# Haydn or Mozart's Symphonies?



## RogerWaters (Feb 13, 2017)

Which do you prefer?

I have a special soft spot for Haydn's symphonies where Mozart's, despite any technical brilliance they possess, leave me cold.

In contrast, Haydn's charm, wit and warmth radiate out of his symphonies.

Which are your favourites from either figure? Haydn's 88, 93, and 103 for me, conducted by Harnoncourt.


----------



## Haydn70 (Jan 8, 2017)

My vote goes to Haydn. Particular favorites: 5, 22, 39, 46, 60, 63, 70, 73, 77, 82, 88, 100.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

It's close, but I have to vote for Haydn. Favorite symphonies are 82 and 104.


----------



## cybernaut (Feb 6, 2021)

I'm listening to Haydn's 82nd, conducted by Bernstein, and it is magnificent.

But I can't choose between the two composers.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Mozart by far for me. 

I think Mozart's Symphony no. 40 alone is a greater artistic achievement than all of Haydn's symphonies combined.


----------



## chu42 (Aug 14, 2018)

Mozart achieved higher ideals in some of his symphonies but Haydn's are the ones I listen to more often.


----------



## RogerWaters (Feb 13, 2017)

chu42 said:


> Mozart achieved higher ideals in some of his symphonies but Haydn's are the ones I listen to more often.


Yes, Mozart's sounds more 'grand' and pompous to me.


----------



## Eclectic Al (Apr 23, 2020)

RogerWaters said:


> Which do you prefer?
> 
> I have a special soft spot for Haydn's symphonies where Mozart's, despite any technical brilliance they possess, leave me cold. His slow movements, in particular.
> 
> ...


I'm particularly partial to 93, probably after imprinting on Solti's CD of 93 and 99. That was at a time when I was still labouring under the misapprehension that Haydn was a bit of an also-ran.

I listen occasionally to Mozart's symphonies (largely to "try again") and do like 40 and 25.

If trying to work out why I prefer Haydn over Mozart, I agree entirely with what you say. I sometimes wonder if a lot of it is about orchestration. Haydn's tickles the ear with little touches, whereas Mozart is smoother (too smooth?). Maybe Mozart has marvellous counterpoint or chromaticism or whatever, but Haydn produces more interesting sounds. (I don't mind if he is sometimes a bit "cheesy".)

I wonder also if among people who strongly prefer Mozart there is a bias towards people who like opera, whereas among people who strongly prefer Haydn there is a bias towards people who don't.


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

RogerWaters said:


> Yes, Mozart's sounds more 'grand' and pompous to me.


It's partly due to recordings. Haydn's late symphonies, and other ones of them, can sound somewhat like that as well. No.22, even described as a 'proto-Parsifal' piece by one writer, in the old Marriner recording is one, lesser known case. Most conductors take it faster. You could do it even slower. 




I have very big difficulties choosing here, listened more to Mozart over the years, but in the end, I might-might go for Haydn, due to the bigger variation in his cycle. Harnoncourt for example provides Mozart's early symphonies with more content, however.


----------



## RogerWaters (Feb 13, 2017)

Eclectic Al said:


> I sometimes wonder if a lot of it is about orchestration. Haydn's tickles the ear with little touches, whereas Mozart is smoother (too smooth?).


I'm glad there is someone else who has wondered this!


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

I mostly listen to Mozart's 38, 39, 40 and 41. Those are four of my favorite symphonies by any composer. I've listened to chunks of many Haydn symphonies, some of the Sturm and Drang, the Paris the London etc. None of it sounds good to me. I try from time to time but rarely make it through an entire symphony, I end up getting irritated with the music and turning it off, the same thing happens when I listen to Beethoven symphonies. Those two composers seem to annoy me for similar reasons. Their musical logic seems similar. When I listen to Beethoven he often sounds like a more emotional and aggressive Haydn to me.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

Haydn's obviously cover a much wider range (and almost 40 years) whereas of Mozart's the first 30 were written before he was 20 and strictly speaking he wrote only 4-5 "late" symphonies (unlike piano concertos or string quartets/quintets, Mozart never really focused on symphonies in his mature years), all of which are quite fabulous but can hardly cover the ground of Haydn's. As Haydn wrote a lot for the Esterhazy band he knew well, he could also do all kinds of concertante stuff in his early symphonies whereas this is mostly absent from Mozart's (there seems more elaborate woodwind writing in some piano concertos than in any symphony).

My favorites from Mozart are 38, 40, 39, 41, 36, 25, 29, 33-35.
My favorites from Haydn are too many to name, there are many gems that are virtually unknown): 31, 42, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 52, 54, 59, 70, 73, 75, 80, 82-104.


----------



## HerbertNorman (Jan 9, 2020)

I just about prefer Haydn's over Mozart's ... close one... but I really like Symphony 82 and the London Symphonies Nos 95, 96, 98, 102, 103, 104


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Mozart 40 & 41 are my two favourites from either composer, but I voted for Haydn because overall I get more enjoyment, lots of quirky little moments or movements.


