# Can anyone explain ..........



## Dorsetmike (Sep 26, 2018)

Why some composers seem to be mostly ignored when I find their music to be equal, or to my ear better, than the "big names".
As an example John Stanley, radio plays of his works are confined to one work just one of his 30 organ voluntaries, never any of his 12 concertos for organ or harpsichord and string orchestra, nor any of his sonatas nor choral works.

Could some of our members have a listen to some of his concertos and sonatas then give some considered critique, maybe compare to similar works by other composers.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Those composers are not really ignored. They are returning thanks to the recording industry, musicology and research into performance practice of early music and what people want to listen, including yourself.

There is something wrong with the video you posted. The recording is definitely not by The Parley of Instruments, who play on period instruments. The recording is clearly a 20th century modern orchestra. You might like to actually listen to The Parley of Instruments under Roy Goodman. I have listened to it before, it is fantastic. This is the correct recording:


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Most composers inevitably fall victim to the gradual winnowing process of history. Not many of Stanley's immediate contemporaries are widely listened to these days - Gluck, CPE and WF Bach, and Pergolesi are perhaps the only particularly well known composers born within 10 years of him, and even they don't have many "hits" (i.e., works that "everyone" knows) between them. The same is true for much of musical history - plenty of good music out there for the enthusiastic explorer.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

*Why are composers ignored*

Greatness isn't fairly distributed by top polls of favorite composers. That is because when Bach fulfills needs of listeners, they move onto other styles: A reaction to any composer being '*great*' is merely a momentary desire to listen to their music. Then this desire fades and they're no longer great to listen to for a while. See poll: "Favorite Era of music." The winner of the poll is Contemporary.

My research on niche composers highlights this phenomenon. One's likelihood to want to listen to a composer is actually better represented by the following average. This shows the average likelihood someone in the forum is craving a composer.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Kind of like how one could find P. Wranitzky or F. X. Richter better than J. Haydn. They were all good composers, but the big names in general pushed the envelope more, or are less predictable. I listened to the J. Stanley Organ Concerto. It had nice harmony, etc. similar to the big names, but I felt it to have the last ounce of ingenuity to make it more distinctive. I'm not professional. Just going by what I think from personal experience. I've heard some people write pretty convincing pastiche of the Classical style, but usually also don't have that thing that elevates it above the big names. I feel the big names had the 'secret sauce'.


----------



## cybernaut (Feb 6, 2021)

I have wondered this myself. There are so many great composers whose works are lost in history....some are being re-discovered thanks to Youtube, Spotify, etc....which is great.....because if left to the big orchestras and record labels, all we would get would be the same 30 composers over and over and over and over.

I have a friend about this, as she is a violinist in a couple of orchestras. She said if they want to sell tickets, they have to perform the big names. Beethoven, Bach, Mozart, etc. And try to sneak in a few lesser-known composers along the way.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Dorsetmike said:


> Why some composers seem to be mostly ignored when I find their music to be equal, or to my ear better, than the "big names".
> As an example John Stanley, radio plays of his works are confined to one work just one of his 30 organ voluntaries, never any of his 12 concertos for organ or harpsichord and string orchestra, nor any of his sonatas nor choral works.
> 
> Could some of our members have a listen to some of his concertos and sonatas then give some considered critique, maybe compare to similar works by other composers.


I don't want to critique Stanley's music. Just wanted to thank you for the videos of excellent music; Stanley's a winner.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

cybernaut said:


> I have wondered this myself. There are so many great composers whose works are lost in history....some are being re-discovered thanks to Youtube, Spotify, etc....which is great.....because if left to the big orchestras and record labels, all we would get would be the same 30 composers over and over and over and over.
> 
> I have a friend about this, as she is a violinist in a couple of orchestras. She said if they want to sell tickets, they have to perform the big names. Beethoven, Bach, Mozart, etc. And try to sneak in a few lesser-known composers along the way.


