# When did the Haydn revival happen



## daveyflavey (Aug 1, 2011)

Hey all, I'm new here and I figured I'd start off by appealing to the historians of the crowd. 

As for a bit of background on me, I'm studying composition right now going into my third year of serious study at a university. 

I'm also a "budding" Music Theorist (not in relation to the theories surrounding harmony, but rather the theories and philosophies behind music as an art form) 

So my question in long form would be Was there a Haydn revival around the turn of the 20th century. I think that if there was a mass Haydn revival it would have been around that time, but I don't know, and I need to know to be able to continue work on a theory of mine that I'm currently churning around in my head. 

So any information about this would be greatly appreciated. If there was a revival then I will present my theory when I work it all out, if there wasn't then it wasn't a good theory and my life will be simpler. 

Thanks a bunch.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

Here's a link to a scholarly journal with an article about D'Indy's role in the Haydn revival. That may be a start.

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01411890902913131

Here's a quote from the extract: "In 1909, Vincent d'Indy's interest in the music of Joseph Haydn reached an apogee with the publication of extensive analyses of Haydn's music in the second volume of the Cours de composition musicale, the composition of a work dedicated to Haydn's memory, the Menuet sur le nom de Haydn, op. 65, and an appearance as an honorary vice president and speaker at the Haydn-Zentenarfeier in Vienna. D'Indy was likely the most well-known composer/scholar to view Haydn's music in a positive light in the second half of the nineteenth century and d'Indy's analyses and research set the foundation for the revival of Haydn's reputation in the early twentieth century."


----------



## daveyflavey (Aug 1, 2011)

This is fantastic. So, my theory is as follows:

Haydn's music is not really that good. It is very lacking in terms of emotional output. This is not because Haydn was a terrible composer, Haydn was a fantastic composer, but he was a byproduct of his time. He was employed by the court of Esterhazy and like 99% of his contemporaries wrote a large amount of music in a very short period to be played once for a noble and then forgotten about. In these kinds of conditions it is impossible to write music that has any emotional though put into it, instead a composer ends up working from templates and churning out works that are very similar to each other. This is why in the case of the symphonies of Haydn they are never spoken of individually, but rather as groups of works that are all similar to each other. 

So with this idea that the music of Haydn is emotionally dead, it makes sense that his music needed a revival which happened, as this article point out, around the turn of the 20th century. This is also the period in History when Critical Theory was beginning to be formed in the minds of the critics, as well as the public. 

For those not familiar, Critical Theory is a new way of looking at things. For a better description, instead of taking a symphony and trying to figure out what the symphony says, the critics of this time (and to this day) would jump into a symphony and look for a particular meaning within the piece that may or may not have been put there by the composer. The problem with this way of doing critique is that if you look for something in Art it doesn't matter whether it is there or not it will be found. If I were to give a piece of blank paper to a feminist critic she could find a way the blank piece of paper applies to feminism. 

And so, when the application of Critical Theory came into effect, it was in a musical world where emotion was at an all time high. The trail end of the Romantic Period was joined by the Hyper-Romantic world of the beginnings of the second Viennese school which means that critics at the time were, because of the application of Critical Theory, looking for emotional meaning in the music that was being written at the time. Critical Theory was also a part of the public mind as well.

So, when critics who were looking for emotion in music turned to Haydn, a composer who putting emotion in music was not a factor in composition, the looked for emotion. This meant that because of the nature of the human brain emotion was found, leading to a new love of Haydn (and perhaps even most other classical composers, though I haven't done enough research to prove that point) as a composer of emotional music. 

In short, we all tricked ourselves into loving Haydn 100 years ago, and we haven't learned from this yet.

What are peoples thoughts on this.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

daveyflavey said:


> ... I'm studying composition right now going into my third year of serious study at a university.





daveyflavey said:


> Haydn's music is not really that good. It is very lacking in terms of emotional output.
> 
> In short, we all tricked ourselves into loving Haydn 100 years ago, and we haven't learned from this yet.


Hmm ... judging by the two quotes above, it seems to me you have a long, long, way to go yet with your "serious study" as far as Haydn was concerned.

Sorry, don't take this too harshly, you did ask for some thoughts. Good luck.



daveyflavey said:


> What are peoples thoughts on this.


----------



## jurianbai (Nov 23, 2008)

daveyflavey said:


> He was employed by the court of Esterhazy and like 99% of his contemporaries wrote a large amount of music in a very short period to be played once for a noble and then forgotten about.