----------



## Eclectic Al (Apr 23, 2020)

tdc said:


> I mostly listen to Mozart's 38, 39, 40 and 41. Those are four of my favorite symphonies by any composer. I've listened to chunks of many Haydn symphonies, some of the Sturm and Drang, the Paris the London etc. None of it sounds good to me. I try from time to time but rarely make it through an entire symphony, I end up getting irritated with the music and turning it off, the same thing happens when I listen to Beethoven symphonies. Those two composers seem to annoy me for similar reasons. Their musical logic seems similar. When I listen to Beethoven he often sounds like a more emotional and aggressive Haydn to me.


Another interesting pointer, maybe: are those who prefer Haydn over Mozart more likely to be fans of Beethoven's symphonies? I suspect so, as I entirely agree with you about the greater similarity in style. (I'm in the Haydn/Beethoven camp, but I take your point.)


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

My favourites of the combined symphonies would include Mozart's 40 and 41, and a handful of Haydn's, all about equal in my preference (and none essential). Overall, Haydn is an easy pick as he has far more symphonies that I at least like.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

Beethoven is in some ways closer to Haydn but in other ways closer to Mozart. The breadth and general dimensions of e.g the first movements of the Linz, Prague and Jupiter seem closer to Beethoven, in more aggressive interpretations, passages of the first movement of #39 sounds close to the Eroica. On the other hand Beethoven seems to take also Haydn's last symphony as a model for parts of his 2nd (the introductions with the "jagged" d minor passage). He is obviously strongly influenced by both composers on many levels, (as has been demonstrated by scholars and is also not too difficult to perceive simply by listening)


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

Haydn: 44, 45, 49, 52, 53, 60, 82, 88, 93-104


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Kreisler jr said:


> Beethoven is in some ways closer to Haydn but in other ways closer to Mozart. The breadth and general dimensions of e.g the first movements of the Linz, Prague and Jupiter seem closer to Beethoven, in more aggressive interpretations, passages of the first movement of #39 sounds close to the Eroica. On the other hand Beethoven seems to take also Haydn's last symphony as a model for parts of his 2nd (the introductions with the "jagged" d minor passage). He is obviously strongly influenced by both composers on many levels, (as has been demonstrated by scholars and is also not too difficult to perceive simply by listening)


Beethoven was influenced by both composers and certainly modelled ideas after Mozart, but was unable to ever sound much like Mozart in his harmonic language, chromaticism, use of dissonance, smoothness etc. (Or as some feel he _chose_ to sound different). So what we hear is the Haydn more than the Mozart. In my view because Haydn's sound is easier to duplicate than Mozart. Another example of this is Prokofiev's classical symphony that was highly influenced by Mozart but ends up sounding more like Haydn.

Brahms statement that we hear 'true dissonance' in Bach and Mozart, not Beethoven, is further evidence this difference in chromaticism and harmonic language isn't just in my mind. I suspect the difference is related to Mozart and Bach's mastery of counterpoint.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

RogerWaters said:


> I have a special soft spot for Haydn's symphonies where Mozart's, despite any technical brilliance they possess, leave me cold.


It's also good to know Michael's, which can serve as a "frame of reference" when comparing Joseph and Mozart.

*No.33 in B flat*: 
1:45 (interesting use of rhythm, development of motifs, and writing for winds)
11:18 (Michael wrote far less 4-movement symphonies (with an added minuet) than Joseph, but I like how he only does it when he really needs to. This minuet movement strikes me as memorable.)
*No.31 in F*: 
8:56 (the elegant lyricism of voice-leading reminds me of the best moments from Mozart's violin concertos) 
13:00 (sounds "weird" with angularities)
*No.29 in D minor*: 
1:50 (the secondary development / false recapitulation is interesting, especially at 2:50)
15:10 (interesting ways to develop)
*No.28 in C*: 16:45
*No.40 in F*: 0:01 , 7:30

Look at Michael's use of the woodwinds, which naturally imitates the human voice [0:34~0:38] (whereas Joseph throws them for "rustic effects"), and
use of dissonances in the strings [2:03~2:19] and strettos to build tension [2:52~3:17], for example:







hammeredklavier said:


> I also speculate that some prototypical ideas for building a "traverse from darkness to light" were passed from Michael (symphony No.29 in D minor , 1784) [1] on through Mozart (K.466) [2], eventually to Beethoven.
> symphony No.29 in D minor - 0:01 , 12:55 , 16:22
> [1]: "The third movement is a rondeau, Presto scherzante. Horns are in F, trumpets in D. The A theme could be seen as a metamorphosis of the first subject of the first movement." -wikipedia
> [2]: "The entry of the piano here, a new material, but interestingly, it's exactly the same chord structure as that first entry in the first movement. A wonderful sense of Mozart referring back to what we remember, having heard before." -Charles Hazlewood


in addition to these, the 27th (with its slow introduction), 30th, 41th are also somewhat decent.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

tdc said:


> Beethoven was influenced by both composers and certainly modelled ideas after Mozart, but was unable to ever sound much like Mozart in his harmonic language, chromaticism, use of dissonance, smoothness etc. (Or as some feel he _chose_ to sound different). So what we hear is the Haydn more than the Mozart. In my view because Haydn's sound is easier to duplicate than Mozart. Another example of this is Prokofiev's classical symphony that was highly influenced by Mozart but ends up sounding more like Haydn.
> 
> Brahms statement that we hear 'true dissonance' in Bach and Mozart, not Beethoven, is further evidence this difference in chromaticism and harmonic language isn't just in my mind. I suspect the difference is related to Mozart and Bach's mastery of counterpoint.