This is sadly true. I was excited to see that the Cleveland Orchestra is going ahead with a summer series at Blossom. Then the programming: Dvorak 9, Brahms 3, Tchaikovsky 4, Beethoven 7, Elgar Enigma....ho hum. But, they're all popular, exciting, well-known, over played and will no doubt draw the crowds. And the reality is they need to sell tickets. If they played symphonies of Bax, Rubbra, Myaskovsky and Schmidt they probably wouldn't.

There's a local pick up orchestra I used to play with and their whole mission was to play obscure, neglected music. We played the symphonies of Atterberg, Arnell, Gal, and many others. It was great for me, but audiences...forget it. How depressing it was to play the magnificent Arnell 3rd td an audience of 50 people, and most of those with comp tickets.

Whenever I conduct a concert I always manage to slip in at least one, usually short, work that is largely unknown. Korngold, Delius, Gottschalk, Converse, Chadwick, McDowell...so much beautiful music that will sadly never be heard by most concert-goers.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

Dorsetmike said:


> Why some composers seem to be mostly ignored when I find their music to be equal, or to my ear better, than the "big names".
> As an example John Stanley, radio plays of his works are confined to one work just one of his 30 organ voluntaries, never any of his 12 concertos for organ or harpsichord and string orchestra, nor any of his sonatas nor choral works.
> 
> Could some of our members have a listen to some of his concertos and sonatas then give some considered critique, maybe compare to similar works by other composers.
> ...


I didn't know of this composer before and looking him up and learning a little of his story (a childhood accident left him nearly blind) makes me feel a sympathy for him. Listening to the music in the videos though I think the problem is that while his music is very pleasant, it's uncomfortably Handelian. But if you like it, who cares.


----------



## Vasks (Dec 9, 2013)

Bulldog said:


> Stanley's a winner.


Yep. I just bought a CD of Stanley's organ concerti. Very nice stuff


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Phil loves classical said:


> Kind of like how one could find *P. Wranitzky or F. X. Richter* better than *J. Haydn*. They were all good composers, but *the big names* in general pushed the envelope more, or are less predictable.


And you take it for granted that we all include Joseph Haydn in the list of the so-called "big names"? I know Joseph Haydn is a good and a popular composer, but I wonder why there's some kind of "dogmatic creed" that "anyone who doesn't consider Joseph Haydn absolute 'first-rate' is a philistine", in classical music communities today.
This is the general way J. Haydn goes about doing development on his material- proudly yelling at the top of his lungs: "G! B! C#! D! G! B! C#! C! F! A! B! C! F! A! C! B! I'M WEARING SILK UNDERWEAR!!!"
3:49 , 7:35 , 17:33
and it honestly gets tiring on the ear rather easily. I always find that his brother Michael (who is far lesser known than Joseph) is much more about expressive intricacies and angularities in his development, and about "modesty" rather than "pomposity" in creating tension and drama. 
13:00 , 1:45 , 16:45 , 7:30 , 1:50 , 15:10 , 9:30
And whenever I point out that Joseph Haydn never reaches the subtleties of Michael's late catholic music, and that Joseph in fact wasn't really that important compared to his brother (who inspired Mozart and Schubert more) in the history of classical music, and that "we must tell our children the RIGHT history", -I'm accused by the Jopseh Haydn fandom of being a "blind hater", "trying to elevate Mozart even further by trashing Joseph Haydn" or whatever. Since when has this "cultism" been formed around this composer, I have no idea.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Dorsetmike said:


> Why some composers seem to be mostly ignored when I find their music to be equal, or to my ear better, than the "big names".
> As an example John Stanley, radio plays of his works are confined to one work just one of his 30 organ voluntaries, never any of his 12 concertos for organ or harpsichord and string orchestra, nor any of his sonatas nor choral works.
> 
> Could some of our members have a listen to some of his concertos and sonatas then give some considered critique, maybe compare to similar works by other composers.


