of music. Nobody has made me cry and thrill with joy, sensing my proximity to something that we call the ideal, in the way that he has.
> 
> Beethoven also caused me to shudder. But it was rather out of something akin to fear and painful anguish. I do not know how to talk about music and so I cannot go into details. However, I will point out two details: In Beethoven I *like* the middle period, occasionally the first, but at bottom I hate the final period, especially the last quartets. There are in these flashes, but no more. The rest is chaos over which there hovers, surrounded by impenetrable darkness ...."[/i]


First, the translation: Mine reads that Tch. *loves* middle period Beethoven, not "likes." I don't have it in Russian to check which is correct, but his commentary on individual works suggests love. For example, he says of the slow movement of the Fourth Piano Concerto: "I know of nothing more inspired than this short movement. I go cold and pale every time I hear it." (letter 3 Oct 1888) As for hating the final period, this statement is belied by his praise of every work he has discussed from this period: Of the scherzo of the 9th: "It is so divinely beautiful, strong, original and significant." (Letter, 2 Oct 1888) Of the Missa Solemnis: "a musical composition of the greatest genius." (Letters to Relatives, ed. Zhdanov, 156) As for those maligned late quartets, he seems to have recanted, saying they "were long regarded as the productions of an insane and deaf man," going on to say that for those who know them there is not a superflous note (He specifically cites Op. 131; letter, 3 Oct 1888).

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



Genoveva said:


> Thus, it would seem pretty clear from the above that Tchaikovsky's great musical hero was Mozart. You have rather misconstrued what Tchaikovsky meant in his references to the Divine Trinity. His liking for Beethoven was clearly far less than it was for Mozart, but *he felt that he had to say a few nice things about him because that was the prevailing opinion at the time*, even though he put the boot in as regards Beethoven's late works.


No, it is perfectly clear that he regarded Beethoven as a god who reached greater heights and depths than Mozart, and he said it because he thought it was true. This becomes even more clear when one looks at the music and figures out who he was imitating when he composed his greatest instrumental works. The late symphonies all owe an immeasurable debt to those of Beethoven. Of the Fourth: "In reality, my work is a reflection of Beethoven's Fifth Symphony." (Letter to Sergei Taneyev, 27 Mar 1878) In describing the opening theme of this work (and that of his 5th Symphony) as a representation of Fate, he is clearly echoing A.B. Marx's interpretation of Beethoven's Fifth. (_Beethoven Leben und Schaffen_, 1859) Note too that the thematic return in the finale of the Fourth clearly imitates the same in the finale of the Beethoven.



Genoveva said:


> If you care to read up further on the subject I'm sure you might gain some useful knowledge on the subject. It's all easily googleable material, and hits you right in the face as you soon as you start.


Thanks, but I have his letters, biographies, and scores on my shelf.


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

I love that Beethoven movement from the OP. You can watch Zimerman play and conduct this concerto at the same time on youtube. Very enjoyable.





The Mozart seems a bit similar in feel/rhythm but not so much in notes, by the way.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

I think that Tchaikovsky's views on Mozart/Beethoven are not worth arguing over. We are talking about a romantic era composer who believed - like most - that the 19thC had moved well forward to a deeper and more expressive mode of composition. There were others from those times who took a more balanced view - Wagner put both on the same level - Brahms declared that Mozart's pcs were better than anything composed so far and Mahler and R Strauss both championed Mozart above Beethoven.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

EdwardBast said:


