# Harmony & Counterpoint : Joseph Haydn VS. Michael Haydn



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Who is more interesting in terms of harmony and counterpoint? Let's discuss.

Michael Haydn Missa in C, sancti Hieronymi:




 (13:18, 13:24, 14:34)




 (5:32, 7:15)




 (19:55)













Joseph Haydn late masses:


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

I like how the mature Michael Haydn wrote a minuet in his symphonies only when he really needed to;




Whereas some 60+ minuets Joseph churned out in his symphonies fail to make any impression, imv;




I think this has to do with the sense and skill of harmony and counterpoint of both composers.


----------



## Guest (May 21, 2021)

hammeredklavier said:


> Who is more interesting in terms of harmony and counterpoint? Let's discuss.
> 
> Michael Haydn Missa in C, sancti Hieronymi:
> 
> ...


I teach these subjects (CP harmony and baroque counterpoint) so I suppose I should say something about this. Nah, I can't be bothered with wading through a bunch of YouTube links; make your case (with scores, ideally) and then maybe we can talk.


----------



## level82rat (Jun 20, 2019)

TalkingHead said:


> I teach these subjects (CP harmony and baroque counterpoint) so I suppose I should say something about this. Nah, I can't be bothered with wading through a bunch of YouTube links; make your case (with scores, ideally) and then maybe we can talk.


What do you look for in good counterpoint?


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

*Some posts and their replies have had to be removed because of thread derailment.*


----------



## Guest (May 21, 2021)

level82rat said:


> What do you look for in good counterpoint?


In terms of *simple*, *2-part counterpoint in the baroque style* (pastiche writing), your question can be answered with a couple of examples. Tell you what, you launch this point in the "Music Theory" section of the forum and I'll oblige you. Deal?


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Look at this style of dissonance in Michael's 31st symphony:




- something I never find in Joseph's


----------



## Amadea (Apr 15, 2021)

I don't know Hammered... this case seems built on selected moments rather than an overall view of their use of counterpoint. What I mean is: with your method I could prove any composer is mediocre compared to another one. I can select the worst moments from a composer, probably even taking them out of context, compare them with the best selected moments from another composer and make a case. I hope you won't get offended but I think a case built like this is not a good case. Since I think you intend to have meaningful discussions, I would suggest you to discuss your argument differently. I also don't get how bashing J. Haydn would help M. Haydn rise to fame.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Amadea said:


> I don't know Hammered... this case seems built on selected moments rather than an overall view of their use of counterpoint. What I mean is: with your method I could prove any composer is mediocre compared to another one. I can select the worst moments from a composer, probably even taking them out of context, compare them with the best selected moments from another composer and make a case. I hope you won't get offended but I think a case built like this is not a good case. Since I think you intend to have meaningful discussions, I would suggest you to discuss your argument differently. I also don't get how bashing J. Haydn would help M. Haydn rise to fame.


That's his method of delivery. Promote Mike by dumping on Joseph.


----------



## Amadea (Apr 15, 2021)

Bulldog said:


> That's his method of delivery. Promote Mike by dumping on Joseph.


Yeah I know. But is it useful to M. Haydn's promotion? I don't think it is. What does M. Haydn gain from this? I think it actually makes more damage. If you liked J. Haydn, like many do, and someone told you: "Hey, do you know his brother? He was a very fine but underrated composer". Since you like J. Haydn, you would absolutely go to listen to his very underrated brother, right? But what if someone told you: "Tsk, J. Haydn sucks! He's ridiculous, he makes bassoon farts, his brother is superior etc. etc." would you go to listen to M. Haydn and start to appreciate him? I doubt you would, right?


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

^this thread is more like a response to Kreisler Jr's repeated claim that M. Haydn's style is not distinctive compared to J. Haydn. I justed wanted to get people see things from a different perspective by pointing to the two masters' use of harmony and counterpoint.


----------



## Amadea (Apr 15, 2021)

hammeredklavier said:


> ^this thread is more like a response to Kreisler Jr's repeated claim that M. Haydn's style is not distinctive compared to J. Haydn. I justed wanted to get people see things from a different perspective by pointing to the two masters' use of harmony and counterpoint.