No reason I can cite. But I am aware that some artists have a charismatic quality that brings them more attention than other possibly equally talented artists/composers.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

hammeredklavier said:


> And you take it for granted that we all include Joseph Haydn in the list of the so-called "big names"? I know Joseph Haydn is a good and a popular composer, but I wonder why there's some kind of "dogmatic creed" that "anyone who doesn't consider Joseph Haydn absolute 'first-rate' is a philistine", in classical music communities today.
> This is the general way J. Haydn goes about doing development on his material- proudly yelling at the top of his lungs: "G! B! C#! D! G! B! C#! B! G! B! C#! D! G! B! C#! B! I'M WEARING SILK UNDERWEAR!!!"
> 
> and it honestly gets tiring on the ear rather easily. I always find that his brother Michael (who is far lesser known than Joseph) is much more about expressive intricacies and angularities in his development, and about "modesty" rather than "pomposity" in creating tension and drama.
> ...


Joseph Haydn is one of the greats, more important than his brother, and an inspiration to Mozart.

You are another one of those who are compelled to elevate a lesser-known composer above a well-known composer, for reasons I am unable to plumb.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

SanAntone said:


> No reason I can cite. But I am aware that some artists have a charismatic quality that brings them more attention than other possibly equally talented artists/composers.


Well it would be a little more helpful to know which of the "big names" the OP thinks John Stanley was "better than or equal to". And we don't really know how personally charismatic Handel and Bach were.

The problem I have with the opening post is that admiring composers' work isn't a zero sum game. John Stanley isn't deprived of admirers just because Handel's music is admired. There are people who like Handel, Bach, Couperin, Vivaldi, Rameau...
Now if a composer's music sounds like it's dwelling a little too deeply in the shadow of one of those "big names", then it most likely will strike a lot of people as derivative.


----------



## Bruckner Anton (Mar 10, 2016)

History is too picky with musicians. Most performers and listeners only have time working on the best out of the best. Therefore, many great composers are basically forgotten today. Just take a look at how many good composers are overshadowed by Beethoven or Mozart.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

SanAntone said:


> I am unable to plumb


Maybe it's cause you're one of "those people" who had been always told by their school teachers and textbooks, "Haydn (Joseph) and Mozart" endlessly, and wouldn't have given a damn about Michael if no one ever told them about him. 


hammeredklavier said:


> "Michael's influence on Romanticism is also reflected in the writings of E. T. A. Hoffmann, who praised Michael's sacred music above that of older brother Joseph's. Franz Schubert is known to have visited the grave of Michael Haydn in order to gain inspiration for writing sacred music. After one of these visits, Schubert wrote in a letter to his brother the following epitaph:
> "I thought to myself, 'May thy pure and peaceful spirit hover around me, dear Haydn! If I can ever become like thee, peaceful and guileless, in all matters none on earth has such deep reverence for thee as I have.' (Sad tears fell from my eyes. . . .)""





hammeredklavier said:


> "Most revealing in this respect are the passages in Berlioz's criticism that compare Mozart to Haydn. For Berlioz, Haydn is manifestly beneath the level of the 'Great Masters'. He is treated as 'outdated' and someone whose 'boring … phrases … have tired rather than interested the public'. In his earlier critiques he takes care to stress the difference between the two: after commenting on Haydn's obsolete style he speaks of Mozart as 'full of passion and gloominess'. But later he tends to amalgamate the two into one entity, embodying all those features of scholarly Classicism that the Romantic spirit of Berlioz had sworn to overcome and to surpass." <
> View attachment 130858
> >


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Dorsetmike said:


> Why some composers seem to be mostly ignored when I find their music to be equal, or to my ear better, than the "big names".
> As an example John Stanley, radio plays of his works are confined to one work just one of his 30 organ voluntaries, never any of his 12 concertos for organ or harpsichord and string orchestra, nor any of his sonatas nor choral works.
> 
> Could some of our members have a listen to some of his concertos and sonatas then give some considered critique, maybe compare to similar works by other composers.


It must be something to do with your taste.

Perhaps you are becoming an expert or specialist in certain small musical enclaves? Or perhaps you have a particular liking for some composers that only sound like also-rans to the rest of us? Or perhaps you are going by first impressions instead of living with the pieces for decades?


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Bruckner Anton said:


> History is too picky with musicians. Most performers and listeners only have time working on the best out of the best. Therefore, many great composers are basically forgotten today. Just take a look at how many good composers are overshadowed by Beethoven or Mozart.