You can define what mastery of counterpoint actually is? The 'rules' (no parallel fifths etc) are arbitrary since music is essentially abstract.


----------



## Amadea (Apr 15, 2021)

RogerWaters said:


> Yes, Mozart's sounds more 'grand' and pompous to me.


The interpretations of conductors do a lot. I'd suggest you to try different ones until you find an interpretation you like. Try Abbado or Bernstein, or even Muti.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

janxharris said:


> You can define what mastery of counterpoint actually is? The 'rules' (no parallel fifths etc) are arbitrary since music is essentially abstract.


Yes, counterpoint is something that can be studied and mastered to different degrees, for example in Rosen's book _The Classical Style_ he points out that Bach and Mozart had an understanding of 3 part counterpoint that no other composers of their time demonstrated.

Brahms is known to have studied counterpoint thoroughly and it shows in his works. You will not find these same characteristics in the music of Schubert.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

joen_cph said:


> but in the end, I might-might go for Haydn, due to the *bigger variation* in his cycle.


Also consider; K.345 - a cross between a 4-movement orchestral symphony and incidental/operatic music




K.477; when it comes to being a model for Beethoven, J. Haydn was probably the most significant. This J. Haydn mass 



 surely anticipates Beethoven's funeral march. But I like to think Mozart (with K.477) also inspired Beethoven in some other ways (regarding that symphony movement).


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

tdc said:


> Yes, counterpoint is something that can be studied and mastered to different degrees, for example in Rosen's book _The Classical Style_ he points out that Bach and Mozart had an understanding of 3 part counterpoint that no other composers of their time demonstrated.
> 
> Brahms is known to have studied counterpoint thoroughly and it shows in his works. You will not find these same characteristics in the music of Schubert.


Fair enough, but it's a mastery within arbitrary set of rules. Counterpoint, the movement of two or more simultaneous voices, need not follow paradigms set by Mozart or Bach to be considered worthwhile. Counterpoint is not necessarily the essence of a 'great' piece of music.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

janxharris said:


> Counterpoint, the movement of two or more simultaneous voices, need not follow paradigms set by Mozart or Bach to be considered worthwhile. Counterpoint is not necessarily the essence of a 'great' piece of music.


Its not the only thing, and composers with a natural gift for melody like Schubert could certainly compose fine music without it being a central feature. Different composers have different strengths. I consider a decent to thorough understanding of it advantageous for composers. Knowing it well of course is no guarantee that one will be able to compose good music.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

Remember that counterpoint and part writing is a vital part of orchestration too.


----------



## Amadea (Apr 15, 2021)

hammeredklavier said:


> Also consider; K.345


I didn't know this and I'm loving it. Thanks for posting it.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

I haven't explored Haydn nearly as much as I have Mozart, so I went with Mozart, but it's a slightly ignorant pick.

I especially enjoy the first and 41st symphonies.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Mozart goes deeper; Mozart goes higher. I love Haydn's symphonies, too, but the comparison with Mozart's is not a fair competition for them.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

I voted Haydn for pretty much the same reasons Kreisler jr gave in #12.



tdc said:


> *Brahms statement that we hear 'true dissonance' in Bach and Mozart, not Beethoven, is further evidence* this difference in chromaticism and harmonic language isn't just in my mind. I suspect the difference is related to Mozart and Bach's mastery of counterpoint.


It's not evidence unless one can explain what "true dissonance" means. Can you?


----------



## Judith (Nov 11, 2015)

Voted Mozart. Think it is because I'm more familiar with Mozart than Haydn. What I do know of Haydn doesn't make me like him any less though


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

What did Brahms mean by "true dissonance"?


----------



## Axter (Jan 15, 2020)

Mozart 29, 31, 35, 38, 40, 41 are my favs. 
Conductors: Herbert v Karajan, Karl Böhm, Sir Colin Davis.
VPO, BPO, and Staatskapelle Dreseden with Davis is a class of its own.

Hayden, the London Symphs.
LPO with Sir Georg Solti


I listen more to Mozart symphs than Hayden.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

EdwardBast said:


> I voted Haydn for pretty much the same reasons Kreisler jr gave in #12.
> It's not evidence unless one can explain what "true dissonance" means. Can you?


Yes, it is what we hear in the music of Mozart and Bach, but not Beethoven or Haydn. Brahms quote confirms I am not the only person who notices this difference in harmonic approaches. That is definitely evidence. You asking me to explain beyond that I think is an attempt to obfuscate the truth one can hear just by listening to these composers. Hammeredklavier acknowledges this difference and thinks it is related to the fact that Bach and Mozart studied 'church composers' more. As I said I believe it is related to their use of counterpoint. I think Mendelssohn is a composer who came closer to sounding like Mozart at times than Beethoven for example at the opening of his violin concerto. Mendelssohn's knowledge of counterpoint was impressive, this is evident in his string symphonies among other works. I believe explaining it further than this is beyond the scope of this forum because it requires going in depth into counterpoint, something that requires years of study and cannot be summed up in a message forum post.