Haydn and 99% of his contemporaries musics published with great commercial success,being played by amateur peasants to court room, and all their output carry on and studied by their successor, such as Beethoven.


----------



## hocket (Feb 21, 2010)

I think your approach has far more interesting things to say about Critical Theory than it does about Haydn. The flaw is that you propose that the thing being looked for in the analysis is predetermined -by what? The timeframe you posit is too early for 'agenda' driven critical schools such as Feminist/Marxist/ Freudian/Orientalism etc. and those things presence in mainstream arts criticism/theory has far more to do with post-structuralism. As a result the thing being looked for is determined either by initial analysis of the work or by biographical investigations -this is how traditional 'humanist' criticism functioned as well as that of the modernist era in the early 20thC. What you're saying simply isn't how criticism in the early 20thC developed and the processes of the likes of FR Leavis and the New Critics are completely the opposite of what you describe. I think you need to look more closely at critical techniques prior to the period you're talking about and see how they actually altered. Mathew Arnold might well be a good place to start. That said, I do still think there are some useful perspectives in what you say but I suspect your history of the development of theory is faulty.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

What _hocket_ says maybe (it's mostly Greek to me), plus your analysis indicates that you haven't actually listened to much if any of Haydn's music. Is there an Adorno in your background?


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

daveyflavey said:


> So, when critics who were looking for emotion in music turned to Haydn, a composer who putting emotion in music was not a factor in composition, the looked for emotion.


That's a strange statement. Haydn is one composer who is pretty consistently emotional, mostly laughing. It would be an interesting list to count the number of tricks and jokes he plays on and with his audience.


----------



## Nix (Feb 20, 2010)

daveyflavey said:


> In short, we all tricked ourselves into loving Haydn 100 years ago, and we haven't learned from this yet.
> 
> What are peoples thoughts on this.


Several flaws I think.

1. I was not alive 100 years ago
2. My opinions are not formed by other people 
3. Haydn was a good enough composer to write some really wonderful music during his semi-enslavement at the Esterhazy estate, regardless of the demands made upon him. And when the Mr. Esterhazy finally kicked the bucket, he wrote some truly astounding pieces.

I will now form my own theory, that you may not be completely versed in the music of Haydn, or in the classical tradition at all? 
I don't even know where to begin to tell you what to listen to because there he wrote so MUCH good music, that surely you've stumbled upon some of it already.

Let me just say this- in Haydn you're listening for surprises. What makes Haydn so good is that he starts off unassuming, and in an instant churns out something so poignant, or funny, or complex that the listener is left shocked (and these moments often go as quickly as they come, which is why he's best to listen on a device you can rewind over and over). My guess is that you heard the unassuming music and then went into a doze before you could uncover its value.


----------



## daveyflavey (Aug 1, 2011)

hocket, I really appreciate what you have to say. I will take a more in depth look at the development of critical analysis. Indeed I am simply going on my knowledge of Critical Theory, and I have no knowledge of it's predecessors, which would help my understanding of this whole idea a great deal. In truth this idea is very new, I only thought of it today so it need a lot of refinement before I can present it in a great detail somewhere. 

As for everyone else, stop being snobs and question yourselves. This is the only way you can learn more than what you currently know.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

If Haydn had only written his _The Creation _(oratorio), he would still be at the front rank of composers of his day & probably of all time, imo.

Maybe what you're tapping into (daveyflavey) is that Haydn doesn't fit into to the stereotypes we like "great" composers to fit into. Eg. the romanticised view of an artist as a struggling genius - eg. Beethoven - or the composer as a kind of neurotic, angsty psychological, highly charged sensitive creator - eg. Mahler & maybe also Tchaikovsky & Shostakovich - or as a kind of rebellious, cheeky, anti-establishment figure - eg. John Cage - or as kind of monkish & low profile - eg. Arvo Part - or as a chameleonic "everyman" going with trends as he sees fit - eg. Stravinsky. These are just a few I can think of, & of course, they're all rubbery and flawed "reductionist" views of these geniuses who were all quite complex individual humans.

As for Haydn, his life was kind of ordinary compared with some of those above, but his music was far from that, imo. Here are a few ways he impacted on music of future generations, which may or may not be relevant to the issues you are trying to get at -

*Beethoven, Mozart *- obvious links there, no need to go further, often Haydn is branded as the "father of the symphony" & "father of the string quartet" which both these guys perfected to a very high level (as well as Haydn himself, of course). & of course, things like sonata form were also used, refined, played around with by these guys.