Which is what gives us time to explore other periods and genres. But this is a great time for those who want to specialise. So much is recorded.

It is the same with paintings - go through any of the major public galleries and you will see a lot by artists who you will only have heard of if you are an expert on the period. Many of them are very very good but there does (to my eye) seem to be something missing compared with many (but not all!) of the great household name painters. And then you can visit small commercial galleries while on holiday. You might see art that is good and will retain some value but will never make it into a public gallery. If you like it enough and have the money you might buy it.

It is probably also true of literature but there it may be that much has been truly lost or is waiting forever for a market to return.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

hammeredklavier said:


> Maybe it's cause you're one of "those people" who had been always told by their school teachers and textbooks, "Haydn (Joseph) and Mozart" endlessly, and wouldn't have given a damn about Michael if no one ever told them about him.


I dunno, Hammered. ETA Hoffman, who you're quoting, also referred to the as Haydn and Mozart, or one after the other. I get the feeling you're kind of selective with the quotes to fit your view.

"Mozart and Haydn, the creators of modern instrumental music, first showed us the art in its full glory; but the one who regarded it with total devotion and penetrated to its innermost nature is Beethoven. The instrumental compositions of all three masters breathe the same romantic spirit for the very reason that they all intimately grasp the essential nature of the art; yet the character of their compositions is markedly different. . ."

So are we to believe that Beethoven is deeper than Mozart in instrumental music from this quote?


----------



## HerbertNorman (Jan 9, 2020)

Dorsetmike said:


> Why some composers seem to be mostly ignored when I find their music to be equal, or to my ear better, than the "big names".
> As an example John Stanley, radio plays of his works are confined to one work just one of his 30 organ voluntaries, never any of his 12 concertos for organ or harpsichord and string orchestra, nor any of his sonatas nor choral works.
> 
> Could some of our members have a listen to some of his concertos and sonatas then give some considered critique, maybe compare to similar works by other composers.


I understand your feelings. These videos have reminded me of what a pleasure it is to listen to his music. I think they just didn't rival a contemporary in the views of the listeners at the time and therefore the music got lost a bit in history.
I have (re)found a few jewels by reading some the TC posts and looking through the threads.

A lot has to do with your stance towards other , ie "new music" . If you won't give something a try you won't broaden your taste imo. There are quite a few people like that out there so radio stations for example often fall back on the works they know the general listening public appreciate.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Phil loves classical said:


> I dunno, Hammered. ETA Hoffman, who you're quoting, also referred to the as Haydn and Mozart, or one after the other. I get the feeling you're kind of selective with the quotes to fit your view.
> "Mozart and Haydn, the creators of modern instrumental music, first showed us the art in its full glory; but the one who regarded it with total devotion and penetrated to its innermost nature is Beethoven. The instrumental compositions of all three masters breathe the same romantic spirit for the very reason that they all intimately grasp the essential nature of the art; yet the character of their compositions is markedly different. . ."
> So are we to believe that Beethoven is deeper than Mozart in instrumental music from this quote?


I dunno, here's the rest of that quote:

https://wps.prenhall.com/hss_mymusi...he creators,its innermost nature is Beethoven.
"Haydn romantically apprehends the humanity in human life; he is more congenial, more comprehensible to the majority.
"Mozart takes more as his province the superhuman, magical quality residing in the inner self.
"Beethoven's music sets in motion the machinery of awe, of fear, of terror, of pain, and awakens that infinite yearning which is the essence of romanticism. He is therefore a purely romantic composer. Might this not explain why his vocal music is less successful, since it does not permit a mood of vague yearning but can only depict from the realm of the infinite those feelings capable of being described in words?"

So are we to believe Mozart is "superhuman", while Beethoven is not. Beethoven's vocal music (such as the 9th) is less "successful"?