----------



## Amadea (Apr 15, 2021)

tdc said:


> Brahms quote confirms I am not the only person who notices this difference in harmonic approaches. That is definitely evidence.


I do agree. Another proof is that often some of Mozart's late works were seen as "too intellectual, incomprehensible, just for experts" by the 18th century critics precisely for the use of dissonances, while J. Haydn works were not and they were appreciated by a vaste public.


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

Voted for Mozart, as I prefer his last four symphonies over any Haydn work of the genre. This said, it was a hard choice because Haydn also has many fine symphonies that I like.



tdc said:


> I think Mozart's Symphony no. 40 alone is a greater artistic achievement than all of Haydn's symphonies combined.





tdc said:


> I mostly listen to Mozart's 38, 39, 40 and 41. Those are four of my favorite symphonies by any composer. I've listened to chunks of many Haydn symphonies, some of the Sturm and Drang, the Paris the London etc. None of it sounds good to me. I try from time to time but rarely make it through an entire symphony, I end up getting irritated with the music and turning it off, the same thing happens when I listen to Beethoven symphonies. Those two composers seem to annoy me for similar reasons. Their musical logic seems similar. When I listen to Beethoven he often sounds like a more emotional and aggressive Haydn to me.





tdc said:


> Brahms statement that we hear 'true dissonance' in Bach and Mozart, not Beethoven, is further evidence this difference in chromaticism and harmonic language isn't just in my mind. *I suspect the difference is related to Mozart and Bach's mastery of counterpoint.*


Come on now, are you trying to imply that Haydn and Beethoven didn't master counterpoint? Just because you don't like them?

Beethoven has striking examples of usage of counterpoint, chromaticism and dissonances:
















Here, have some nice counterpoint by J. Haydn:


----------



## Amadea (Apr 15, 2021)

Allerius said:


> Come on now, are you trying to imply that Haydn and Beethoven didn't master counterpoint? Just because you don't like them?
> 
> Beethoven has striking examples of usage of counterpoint, chromaticism and dissonances, and I don't know Haydn so well but I'm sure that he does too.


I don't think that was the point of the discussion. They were clearly all master composers, but in some aspects such as counterpoint some are better than others, which doesn't mean Beethoven is "bad at counterpoint", just less skilled than others in that aspect of composition. Bach is the king of counterpoint and that's a fact. Just think about this: when Mozart discovered him, he literally had an artistic crysis. I think Mozart studied Bach much more than Beethoven, who was focusing on else (innovation) than becoming great at counterpoint. Mozart also had a greater musical education than Beethoven and Haydn. I'll quote Bernstein: "Beethoven never wrote a good fugue" (Bernstein considered Beethoven the greatest composer, but not for counterpoint or melodism). Also, we can probably find better contrapuntist in history than Mozart, but they didn't make history like him and Beethoven, did they?  So of course counterpoint isn't everything. The point was we can hear harmonic differences between the composers, and that's maybe for their use of counterpoint.


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

Amadea said:


> I don't think that was the point of the discussion. They were clearly all master composers, but some in some aspects such as counterpoint some are better than others, which doesn't mean Beethoven is "bad at counterpoint", just less skilled than others in that aspect of composition. Bach is the king of counterpoint and that's a fact. Just think about this: when Mozart discovered him, he literally had an artistic crysis. I think Mozart studied Bach much more than Beethoven, who was focusing on else (innovation) than becoming great at counterpoint. I'll quote Bernstein: "Beethoven never wrote a good fugue" (Bernstein considered Beethoven the greatest composer, but not for counterpoint or melodism).


Maybe it's Bernstein that never wrote a good fugue, considering that his fugues are never talked about. Late Beethoven has many famous, great fugues (examples abound: I'm thinking in Op. 101, Op. 106, Op. 110, Op. 120, Op. 123, Op. 125, Op. 130, Op. 131 and others). By the way, Beethoven knew the _Well Tempered Clavier_ since an early age, and the _Eroica_ already shows his mastery of counterpoint in my opinion:

"Fantasy No. 1 with Fugue, K. 394 is one of Mozart's own compositions showing the influence the Well-Tempered Clavier had on him. Beethoven played the entire Well-Tempered Clavier by the time he was eleven, and produced an arrangement of BWV 867, for string quintet.

Hans von Bülow called The Well-Tempered Clavier the 'Old Testament' of music (the Beethoven Sonatas were the 'New Testament')..." - *Source here*.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

Enthusiast said:


> Mozart goes deeper; Mozart goes higher. I love Haydn's symphonies, too, but the comparison with Mozart's is not a fair competition for them.