*Bruckner* - The scherzos in his symphonies tend to have the same three part layout as the minuets of Haydn & those two others above. There is the scherzo part, then the "trio" section, then a repeat of the scherzo.

*Prokofiev* - In terms of his "Neo-classical" _Symphony # 1 "Classical," _which heavily speaks to the influence of Haydn's _Symphony # 101 "The Clock," _in particular. Not to speak of Haydn's overall impact on the "Neo-Classical" trends which really took off between the two world wars.

*Alfred Schnittke* - In one of his symphonies (can't remember which exactly, sorry, it may have been Schnittke's_ Symphony #1_?), the musicians come onto the stage one by one & start playing the piece as that is happening, which is exactly the reverse of what happens at the end of Haydn's _Farewell Symphony _in which the musicians leave one by one.

These are just a few I can think of. The late Morton Feldman said these words at a lecture on contemporary music - while humming a Sibelius tune - "The people who you think are radicals might really be conservatives. The people who you think are conservative might really be radical."


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

daveyflavey said:


> hocket, I really appreciate what you have to say. I will take a more in depth look at the development of critical analysis. Indeed I am simply going on my knowledge of Critical Theory, and I have no knowledge of it's predecessors, which would help my understanding of this whole idea a great deal. In truth this idea is very new, I only thought of it today so it need a lot of refinement before I can present it in a great detail somewhere.
> 
> As for everyone else, stop being snobs and question yourselves. This is the only way you can learn more than what you currently know.


Boy am I interested to see where this thread goes. 

I agree with the majority here. Certainly Haydn wasn't as devoid of emotion as you make him out to be.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Hmm ... judging by the two quotes above, it seems to me you have a long, long, way to go yet with your "serious study" as far as Haydn was concerned.





violadude said:


> ...I agree with the majority here. Certainly Haydn wasn't as devoid of emotion as you make him out to be.


Talking to these quotes, I think that an obvious point regarding the "emotional" aspect of Haydn's music is that it is clearly there, just different (compared to musics before or after him). It basically depends on the purpose of the piece - eg. many of his instrumental pieces were written with entertainment in mind (hence a lot of humour & playing around with techniques for "shock" value - eg. the famous "surprise" bit in the symphony named for that, or the "joke" in that string quartet). Then there is the Haydn who is like a painter of tone pictures/poems & teller of stories (eg. _The Creation _& _The Seasons_). As well as music written for specific purposes, eg. the masses. But there's a fair amount of his music that I don't know but want to hear sometime, eg. his art-songs. (for more "romantic" like emotions, eg. darker, there are the "Sturm und Drang" symphonies - like the 49th "La Passione" a favourite of mine - but these are not really typical of his output, they were departures from the norm).

I don't think the original poster has bad intentions or is malicious in his intent (or a "troll"). I think he's just interested in what people here think of his/her assertions/ideas, even though they come across to many of us here as largely out of sync with our own experiences of Haydn's music...


----------



## haydnfan (Apr 13, 2011)

A high school student might think that emotional content is the appropriate scholary, critical and objective way to "analyze" music but an upper level college student has no excuse. It's the kind of thesis one would come up with if one was too lazy to do any research.


----------



## daveyflavey (Aug 1, 2011)

haydnfan said:


> A high school student might think that emotional content is the appropriate scholary, critical and objective way to "analyze" music but an upper level college student has no excuse. It's the kind of thesis one would come up with if one was too lazy to do any research.


A member of the academic elite might think that thorough harmonic analysis is the only way to analyze music. Or perhaps tracing the musical themes present in the various movements and their relation to each other is the only way to understand what haydn was saying. This statement I would expect from an academic who has no desire to plunge into the mysteries of music and is simply content with looking at music as if it were a math problem that was waiting to be solved.

Due to the nature of music, if you want to completely understand it you must open yourself up to understanding all aspects of it. Analyzing Haydn is a very interesting thing to do. His harmonic language is a touch simple, but that is a mark of the time. Where the real genius of Haydn lies is in his use of thematic developpment. For example, in his 45th symphony it can be seen that each new theme that is brought into the piece during all of it's movements is taken from the slow introduction of the piece (it took quite a while to find how each theme relates, but rest assured they all do).

However, the analysis of music cannot stop there. Music must be judged for it's emotional output on a philosophical level. As a composer, it was through this angle of approach that I lost my intense passion for classical music, leaving Haydn and Mozart behind, favoring more emotionally oriented composers, including the great minds of the 20th century couning Ligeti and Crumb among them. This turn to looking at the emotion of music also brought about a change in listening, now I embrace popular music, which before I used to shun, all because of a change in philosophical thinking.