Joseph himself also admitted Michael was better than him in certain aspects;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Haydn
"Joseph regarded his brother's music highly, to the point of feeling Michael's religious works were superior to his own"
(Also look at "Chamber Music Quarterly - Volumes 1-2 - Page 22")



hammeredklavier said:


> The fact remains that there's not a single work in Joseph Haydn that inspired Mozart as much as Michael's C minor requiem did.





hammeredklavier said:


> "Mozart wrote to his father on 29 March 1783 about the musical gatherings in the apartments of Baron van Swieten: "we love to amuse ourselves with all kind of masters, ancient and modern." So music was the main object of the other of the composers Mozart and his colleagues studied in these sessions is mentioned in the Mozart correspondence by name: Johann Ernst Eberlin, for instance, or Georg Friedrich Handel, or J.S. Bach and his sons Wilhelm Friedemann and Carl Phillip Emmanuel, or Michael Haydn." http://mrc.hanyang.ac.kr/wp-content/jspm/20/jspm_2006_20_10.pdf#page=4


^How come Joseph Haydn (who is regarded today as "God the Father Almighty of the Symphony and the String Quartet, the Maker of Classicism") isn't represented in this list?


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

hammeredklavier said:


> I dunno, here's the rest of that quote:
> 
> https://wps.prenhall.com/hss_mymusi...he creators,its innermost nature is Beethoven.
> "Haydn romantically apprehends the humanity in human life; he is more congenial, more comprehensible to the majority.
> ...


The point I was making was who cares what one author thought. Just like when you quote Dr. Wright in certain jabs at Chopin, who believed Beethoven was superior to Mozart that you leave out.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

_Why some composers seem to be mostly ignored when I find their music to be equal, or to my ear better, than the "big names"...an example John Stanley..._

The reason is you have an interest and appreciation for music that is more a niche than mainstream interest.

You also seem to think a composer known to millions such as John Stanley isn't "great" because he isn't played in concert or recorded as often as Beethoven or Richard Strauss or Vivaldi. The same is true for John Blow, Hans Werne Henze and thousands of other composers.

That doesn't diminish the music or your appreciation ... or that of thousands of others. It only means it doesn't have the same widespread appeal.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Phil loves classical said:


> The point I was making was who cares what one author thought. Just like when you quote Dr. Wright in certain jabs at Chopin,


It's not just one author. Mozart, Schubert, and Joseph himself thought Joseph lacked in certain aspects compared to Michael.
I did that quotation of David Wright mostly with Schubert, just to show how meaningless certain people (who favored Schubert. Ja***, NL***, Pa***) 's criticisms of Mozart were, by showing them equally meaningless opinions of some critic.



> Chopin, who believed Beethoven was superior to Mozart that you leave out.


Chopin did not believe Beethoven was superior to Mozart.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

hammeredklavier said:


> It's not just one author. Mozart, Schubert, and Joseph himself thought Joseph lacked in certain aspects compared to Michael.
> I did that quotation of David Wright mostly with Schubert, just to show how meaningless certain people (who favored Schubert. Ja***, NL***, Pa***) 's criticisms of Mozart were, by showing them equally meaningless opinions of some critic.
> 
> Chopin did not believe Beethoven was superior to Mozart.


"Just like when you quote *Dr. Wright* in certain jabs at Chopin, *who* believed Beethoven was superior to Mozart that you leave out."

"Joseph regarded his brother's music highly, to the point of feeling Michael's religious works were superior to his own (*possibly for their devotional intimacy*, as opposed to Joseph's monumental and majestic, more secularized, symphonic style)" Where did Mozart and Schubert think Joseph 'lacked in certain aspects', as you put it?


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

^again, go through what I've written (post#21). Mozart was far more interested in in Michael's stuff than Joseph's. Schubert visited Michael's grave to gain inspiration for writing catholic music; he even wept and wrote to his (Schubert's) brother about the experience. He wrote the Deutschemesse as homage to Michael, the pioneer of the Deutsche hochamt (German high mass). Schubert also evidently cared more for Michael than Joseph.
https://www.talkclassical.com/54405-haydn-muscular-mozart-22.html#post2035322


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

^ I did go through. There was never any suggestion J. Haydn 'lacked in certain aspects', as you put it. You omitted this in your paraphrasing: "*Occasionally*, one of the other of the composers Mozart and his colleagues studied in these sessions is mentioned in the Mozart correspondence by name...".