Yet the poll results indicate that Haydn's symphonies are doing just fine.
Mozart goes deeper and higher are really meaningless statements to me. What is meaningful is that I enjoy Haydn's symphonies more than Mozart's overall. The 1st movement of Mozart's 40th may be my favourite movement among all of Mozart and Haydn's symphonies combined but I enjoy many more of Haydn's than about 7 or 8 of Mozart's.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

tdc said:


> Yes, it is what we hear in the music of Mozart and Bach, but not Beethoven or Haydn. Brahms quote confirms I am not the only person who notices this difference in harmonic approaches. That is definitely evidence. You asking me to explain beyond that I think is an attempt to obfuscate the truth one can hear just by listening to these composers. Hammeredklavier acknowledges this difference and thinks it is related to the fact that Bach and Mozart studied 'church composers' more. As I said I believe it is related to their use of counterpoint. I think Mendelssohn is a composer who came closer to sounding like Mozart at times than Beethoven for example at the opening of his violin concerto. Mendelssohn's knowledge of counterpoint was impressive, this is evident in his string symphonies among other works. I believe explaining it further than this is beyond the scope of this forum because it requires going in depth into counterpoint, something that requires years of study and cannot be summed up in a message forum post.


Saying other people notice a difference in their harmony isn't an explanation. (I too can tell their music apart.) And identifying a group of other people equally unable to explain the remark doesn't make a case.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

EdwardBast said:


> Saying other people notice a difference in their harmony isn't an explanation. (I too can tell their music apart.) And identifying a group of other people equally unable to explain the remark doesn't make a case.


We have explained the remark, but apparently not thoroughly enough for you. Do you think there is some simple answer that unlocks the key to Bach and Mozart's use of harmony? If it could be explained in a concise and simple way, don't you think Brahms would have done so in the interview?


----------



## RogerWaters (Feb 13, 2017)

tdc said:


> We have explained the remark, but apparently not thoroughly enough for you. Do you think there is some simple answer that unlocks the key to Bach and Mozart's use of harmony? If it could be explained in a concise and simple way, don't you think Brahms would have done so in the interview?


Surely you have at least to distinguish "true" dissonance from merely 'apparent' or 'false' dissonance.


----------



## Bruckner Anton (Mar 10, 2016)

I listen to both of them and I love both of them. I picked Mozart in your poll just for the last movement of his symphony #41 which for me worthies 100 Classical period symphonies.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

tdc said:


> We have explained the remark, but apparently not thoroughly enough for you. Do you think there is some simple answer that unlocks the key to Bach and Mozart's use of harmony? If it could be explained in a concise and simple way, don't you think Brahms would have done so in the interview?


We're not talking about comparing the harmonic language of different composers. We're just trying to establish what the term "true dissonance" meant to Brahms. Obviously he was using it as a theoretical term. Since I know all of the standard ways dissonance is used in the classical style and all the ways the word functions as a theory term in that era, I am asking which of these usages and functions-or which combination of them-was Brahms referring to as true. Since you (and others) keep citing this statement of Brahms as if it proves something, I figured you must know what he meant. Apparently you don't. So can I prevail on you to stop throwing Brahms' ample weight around until you do?


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

tdc said:


> Hammeredklavier acknowledges this difference and thinks it is related to the fact that Bach and Mozart studied 'church composers' more.


Yeah, it's also an area where Michael Haydn is superior to Joseph (J. Haydn enthusiasts never admit this).
https://www.talkclassical.com/54405-haydn-muscular-mozart-22.html#post2035322
I hate to say it; the way Joseph uses chromaticism doesn't really strike me as expressive. The concluding movement of the 92th "Oxford", the Creation, the slow movement of the "Kaiser" string quartet, Op.54 No.2 in C, etc. 
And It's also a bit weird that the same people who criticized certain other composers for "repetitiveness" in another thread never see the faults of J. Haydn. 




https://www.talkclassical.com/54405-haydn-muscular-mozart-22.html#post2035596
https://www.talkclassical.com/54405-haydn-muscular-mozart-21.html#post2034793

The idea that simply because J. Haydn churned out more, he has "more variety" (maybe someone should show me how) is just absurd. 
























Although I think the slow movements of J. Haydn's 80th, 96th are somewhat decent; he has none of the above expressions.

I'm sorry to say it; this sort of stuff








gets tiring rather quickly. It's like eating styrofoam, imv.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

hammeredklavier said:


> Yeah, it's also an area where Michael Haydn is superior to Joseph (J. Haydn fans never admit this fact).


You are the first person I've ever encountered making the claim that Michael Haydn was a more important composer than Joseph. Just a little odd, IMO. For one thing, aside from his sacred vocal music, Michael Haydn's output is insignificant compared to that of his older brother's: one-fifith the number of symphonies, and no string quartets and little other chamber music, no keyboard music.

As I said, an odd opinion.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

SanAntone said:


> You are the first person I've ever encountered making the claim that Michael Haydn was a more important composer than Joseph. Just a little odd, IMO. For one thing, aside from his sacred vocal music, Michael Haydn's output is insignificant compared to that of his older brother's: one-fifith the number of symphonies, and no string quartets and little other chamber music, no keyboard music.
> As I said, an odd opinion.


String quintets, divertimentos ( 6:25 ). And much of his output still hasn't yet been recorded.
13:00 , 1:45 , 16:45 , 7:30 , 1:50 , 15:10 , 9:30 , 3:00,

At least he didn't write like this at 40:
















"one-fifith of the number of symphonies"? How did you come up with that number?