> You should have included the first sentence of this paragraph, in which he says: "To begin with Beethoven, whom I praise unconditionally, and to whom I bend as to a god." If you put the paragraph in this context, the whole amounts to just what I said: having more affection and liking for Mozart, being overawed by Beethoven and regarding him as the lord of the universe. This higher evaluation of Beethoven is followed through elsewhere in his writing. In a letter to Nadejda von Meck (16 March 1878): "… Mozart reaches neither the depths nor heights of Beethoven. And since in life, too, he remained to the end of his days a careless child, his music has not that subjectively tragic quality which is so powerfully expressed in Beethoven." And Tchaikovsky is careful to separate his love for Mozart from his evaluation of his work. Thus: "Although I love everything in Mozart, I will not assert that every one of his works … should be considered a masterpiece. I know quite well that no single example of his sonatas is a great creation, and yet I like each one …" (Diary 20 Sept 1886) Although I don't have quotations at hand, I would bet he had a far higher evaluation of Beethoven's masterworks in the genre.
> 
> First, the translation: Mine reads that Tch. *loves* middle period Beethoven, not "likes." I don't have it in Russian to check which is correct, but his commentary on individual works suggests love. For example, he says of the slow movement of the Fourth Piano Concerto: "I know of nothing more inspired than this short movement. I go cold and pale every time I hear it." (letter 3 Oct 1888) As for hating the final period, this statement is belied by his praise of every work he has discussed from this period: Of the scherzo of the 9th: "It is so divinely beautiful, strong, original and significant." (Letter, 2 Oct 1888) Of the Missa Solemnis: "a musical composition of the greatest genius." (Letters to Relatives, ed. Zhdanov, 156) As for those maligned late quartets, he seems to have recanted, saying they "were long regarded as the productions of an insane and deaf man," going on to say that for those who know them there is not a superflous note (He specifically cites Op. 131; letter, 3 Oct 1888).
> 
> ...


Of course one would expect Tchaik to imitate Beethoven in the midst of the romantic era.


----------



## Genoveva (Nov 9, 2010)

EdwardBast said:


> You should have included the first sentence of this paragraph, in which he says: "To begin with Beethoven, whom I praise unconditionally, and to whom I bend as to a god."
> ........


I was basing my assertions on what I had read on previous occasions from various sources.

I can't recall them all right now, but the following extract from the "Antecedents and influences" section of the Wikipedia article on Tchaikovsky states:

_"Of Tchaikovsky's Western contemporaries, Robert Schumann stands out as an influence in formal structure, harmonic practices and piano writing, according to Brown and musicologist Roland John Wiley.... Otherwise, it was to composers of the past that Tchaikovsky turned-Beethoven, *whose music he respected; Mozart, whose music he loved;* …"_ (source: Wikepedia)

In addition, the following articles at the "Tchaikovsky research" website concerning Tchaikovsky's various writings on Beethoven and Mozart provides further evidence:

http://en.tchaikovsky-research.net/pages/Ludwig_van_Beethoven

http://en.tchaikovsky-research.net/pages/Wolfgang_Amadeus_Mozart

All in all, I read from all this kind of material that Tchaikovsky's admiration for Beethoven was mainly out of respect for a composer who had been highly revered for a long while. I'm not in any way suggesting that Beethoven thought negatively about Beethoven. On the contrary, he clearly had a high regard for some of his works. However, his chief love was Mozart. This point is surely indisputable.

Whether or not you agree, I have nothing further to add, as it's not a particularly important point.


----------



## Genoveva (Nov 9, 2010)

stomanek said:


> Of course one would expect Tchaik to imitate Beethoven in the midst of the romantic era.


Quite right. In addition, it's unlikely that any budding or even established composer in the mid to late 19th C would have risked criticising Beethoven in case they risked looking stupid. Most likely anyone so inclined to do would have paid due lip service and then written more profusely about, and emulated the style of, the composers they really did like, in this case Mozart.

One possible exception is Debussy whose writings about Beethoven are littered with inconsistencies about his true thoughts concerning this composer. On balance it's likely that Debussy wanted a clean break from what he considered to be the over-dominant influence of Beethoven. And a very nice break it was too, as I love the Impressionist style that he was among the first to foster. Ravel, some years later, was much more open about his dislike of Beethoven.


----------



## Chordalrock (Jan 21, 2014)

Genoveva said:


> All in all, I read from all this kind of material that Tchaikovsky's admiration for Beethoven was mainly out of respect for a composer who had been highly revered for a long while.


It's pretty clear from what EdwardBast wrote that Tchaikovsky admired Beethoven's depth and genius while happening to prefer listening to Mozart despite the latter's inferiority. I guess it would be going too far to say that Mozart was his "guilty pleasure", but the concept of "guilty pleasure" should give one some idea of the difference between admiring something (Beethoven, in this case) and loving something (Mozart).

This difference in no way implies that Tchaikovsky thought Mozart was a better composer. Usually, you admire the composer whom you think is a great composer, and love the one whom you happen to enjoy listening to regardless of whether you think that he was great.

I mean, I have plenty of respect for Brahms as a composer, but heck, generally speaking I prefer Lady Gaga. :lol:


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

I think there is something in Tchaik's veneration of Beethoven as a god but Mozart as a christ. Not sure how to articulate what I want to say about that but will return later.


