# At what point did Haydn's symphonies 'mature'?



## RogerWaters (Feb 13, 2017)

I've been listening to a lot of Haydn lately, delving into his string quartets in particular. There is obviously a point at which the quartets hit on the structure they would maintain throughout the rest of Haydn's career: the glorious Op. 20 set.

Is there a similar point, perhaps less defined, at which his symphonies fully matured? To my ears, this did not happen at the same time as the quartets. At the time of Op. 22 Haydn wrote the Farewell symphony which seems to me in a different style or 'feel' to his Paris and London symphonies. However I don't know if this is due to structural features that had not yet fully developed or is simply a matter of content.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

RogerWaters said:


> I've been listening to a lot of Haydn lately, delving into his string quartets in particular. There is obviously a point at which the quartets hit on the structure they would maintain throughout the rest of Haydn's career: the glorious Op. 22 set.
> 
> Is there a similar point, perhaps less defined, at which his symphonies fully matured? To my ears, this did not happen at the same time as the quartets. At the time of Op. 22 Haydn wrote the Farewell symphony which seems to me in a different style or 'feel' to his Paris and London symphonies. However I don't know if this is due to structural features that had not yet fully developed or is simply a matter of content.


He was writing mature symphonies long before the "Farewell." Symphonies of that era aren't less mature than the late ones, they're just in a different (and, to my ears, more interesting) style. I reject the idea that the symphonies developed toward some more perfect or preordained form.


----------



## Coach G (Apr 22, 2020)

To my ears, it's the _Paris_ and _London_ (#82-104) symphonies that reveal Haydn as the master in full bloom. This is not to say that the others aren't fun, and even the very early ones are good, as are the "Sturm Und Drang" set; but the _Paris/London/Tale of Two Cities_ is the set that I most often go for. _Symphony #94 "Surprise"_ and _Symphony #100 "Military"_ are masterpieces, but anyone who likes Haydn has their own personal favorites which are less well-known, that they route for. Mine are the hilarious _Symphony #82 "The Bear"_, and the untitled _Symphony #97_ where the percussion is prominent in the joyous finale.


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

Coach G said:


> To my ears, it's the _Paris_ and _London_ (#82-104) symphonies that reveal Haydn as the master in full bloom. This is not to say that the others aren't fun, and even the very early ones are good, as are the "Sturm Und Drang" set; but the _Paris/London/Tale of Two Cities_ is the set that I most often go for. _Symphony #94 "Surprise"_ and _Symphony #100 "Military"_ are masterpieces, but anyone who likes Haydn has their own personal favorites which are less well-known, that they route for. Mine are the hilarious _Symphony #82 "The Bear"_, and the untitled _Symphony #97_ where the percussion is prominent in the joyous finale.


No. 88
No. 104
No. 93
No. 101
No. 44
No. 49
No. 52
No. 45
No. 47
No. 22
etc.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

RogerWaters said:


> There is obviously a point at which the quartets hit on the structure they would maintain throughout the rest of Haydn's career: the glorious Op. 22 set. Is there a similar point, perhaps less defined, at which his symphonies fully matured? To my ears, this did not happen at the same time as the quartets.


"Maturity" is a relative concept. I think you mean the Op.20 set; I don't quite view them differently from the symphonies as you do; there are elements that feel a bit like how Bernstein put it, "unnecessary schoolboy repeats", to me in terms of sequencing and harmony (if I may say so). This is not to disparage Haydn, I think he makes up for these with the more mature works (symphonies and string quartets), ones mostly from the mid-late 1780s and 1790s.
Op.20/2/iv: 



Op.20/2/ii:


----------



## RogerWaters (Feb 13, 2017)

hammeredklavier said:


> "Maturity" is a relative concept. I think you mean the Op.20 set; I don't quite view them differently from the symphonies as you do; there are elements that feel a bit like how Bernstein put it, "unnecessary schoolboy repeats", to me in terms of sequencing and harmony (if I may say so). This is not to disparage Haydn, I think he makes up for these with the more mature works (symphonies and string quartets), ones mostly from the mid-late 1780s and 1790s.
> Op.20/2/iv:
> 
> 
> ...


Yes I meant the Op. 20 sets thank you - edited accordingly.

I don't agree with your assessment of the Op. 20 set (but then again I am no musicologist), nor do most enthusiasts of Haydn's string quartets here at TC, apparently.


----------



## RogerWaters (Feb 13, 2017)

ORigel said:


> No. 88
> No. 104
> No. 93
> No. 101
> ...


The point of this post wasn't really to ask people to list their favourite symphonies, but rather whether there is any point in Haydn's symphony writing which represents the fruition of his style, as there apparently was in his string quartet writing (op. 20).


----------



## RogerWaters (Feb 13, 2017)

Coach G said:


> *To my ears, it's the Paris and London (#82-104) symphonies that reveal Haydn as the master in full bloom*. This is not to say that the others aren't fun, and even the very early ones are good, as are the "Sturm Und Drang" set; but the _Paris/London/Tale of Two Cities_ is the set that I most often go for. _Symphony #94 "Surprise"_ and _Symphony #100 "Military"_ are masterpieces, but anyone who likes Haydn has their own personal favorites which are less well-known, that they route for. Mine are the hilarious _Symphony #82 "The Bear"_, and the untitled _Symphony #97_ where the percussion is prominent in the joyous finale.