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

RogerWaters said:


> Surely you have at least to distinguish "true" dissonance from merely 'apparent' or 'false' dissonance.


Its just a way of explaining the difference in harmonic language between these composers. I don't know how much more simple I can explain it than that. Maybe to you the dissonance in Haydn and Beethoven is "true" and it is "apparent" in Mozart and Bach. Either way they did not approach harmony in the same way.



EdwardBast said:


> We're not talking about comparing the harmonic language of different composers. We're just trying to establish what the term "true dissonance" meant to Brahms. Obviously he was using it as a theoretical term. Since I know all of the standard ways dissonance is used in the classical style and all the ways the word functions as a theory term in that era, I am asking which of these usages and functions-or which combination of them-was Brahms referring to as true. Since you (and others) keep citing this statement of Brahms as if it proves something, I figured you must know what he meant. Apparently you don't. So can I prevail on you to stop throwing Brahms' ample weight around until you do?


No, because as Brahms explained it, it makes perfect sense to me, in other words it matches my aural perceptions of the music, and when I read it I thought "thank God I'm not the only person who hears the music this way", a similar thing happened when I came across Bernstein talking about Beethoven's harmony and counterpoint. Brahms comment is directly related to how the composers use counterpoint. That's it.

I realize you are someone who knows a good deal about music, and I respect your opinion on a number of things related to music, but I'm sorry I don't think you have a better understanding of the music of these composers than Brahms or Bernstein did.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Symphonies: M. Haydn wrote 20, J. Haydn 104. 

Although you will find recordings of his "string quartets" most musicologists consider them of doubtful attribution, as is true for some of his other chamber works.

I do not question his stature as a composer of sacred vocal music.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

SanAntone said:


> one-fifith the number of symphonies


It's worth noting that about a half of Mozart and Michael's are "overtures" (small-scale symphonies, much like Mendelssohn's string symphonies). But at least in many of their large-sized, mature ones, Mozart and Michael's are memorable. Whereas most of Joseph's are large-sized, and, let's face it; they're _just way too many_.
https://www.talkclassical.com/64807-most-overrated-underrated-symphonies-9.html#post2025074


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

SanAntone said:


> M. Haydn wrote 20


Then how do we get numbers like this in his symphonies?




M. Haydn's final symphony is numbered 41.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

hammeredklavier said:


> Then how do we get numbers like this in his symphonies?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Sorry, I misread the Grove entry where it said, "During the 1780s, Haydn completed 20 symphonies, some of which achieved a modest circulation outside Salzburg."

But is you look at his list of works, the sacred vocal music greatly outnumbers all of his other instrumental works.

I'm not saying he wasn't an admired composer during his lifetime, and I have acknowledged his stature as a composer of sacred music. I am surprised to see claim, so strongly, that he was the greater of the Haydn brothers. A claim I, and I would expect most, would think to not to be credible.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

SanAntone said:


> I have acknowledged his stature as a composer of sacred music. I am surprised to see claim, so strongly, that he was the greater of the Haydn brothers. A claim I, and I would expect most, would think to not to be credible.


The thing is, I don't feel "color" in Joseph's symphonies as I do in Michael's catholic music.





 (13:24 and 14:34)




 (5:32 and 7:15)





































































I wouldn't want to derail this thread too much. The point I'm trying to make is; how much of Joseph's output of symphonies is about "quality" rather than "quantity"?


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

Haydn. He wrote more substantial symphonies than Mozart, although of course he lived much longer. Favorites are Haydn's 103rd and 104th, but most of the nearly 20 Paris-London symphonies are great. With Mozart, the only ones I find really appealing are nos. 35 and 41. The 40th I've probably heard way too often, like Beethoven's fifth.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

consuono said:


> Haydn. He wrote more substantial symphonies than Mozart, although of course he lived much longer.


But then why do you keep saying that Bach is objectively greater than Handel (due to Bach's richer harmonies)? I'm just curious.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

hammeredklavier said:


> But then why do you keep saying that *Bach is objectively greater than Handel (due to Bach's richer harmonies)?* I'm just curious.


I don't keep saying any such thing. I think the whole of Bach's output is greater than Handel's. He wrote more substantial music than Handel. In my opinion. Sorry, Mozart only lived 35 years and his symphonic output didn't match Haydn's. In my opinion. Piano concertos? Nobody touches Mozart.

Except maybe Beethoven in his 4th and 5th.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Amadea said:


> when Mozart discovered him, he literally had an artistic crysis.


The speculation (that "Mozart had an artistic crisis upon discovering Bach") is also outdated, and exaggerated. 









in an excess of enthusiasm for Georg Benda's melodramas, in 1778, he wrote to his father that Benda was his favorite of the Lutheran kapellmeisters. After hearing Allegri's Miserere in Rome, he wrote his own Miserere in A minor K.85 in Bologna, 1770. For Mozart, the "discovery of Bach" didn't result in any more "artistic crisis" than those cases. 
He was already writing stuff like these, during his Salzburg period:



















Allerius said:


> "Fantasy No. 1 with Fugue, K. 394 is one of Mozart's own compositions showing the influence the Well-Tempered Clavier had on him.