----------



## Genoveva (Nov 9, 2010)

Chordalrock said:


> It's pretty clear from what EdwardBast wrote that Tchaikovsky admired Beethoven's depth and genius while happening to prefer listening to *Mozart despite the latter's inferiority.* I guess it would be going too far to say that Mozart was his "guilty pleasure", but the concept of "guilty pleasure" should give one some idea of the difference between admiring something (Beethoven, in this case) and loving something (Mozart).
> 
> This difference in no way implies that Tchaikovsky thought Mozart was a better composer. Usually, you admire the composer whom you think is a great composer, and love the one whom you happen to enjoy listening to regardless of whether you think that he was great.
> 
> I mean, I have plenty of respect for Brahms as a composer, but heck, generally speaking I prefer Lady Gaga. :lol:


I don't know where you got the idea from that Tchaikovsky regarded Mozart as "inferior" to Beethoven. The point of Tchaikovsky's reference to the "Trinity" is that the Trinity is composed of three distinct divine persons, Father, Son & Holy Spirit, without overlap and each being co-equal. [Here I'm referring to mainstream Roman, Protestant and Orthodox Christian teaching.]

I don't doubt that Tchaikovsky regarded Beethoven as one of the musical Gods, but he made it plain that he had the higher personal regard for Mozart: _"It is my profound conviction that Mozart is the highest, the culminating point which beauty has reached in the sphere of music"_. He said that Mozart was unsurpassed as an opera composer. Whereas In the case of Beethoven, he wrote _" Beethoven also caused me to shudder. But it was rather out of something akin to fear and painful anguish."_

Personally, I do not draw any distinction between composers I like the most and the ones I consider to be the greatest. That's because in my case they happen to be the same, at least down as far as about No 10 on my list, after which point rankings become so mercurial that it's hardly worth time worrying about the precise order.

All this adds up in my book to being consistent with the notion that Tchaikovsky had a lesser view of Beethoven than he did of Mozart, even though he still regarded Beethoven very highly. Quite possibly, I guess that if Tchaikovsky was available to cast his vote in one of the many T-C favourite composer polls, he'd probably place Mozart in No 1 spot followed by Beethoven in No 2 spot. Rather like my preferences in fact.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

I understand that Tchaik received correspondence from his patroness and admirer - praising him and comparing him favourably to Mozart.

what does this tell us? perhaps nothing. or maybe that in conversation Tchaik had expressed his greatest admiration for Mozart above other composers? and his patroness was merely reflecting this back in her correspondence as she realised it would provide him with the greatest flattery.


----------



## Funny (Nov 30, 2013)

brianvds said:


> Every time a composer perfects a style, he also kills it. What can you still do in the Baroque style after Bach? Or in high classical style after Mozart?


You can help it evolve into a new style.

If you look at the style Haydn was writing in, say in his symphonies (the repertoire I know best) of the early 1760s and then at the style of his last symphonies in the early 1790s you'll see that while they both fall under "Classical," the last works have many of the key elements we associate with "The Romantic Style." By that point, Haydn had expanded the size and diversity of the orchestra, established the standard movement order and overall length of the symphony, and within that format established types of gestures and ways of treating them that continued to be used - by Beethoven certainly, but also by almost all 19th-century composers up through Mahler and Bruckner.

In other words, the concept of "The Symphony," which was in flux throughout the second half of the 18th century, became a fixed thing in Haydn's hands and remained fixed in exactly the way he fixed it for another full century.

For all of Brahms' adoration of Beethoven, his music leans more on Haydn. For all of Tchaikovsky's exegesis of Beethoven and Mozart, his orchestral music often sounds like a slightly-more-melody-obsessed Haydn. Listen to the end of Haydn's 104/ii out of context and you would swear it was Tchaikovsky. Or drop the needle at bars 60-68 of that same movement and an educated listener would say Bruckner.

So at least as regards the symphony, Haydn created the foundations of the Romantic style - in terms of harmonic complexity, melodic scope, orchestral texture and timbre, common gestures and the overall size and shape of the forces involved - but he didn't create its overarching ATTITUDE - that the composer is a god (or an outcast genius), the composed piece is a sacrament to be received and evaluated by lesser beings, and bigger bombast equals deeper emotion. For those elements we have Beethoven to thank.


----------