Sometimes it is nice to hide behind the fierce analysis of classical music, but why stop there? Why not try to interpret the music emotionally, why not analyse the music using principles of philosophy, of psychology, of sociology, and use these as tools for better understanding music?

What you said seems like the kind of thing one would come up with if you are a closed minded academic.


----------



## Nix (Feb 20, 2010)

daveyflavey said:


> As for everyone else, stop being snobs and question yourselves. This is the only way you can learn more than what you currently know.


I might same the same to you, if I was less well mannered. And I've come to find that 'snob' is just a word people use when they're arguing with someone more knowledgeable. In my experience, classical music lovers are often _really_ obsessed with their subject, and they don't like it when people any less obsessed try to disagree with them. Sure, that can mean we come off as a bit snobbish, but really I love it when anyone gets into classical music on any level... it's when they start picking fights that bothers me.

That said, I've picked plenty of fights on this forum, and I'm sure that I've come off worse on occasion, but I still make a point of actually defending myself and my position. I find it odd that you admit in the beginning of your post that you may not have sufficient knowledge of the era, and then go on to call everyone who has said exactly that a snob.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

Now its my turn to harp on someone for "going against the grain" in their minds, usually its the other way around. Why do you think Haydn's music lack's emotion? It has plenty of life in my eyes, I am no analyst, I am not an academic, I am a 19 year old, largely self educated in my ideas of music with the help of my teacher and all those I talk to and I love Haydn. I will give you that he doesn't provoke the same kind of passion that Rachmaninoff or Balakirev(at his best) might, but what is wrong with being a brilliant craftsmen who composed "interesting" music, it still has a feeling to it, please don't insult the listeners who like it by comparing us to academics and mathmeticians. Its still really brilliant music, and I don't find it academic or mathemetical, I find it clever and charming and fun to follow, like a story.

I've been where you are in going against the grain, I've felt that people here were academics and idiots, but I'm more likely to be annoyed with someone because of what they don't like, rather than what they like. Basically I'm another person here trying to politely coax you off your public high horse stance, because we do not want to be told how Haydn is when it means something for us personally.

That being said, you inspired me to go back and listen to the middle Haydn symphonies and I'm astonished at how I'm finding more and more fun in them.

What Haydn have you been listening to recently anyway?

This reminds me of a time when this guy bothered me for saying Schumann was a crappy composer, the only reason it bothered me, that it had any weight, was that he claimed to be a music theorist. Its a hard puzzle for my mind to figure out, so I just drop and keep liking Schumann as is my wont. I guess I can't stop you from writing a paper on this, but I can plead, please don't!


----------



## haydnfan (Apr 13, 2011)

daveyflavey said:


> However, the analysis of music cannot stop there. Music must be judged for it's emotional output on a philosophical level. As a composer, it was through this angle of approach that I lost my intense passion for classical music, leaving Haydn and Mozart behind, favoring more emotionally oriented composers, including the great minds of the 20th century couning Ligeti and Crumb among them. This turn to looking at the emotion of music also brought about a change in listening, now I embrace popular music, which before I used to shun, all because of a change in philosophical thinking.


Alright I'm curious now... how are you using "the principles of philosophy"? And whose principles are you using? Each great philosopher worked from different axioms to logically argue their theories.

And how do you get to a philosophical level with "emotional output"? What does that phrase mean in this context?
Words have meaning. If you want to use the word philosophy because it sounds scholarly, well okay... but please explain why you are using that word in this context.


----------



## haydnfan (Apr 13, 2011)

About emotions and Haydn: I've heard exuberant joy in his symphonies, melancholy and introspection in his piano sonatas, and such passion in his great masses! And ah how fiery he is in his storm and stress symphonies!! I think that many that don't find emotions in classical era works can't find it because their ears are used to the more dissonant music of today.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

haydnfan said:


> About emotions and Haydn: I've heard exuberant joy in his symphonies, melancholy and introspection in his piano sonatas, and such passion in his great masses! And ah how fiery he is in his storm and stress symphonies!!


And don't forget the Seven Last Words. All the emotions are there: rage, pity, compassion. And it ends with the rocks themselves rending.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Manxfeeder said:


> And don't forget the Seven Last Words. All the emotions are there: rage, pity, compassion. And it ends with the rocks themselves rending.


Yeah, but he had a program to follow there. And y'know, that last last word could have use an 1890-ish orchestra.

p.s. His last version with chorus is pretty damn good.


----------