I also hear a lot of linguistic similarities between that piece and this, K.321/iv (composed in Salzburg, 1779):


----------



## Amadea (Apr 15, 2021)

consuono said:


> Haydn. He wrote more substantial symphonies than Mozart, although of course he lived much longer.


What do you mean by "more substantial"?


----------



## Amadea (Apr 15, 2021)

Allerius said:


> Maybe it's Bernstein that never wrote a good fugue, considering that his fugues are never talked about. Late Beethoven has many famous, great fugues (examples abound: I'm thinking in Op. 101, Op. 106, Op. 110, Op. 120, Op. 123, Op. 125, Op. 130, Op. 131 and others).


I believe Bernstein's knowledge of music is far superior to mine, yours, hammeredklavier and any youtuber... Anyway, he didn't mean compositions like the ones you mentioned were bad, he meant they weren't good _as fugues._


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Amadea said:


> What do you mean by "more substantial"?


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

Amadea said:


> What do you mean by "more substantial"?


I mean a greater (higher, larger, more varied) number of substantial symphonies. With Mozart it's really only the last six or so.


----------



## Amadea (Apr 15, 2021)

hammeredklavier said:


>


Ahahah. You truly hate him don't you :lol: you're right, but maybe we could do the same with every composer. I'm sure Mozart has passages which sound silly as well and Beethoven too.


----------



## Amadea (Apr 15, 2021)

consuono said:


> I mean a greater (higher, larger, more varied) number of substantial symphonies. With Mozart it's really only the last six or so.


You should take into account that many of Mozart's concertos, expecially the piano ones, can have a symphonic value despite not being symphonies. That changes the "substance" of Mozart's work regarding the symphony.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

Amadea said:


> Ahahah. You truly hate him don't you :lol: you're right, but maybe we could do the same with every composer. I'm sure Mozart has passages which sound silly as well and Beethoven too.


Well not everybody can achieve this kind of profundity:







Amadea said:


> You should take into account that many of Mozart's concertos, expecially the piano ones, can have a symphonic value despite not being symphonies. That changes the "substance" of Mozart's work regarding the symphony.


Yeah, but they're still not symphonies.


----------



## Amadea (Apr 15, 2021)

consuono said:


> Well not everybody can achieve this kind of profundity:


The most sublime piece of music ever written.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

consuono said:


> Well not everybody can achieve this kind of profundity:


Yeah, but _it's still not a symphony._ Other composers also wrote joke canons at the time. (Michael also wrote scatological canons. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozart_and_scatology#In_German_culture)
Mozart also wrote K.522, just to show "what not to do".
And I don't think you know Mozart's early symphonies all that well. https://www.talkclassical.com/64807-most-overrated-underrated-symphonies-9.html#post2025074



Amadea said:


> Ahahah. You truly hate him don't you :lol: you're right, but maybe we could do the same with every composer. I'm sure Mozart has passages which sound silly as well and Beethoven too.


Those are the typical expressions of J. Haydn. I didn't say they're silly. I'm just saying the musical temperament, and the harmonic style don't really appeal to me. (I still think they're ok)


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

Amadea said:


> The most sublime piece of music ever written.


Careful, hammeredklavier will give us a dissertation on it complete with paragraphs in blue and references to the influence of Michael Haydn.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

consuono said:


> Michael Haydn.


Again; I value these things far more than anything in Joseph:
https://www.talkclassical.com/70979-haydn-mozarts-symphonies-2.html#post2068406
https://www.talkclassical.com/70979-haydn-mozarts-symphonies-4.html#post2068817


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

hammeredklavier said:


> Again; I value these things far more than anything in Joseph:
> https://www.talkclassical.com/70979-haydn-mozarts-symphonies-2.html#post2068406
> https://www.talkclassical.com/70979-haydn-mozarts-symphonies-4.html#post2068817


That's fine. But your opinion of placing Michael above Joseph is an outlier.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

SanAntone said:


> That's fine. But your opinion of placing Michael above Joseph is an outlier.


How? We should at least get into a habit of mentioning Michael alongside Mozart and Joseph as well. "Mozart and the Haydns". In terms of historical significance, Joseph isn't any more significant than Michael. https://www.talkclassical.com/54405-haydn-muscular-mozart-23.html#post2036127
I think a lot of people preferring Joseph over Michael today is simply the result of "mere-exposure effect".


----------



## Amadea (Apr 15, 2021)

hammeredklavier said:


> How? We should at least mention Michael alongside Mozart and Joseph as well. "Mozart and the Haydns". In terms of historical significance, Joseph isn't any more significant than Michael. https://www.talkclassical.com/54405-haydn-muscular-mozart-23.html#post2036127
> I think a lot of people preferring Joseph over Michael today is simply the result of "mere-exposure effect".


Despite the interesting argument, since the thread is about J. Haydn's and Mozart's symphonies I think we're going a little off-topic (anyway, I DMed you).