Also did Mozart ever dedicate any work to M. Haydn as he did to J. Haydn? How about this quote:

Mozart returned the compliment to the old master according to an anecdote from Mozart's early biographer, Franz Niemetschek. Niemetschek wrote of an interaction between Mozart and another composer, who happened to be complaining about one of Haydn's musical passages by saying, "I would not have done that." Mozart is reported to have said this in response, "Neither would I but do you know why? *Because neither of us could have thought of anything so appropriate*" ("Haydn and Mozart: Mozart's view of Haydn" para. 5).


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

hammeredklavier said:


> ^again, go through what I've written (post#21). Mozart was far more interested in in Michael's stuff than Joseph's. Schubert visited Michael's grave to gain inspiration for writing catholic music; he even wept and wrote to his (Schubert's) brother about the experience. He wrote the Deutschemesse as homage to Michael, the pioneer of the Deutsche hochamt (German high mass). Schubert also evidently cared more for Michael than Joseph.
> https://www.talkclassical.com/54405-haydn-muscular-mozart-22.html#post2035322


Schubert also visited Joseph Haydn's grave. So what?


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Phil loves classical said:


> Also did Mozart ever dedicate any work to M. Haydn as he did to J. Haydn?


"In 1783, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart composed two duos for violin and viola. It is said that Mozart's friend Michael Haydn had become ill, and was unable to complete a set of six duos for his boss, the Archbishop Colloredo. Mozart supposedly wrote his two duos to be passed off as Michael Haydn's work."

Chopin dedicated works to Liszt and Schumann even though he never cared for their own music. 
And isn't it actually funny Mozart's six string quartets are modeled more on Michael's work** rather than Joseph's.
Let's face it. J. Haydn at the time wasn't really that exemplary enough a "model". (Looking at the continuous sameness of rhythm in the parts (voices) in Op.20/2/ii or the lukewarm harmonies of Op.20/1/ii, which seems more appropriate as a divertimento, it's hard to imagine Mozart was actually deeply inspired by them.)
Franz Joseph Haydn was a guy who wrote like this at 40,
and like this at 45, 
and like this at 60+.
And it's not until the chromatic middle movements of Op.54 No.2 in C (1788), Joseph has something sophisticated/meaningful to say in his string quartets. By dedicating six "Haydn" quartets, maybe Mozart wanted to show Joseph how his (Joseph's) music could be "improved".

**Michael Haydn wrote his string quintet MH189 in 1773, in Salzburg - 1 year before Joseph (who was already working as a kapellmeister for the Esterhazies) published his Sun quartets (Op.20).
This impassioned passage ( 9m30s ) of the slow movement from Michael's MH189 seems to anticipate
Mozart's K.551 ( 16m30s )
Also look at;
Michael Haydn string quintet in G, MH 189 (1773) : [ 0:49 ~ 1:06 ]
Mozart string quartet in E flat, K.428 (1783) : [ 0:49 ~ 1:14 ]
Some treatment of chromaticism in the minuet ( 15m33s ) and phrases in the finale also remind me of Mozart.
also look at these sections from MH189 ( 12m53s )
and Mozart K.533 ( 8m3s )
Also notice the similarities in the openings of Michael's G major, MH189 and Mozart's K.387, and the finales of Michael's 23rd symphony (MH 287) and Mozart's K.387.



Phil loves classical said:


> Mozart is reported to have said this in response, "Neither would I but do you know why? *Because neither of us could have thought of anything so appropriate*" ("Haydn and Mozart: Mozart's view of Haydn" para. 5).


This shows you haven't really gone through all the stuff I had written in that thread.



hammeredklavier said:


> We all know Mozart prided himself on his good manners.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz_Xaver_Richter#1778_Richter_meets_Mozart
> "Both Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart and his father Leopold knew Richter. Mozart would have met him still as a boy on his Family Grand tour in 1763 when the Mozart family came through Schwetzingen, the summer residence of the Elector Palatinate. Mozart met him once again in 1778 on his way back from Paris when he was headed for the unloved Salzburg after his plans to gain permanent employment in Mannheim or Paris had come to naught. In a letter to his father, dated November 2, 1778, Mozart seems to suggest that the by then elderly Richter was something of an alcoholic:
> ...