If by distinctive he means J. Haydn has a more recognizable and personal style, maybe I would agree, from a mere listener perspective. Counterpoint and harmony don't have much to do with that though. I mean: you can be an excellent contrapuntist but not have a personal distinctive style which sets you apart from others.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

^a lot of the time, due to the "pomposity" Joseph resorts to in his late period, (aside from the "cheeky surprises" he does) he sounds like Wranitzky to me. While Michael is way more interesting in terms of style.


----------



## Amadea (Apr 15, 2021)

hammeredklavier said:


> ^a lot of the time, due to the "pomposity" Joseph resorts to in his late period, (aside from the "cheeky surprises" he does) he sounds like Wranitzky to me. While Michael is way more interesting in terms of style.


I assume you mean Paul Wranitzky. Given the fact P. Wranitzky has Mozart's own age, I'd rather say Wranitzky sounds like J. Haydn. Wiki is not really a good source, but this seems logical to me: "Although some scholars believe that he studied with Haydn, there is no proof of this. However, it is certain that he studied and was influenced by Haydn's string quartets."
If Michael is more interesting in terms of style, meaning more personal and recognizable, which again doesn't have much to do with counterpoint in my opinion, then I don't really see you proving it in your posts. And I also don't hear it in the music, but that could be my fault.


----------



## RogerWaters (Feb 13, 2017)

I couldn’t care about what isolated formal device m haydn might have employed better at 2:35 in one of his cherry-picked religious works.

I care about listening pleasure, and J Haydn has it in spades across dozens of compositions. M haydn is boring to me, in comparison.

Some geeky musical analysis isn’t going to change how the music sounds to me.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Bulldog said:


> That's his method of delivery. Promote Mike by dumping on Joseph.





Amadea said:


> I also don't get how bashing J. Haydn would help M. Haydn rise to fame.


Well, to be honest, I just don't like the attitude of Joseph Haydn fans that 'the "God the Father Almighty of Symphonies and String Quartets, Maker of Classicism" Must Have No Rivals'. I acknowledge that Joseph did his "specialties" very well:








and he was a skilled craftsman at them, but there are obviously some things his brother did better (such as _expressivity_ in harmony and counterpoint). Some even seem to think trashing an entire genre Joseph's contemporaries did better than him (such as Classical liturgical music) would actually make Joseph look better. -Actually, someone (not Kreisler jr, btw) said that he didn't care for the genre half a day ago in this thread (Too bad for him, but I always think that you can't get an accurate view of Classicism without knowing the genre; 



 



), but the mods deleted his post.


Kreisler jr said:


> Church music was a problematic side issue. Hoffmann would have preferred some revival of Palestrina style music as he considered this the "true church style" but J. Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven had not obliged, so he had to look elsewhere. Hardly necessary to mention that church music was not that relevant for the general development of music in the early 19th century, neither the "modern" form of Haydn and Beethoven nor a neo-palestrinian style.


Give me a break please, I prefer this




over the bassoon-fart symphony any day


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

This is deranged. Nobody is trashing the entirety of liturgical music as some part of Haydn Conspiracy. Maybe they actually just don't care for liturgical music.


----------



## Amadea (Apr 15, 2021)

hammeredklavier said:


> Well, to be honest, I just don't like the attitude of Joseph Haydn fans that 'the "God the Father Almighty of Symphonies and String Quartets, Maker of Classicism" Must Have No Rivals'.


Isn't this almost everybody's attitude about their favorite composers? And why displaying him as a rival in the first place? If people like the music I don't think you can really change their minds and make them think J. Haydn is bad because counterpoint etc etc etc. Expecially if you take liturgical music as example. It is a fact not many are interested in that genre. Which is a pity of course! But people like what they like. Also, I repeat I think to respect J. Haydn and not antagonize his fans would actually help your cause of making Michael more known.



hammeredklavier said:


> Some even seem to think trashing an entire genre Joseph's contemporaries did better than him (such as Classical liturgical music) would actually make Joseph look better.


And how trashing an entire composer would actually make Michael look better? Keep in mind: I am not saying J. is better than M. I just think this is the wrong attitude. I'm trying to help. If X is your objective, you're not doing the right path to get there in my opinion. You're trying to go across a mountain instead of simply using the road.


----------