Do you think this was the result of a settling upon a form, or rather improving the content within a form he had finished developing previously?


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

RogerWaters said:


> The point of this post wasn't really to ask people to list their favourite symphonies, but rather whether there is any point in Haydn's symphony writing which represents the fruition of his style, as there apparently was in his string quartet writing (op. 20).


I think it's a difficult question to answer definitely, as subjectivity plays a part (ie. "what do you look for in a composer?", "how much are you 'satisfied' with his way of doing things?"). For instance, there might be things in Op.20 you see/find/value that I don't, (but you're always welcome to discuss). I didn't know some things about these Haydn symphonies until I watched this video




(although it didn't really change my view of the works personally).


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

RogerWaters said:


> I don't agree with your assessment of the Op. 20 set (but then again I am no musicologist), nor do most enthusiasts of Haydn's string quartets here at TC, apparently.


About people's strong preference/favoritism for Op.20 in the poll you quoted, Favourite Haydn string quartet opus. It's unclear how much it has to do with the actual "maturity" of the works. People might find Op.20 more appealing than Op.33, for instance, because of these features (I'm not quite sure though):


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

EdwardBast said:


> He was writing mature symphonies long before the "Farewell." Symphonies of that era aren't less mature than the late ones, they're just in a different (and, to my ears, more interesting) style. I reject the idea that the symphonies developed toward some more perfect or preordained form.


His 6, 7, and 8 are among my favorites.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

RogerWaters said:


> The point of this post wasn't really to ask people to list their favourite symphonies, but rather whether there is any point in Haydn's symphony writing which represents the fruition of his style, as there apparently was in his string quartet writing (op. 20).


There are a few historical and "social" differences between symphonies and quartets, especially in the case of Haydn. He wrote symphonies almost continously from the late 1750s through the mid 1790s (the London set) whereas the quartets were (until ca. op.50 in 1787) written more in "bursts" with a long time in between. There are around 10 years between the early divertimenti and the "second start" with 4 movement quartets (op.9) in the late 1760s, again about 9 years between op.20 and op.33 (1781). Nevertheless, the groups of quartets seem to me usually more "systematic" than most groups of symphonies, and we often cannot even really form such clear groups as in the quartets written and published together. The only group of symphonies that comes close in systematic conception and could be singled out as a "milestone" is the Paris set but it seems ridiculously exaggerated to claim that most earlier symphonies were not "mature".

An even stronger distortion comes from our retrospective view. The "ideal" of mature classical symphonies are late Haydn and Mozart, so anything before ca. Haydn's "Paris" or Mozart's "Linz" is measured against these later works. Thus, symphonies like the early 6-8 Matin, Midi, Soir have concertante and programmatic elements that became rare later and thus seem old-fashioned. Otherwise there is nothing wrong with these pieces.
When I first listened to more than the few famous named pieces from Haydn's earlier period, or other composer pieces around 1760, I was usually surprised how "regular" wrt sonata form they usually were. The "maturing" between 1760 and the 1780s shows more in subtle details, sometimes on overall scale but it's not a huge deal. So I'd say that the symphonies from the 1760s are uneven, rather diverse, but there are already "mature" pieces among them.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

RogerWaters said:


> Is there a similar point, perhaps less defined, at which his symphonies fully matured? To my ears, this did not happen at the same time as the quartets. At the time of Op. 22 Haydn wrote the Farewell symphony which seems to me in a different style or 'feel' to his Paris and London symphonies. However I don't know if this is due to structural features that had not yet fully developed or is simply a matter of content.


Try symphonies like #42 or #48; they are more similar to the later ones. The beginning of #59 (1768) is surprisingly similar to #87 (1785). It's true that the "stormy" style of #44 or #45 mostly vanished later. But not all pieces around 1770 were like that.


----------



## christomacin (Oct 21, 2017)

I don't know, but it seems to me the No. 31 "Hornsignal" was his first true masterpiece symphony.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess (Aug 30, 2015)

Why is one person talking about Haydn op. 20 string quartets in a thread about his symphonies?


----------



## KevinW (Nov 21, 2021)

Maybe at the start of his London Symphonies? Don't forget he had been writing more than 80 symphonies prior to that. I kinda think I prefer Haydn Symphonies than Mozart.


----------



## KevinW (Nov 21, 2021)

I always think in Haydn's age, the symphonies still sound quite experimental.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

KevinW said:


> I always believe in Haydn's age, the symphonies are still quite experimental.


The form is a bit more open and flexible. But overall not that much. The overwhelming majority of Haydn's symphonies are in the "regular" 4 movements. A minority are in 3 movements of which the most common variant just leaves out the menuet. Another 3 movement option is to have the menuet as finale (as in Haydn's #26). A small minority has the "church sonata" form with the slow movement in the first place (as in Haydn's 21, 22, 49 and a few more).


----------



## Triplets (Sep 4, 2014)

Perhaps “refined” is a better term than mature. The Paris and London Symphonies show us the fruits of a master craftsman that has spent decades perfecting his Art. Some of the sheer energy and experimentation has been lost and replaced with exquisite detail and veneer. This is relative, however, as the later works have their own kind of energy


----------