When J.C. Bach died, Mozart wrote to his (Mozart's) father; "what a loss to the musical world".
The fact remains there's isn't any evidence of Mozart actually copying down any of Joseph's music for study.



hammeredklavier said:


> For example, look at his ways to set the text "suscipe deprecationem" (which I think is the "emotional center" of the Gloria) to music in these cases, Joseph is, imv, clearly being a typical, uninspired kapellmeister:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

consuono said:


> Schubert also visited Joseph Haydn's grave. So what?


It was only Michael's Schubert visited.
https://www.classical915.org/post/happy-birthday-michael-haydn


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

hammeredklavier said:


> "In 1783, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart composed two duos for violin and viola. It is said that Mozart's friend Michael Haydn had become ill, and was unable to complete a set of six duos for his boss, the Archbishop Colloredo. Mozart supposedly wrote his two duos to be passed off as Michael Haydn's work."
> 
> Chopin dedicated works to Liszt and Schumann even though he never cared for their own music.
> And isn't it actually funny Mozart's six string quartets are modeled more on Michael's work** rather than Joseph's.
> ...


1. Nope, not a dedication to M Haydn. 
2. Not a retort of the point I made of what Mozart said to his composer friend. You're just attaching irrelevant quotes.
3. Try this quote from Mozart "It is a mistake to think that the practice of my art has become easy to me. I assure you, dear friend, no one has given so much care to the study of composition as I. *There is scarcely a famous master in music whose works I have not frequently and diligently studied*.".

So J Haydn is clearly not one of them. It's so natural to assume (except for you I guess) he would study J Haydn, that there isn't a need to pick him out, or for him to state the obvious.

I am getting a bit tired of this exchange. So you'll just have to let me wallow in my ignorance of how unimportant J Haydn is to Mozart.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

hammeredklavier said:


> It was only Michael's Schubert visited.
> https://www.classical915.org/post/happy-birthday-michael-haydn





> "In early October 1828, Schubert joined some friends for a three-day walking tour of Lower Austria to visit Joseph Haydn's grave in Eisenstadt. Surely such a long trip - some 35 miles each way - would have been inadvisable for a seriously ill man. This excursion and his continued compositional pace all suggest that Schubert was trying to build his strength and health, not that he was hurtling towards death."


https://medium.com/@rgreenbergmusic/music-history-monday-schuberts-death-343d30ffb33


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

consuono said:


> https://medium.com/@rgreenbergmusic/music-history-monday-schuberts-death-343d30ffb33


Right, but for Joseph, Schubert didn't do this: "After one of these visits, Schubert wrote in a letter to his brother the following epitaph:
"I thought to myself, 'May thy pure and peaceful spirit hover around me, dear Haydn! If I can ever become like thee, peaceful and guileless, in all matters none on earth has such deep reverence for thee as I have.' (Sad tears fell from my eyes. . . .)""


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Phil loves classical said:


> So you'll just have to let me wallow in my ignorance of how unimportant J Haydn is to Mozart.


J. Haydn was only about as important to Mozart as J.C. Bach (but more than Mysliveček).
Listen to M. Haydn's music and you'll know. Mozart copied out M. Haydn's 23rd symphony (K.291), he never did the same with any of J. Haydn's symphonies.

https://theresia.blog/2019/03/rediscovering-michael-haydn-an-interview-with-david-wyn-jones/
"Michael Haydn, Leopold Mozart (Mozart's father) and Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart were colleagues at the court of the Archbishop in Salzburg. They would have seen each other on an almost daily basis, participated in performances of each other's music in private and in church services. Like all true friends, they shared gossip and the Mozart family letters contain more than one account of Michael Haydn's fondness for drink. But there is no doubt that he was a formative influence on the young Mozart, writing symphonies, concertos, serenades, church music and opera."
"This might seem a rather uninspiring thing to say but Michael Haydn's music has a thorough competence of technique as well a real sense of theatre (in the broadest sense) that is reflected in Mozart's music. One of the many unfortunate legacies of nineteenth-century biographical writing is the excessive focus on the Wunderkind Mozart and the Incomparable Genius Mozart. In Salzburg, if not throughout his life, Mozart was writing in a lingua franca and many of the features of that language are to be found in Michael Haydn too. That Mozart recognized Michael Haydn's mastery is suggested by a letter he sent to his father from Vienna, asking for the latest symphonies of Michael, so that he could perform them in that city. For one symphony, Mozart added a slow introduction, and for many years scholarship thought the whole work was by him, No. 37 in G major (K.444); No. 38 was the 'Prague' symphony."

Off the top of my head, I can think of these (but there are dozens more):









(they were written in the same year 1788, Michael's in January of that year, and Mozart's in the summer. I'm not sure if Mozart knew the Michael Haydn work.)
















hammeredklavier said:


> The fact remains that there's not a single work in Joseph Haydn that inspired Mozart as much as Michael's C minor requiem did. I hear its influence not only in Mozart's own requiem, but also Missa brevis in D, K.194, and the influence of the Cum sanctis tuis fugue, in the Laudate pueri dominum from Mozart's vesperae K.339, and the C minor fugue for two pianos K.426.
> Give me a single symphony by Joseph that was more exemplary a model to Mozart's 41th than Michael's 28th was.
> 
> 
> ...





hammeredklavier said:


> Most people who have always been told "Haydn (Joseph) and Mozart" by their school teachers and textbooks think "both J. Haydn and Mozart are Classical-sounding, and since J. Haydn came first, he must have influenced Mozart most deeply". -But I don't find their speculation insightful.
> The most remarkable commonality between J. Haydn and Mozart is J. Haydn's 78th (1782) symphony and Mozart's 24th concerto (1786), but I see that as a sort of general Sturm-und-drang gestural style, which is also found in Mozart's Ballet music from Thamos, king of Egypt (1779); not at all remarkable when you compare with the dozens of commonalities of dialect between M. Haydn and Mozart, such as the Agnus deis of Michael Haydn's requiem and Mozart's K.257, K.258. (I think that Michael also borrows from Mozart, because in some cases Mozart's works predate Michael's)
> And there's not a single piece of evidence of Mozart, throughout his life, actually copying out J. Haydn's music for study.
> 
> ...


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

> Right, but for Joseph, Schubert didn't do this:


You were wrong on the first point; you could be somewhat wrong on that one too.


> J. Haydn was only about as important to Mozart as J.C. Bach (but more than Mysliveček).


They were both hugely important to Mozart.

Anyway this has nothing to do with the OP. I don't know why you have to drag your anti-Haydn hobby-horse everywhere.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

consuono said:


> Anyway this has nothing to do with the OP.
> I don't know why you have to drag your anti-Haydn hobby-horse everywhere.


It was Phillovesclasscial who talked about Richter not being as good as J. Haydn in the first place, in this thread. (But I don't find Richter to be a weaker composer than J. Haydn.) And looking at the title and the OP, I suppose this thread is for discussing lesser-known composers (of the Baroque and Classical eras) who are as good as ones better-known today.



hammeredklavier said:


> Btw, Richter's lifetime spans 80 years, covering a wide diversity of idiomatic styles and compositional skills. He was just as instrumental in the development of the symphony as J. Haydn.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz_Xaver_Richter
> 
> Kemptener Te Deum in D-major (1742):
> ...


----------



## apricissimus (May 15, 2013)

Being a great composer is necessary but not sufficient to becoming one of the "big names." There may be extra-musical factors as well. Maybe one composer gets a lucky break in having their music performed and another doesn't.

And once a composer attains some kind of renown, I think it's self-reinforcing to a degree. Say composers A and B are "equally good," musically speaking (whatever that might mean). For some reason, composer A gets heard more, or gets more publicity than composer B. Once that happens, audiences will be more familiar with composer A and their reputation, and well tend to seek them out more. Composer B gets crowded out by all the Composer A's out there. Furthermore, people's tastes are affected by hearing Composer A more than Composer B.

Which is all to say, of course there are lesser known but still great composers and musicians out there, and I think some of them could have become considered equally great by the public at large if not for some quirks and accidents of circumstance.


----------