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

hammeredklavier said:


> It's worth noting that about a half of Mozart and Michael's are "overtures" (small-scale symphonies, much like Mendelssohn's string symphonies). But at least in many of their large-sized, mature ones, Mozart and Michael's are memorable. Whereas most of Joseph's are large-sized, and, let's face it; they're _just way too many_.
> https://www.talkclassical.com/64807-most-overrated-underrated-symphonies-9.html#post2025074


You can never have too many excellent symphonies. The situation here is that Mozart wrote too few excellent symphonies, while the lesser Haydn didn't compose any symphony that was memorable.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

hammeredklavier said:


> How? We should at least mention Michael alongside Mozart and Joseph as well. "Mozart and the Haydns". In terms of historical significance, Joseph isn't any more significant than Michael. https://www.talkclassical.com/54405-haydn-muscular-mozart-23.html#post2036127
> I think a lot of people preferring Joseph over Michael today is simply the result of "mere-exposure effect".


Your thinking is wrong. There is a reason why Joseph Haydn has a larger reputation than his brother, his music captured the imagination of centuries of classical music listeners, whereas his brother's has not.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

SanAntone said:


> Your thinking is wrong. There is a reason why Joseph Haydn has a larger reputation than his brother, his music captured the imagination of centuries of classical music listeners, whereas his brother's has not.


You were the one who talked about how composers like Hummel are neglected compared to Mozart and Beethoven in another thread, remember?
Michael stayed away from musical capitals (ie. Vienna), was stuck in the church, in a backwater area of Germany (Salzburg), and didn't want his own music printed, so his fame died rapidly over the course of the 19th century. But remember- one of the greatest pioneers in classical music history, Vivaldi was forgotten up until the 20th century. Had it not been for the efforts of Forkel, Van Sweiten, Mendelssohn, -Bach _could have been_ forgotten today.
Joseph "captured the imagination" of the posterity for centuries? How? Aside from Beethoven (who was Joseph's student), and Prokofiev (with his Neoclassical niche), who else found Joseph really inspiring?



> "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."





> "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 (Feb 18, 2018)

Bulldog said:


> You can never have too many excellent symphonies. The situation here is that Mozart wrote too few excellent symphonies, while the lesser Haydn didn't compose any symphony that was memorable.


I don't know what your criteria for "excellence" are (they just seem random, whenever I hear you talk of your preferences). But for example, Mozart's 31th, with a length of 16~17 minutes, with ample use of "spice", conveys much more "color" to me with concision. Whereas many symphonies of J. Haydn tend to go on longer than that, with his typical ways of "argument" ("musical temperament" and "harmonic style") - I kind of wish they were shorter, like the overture-like symphonies of Michael and Mozart. I think J. Haydn is unique in his use of rhythm, timbre, dynamics, -but nowhere does he reach (not even in the slow movement of his 80th) the kind of "serenity" of Mozart's 34th.



hammeredklavier said:


>


----------



## Olias (Nov 18, 2010)

For me, Haydn's London Symphonies, Paris Symphonies, and the ones in between (Channel Symphonies?) are the pinnacle of Classical Period Symphonic writing. Had Mozart lived longer though, I think he would have built onto Haydn's model. The Jupiter Symphony is perfect, so just imagine if he could have built on that.

BTW, my blog has walkthrough analysis videos for all of these:

http://somethingclassical.blogspot.com


----------



## Aloevera (Oct 1, 2017)

EdwardBast said:


> We're not talking about comparing the harmonic language of different composers. We're just trying to establish what the term "true dissonance" meant to Brahms. Obviously he was using it as a theoretical term. Since I know all of the standard ways dissonance is used in the classical style and all the ways the word functions as a theory term in that era, I am asking which of these usages and functions-or which combination of them-was Brahms referring to as true. Since you (and others) keep citing this statement of Brahms as if it proves something, I figured you must know what he meant. Apparently you don't. So can I prevail on you to stop throwing Brahms' ample weight around until you do?


Someone correct me in the case that I'm wrong about terminologies, but it seems Mozart was much more conscious about using tensions and reliefs in his music as a vital part of the structure, Beethoven uses it too but is far less conscious about it, and seems to more go with the flow. The result is that Mozart's dissonance strikes the listener as far more intentional and deliberate for the sake of balancing things , although at the cost of at times feeling more formulaic


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Btw, some fun facts:

"The energetic last movement, another sonata-form movement in 6/8 time, connects back to the first movement with its octave drop in the main theme."
View attachment 145079






View attachment 145080






"The finale starts off with a falling dotted fanfare motif similar to the one that starts the opening movement. The answering phrase and the movement's second theme have a contradanse character."
View attachment 145082






View attachment 145083






"The form is not a true italian overture or a da capo overture. The first movement unfolds as if in sonata form, with no expositional repeat. The two theme groups are stated amidst transitional material. Still in the first movement, a development begins that leads to the first theme of the exposition being worked in a number of keys. At the point where the music is in the dominant and seemingly ready to drop move the tonic for a recapitulation, the music segues to the slow movement. The slow movement is in rondo form (ABACAB). Again, right when the listener is expecting the rondo refrain to return, the music segues to the third movement, which continues the development of the first theme from the first movement before a "reverse recapitulation" is performed where the two themes of the first movement are recapitulated in opposite order."


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

+


----------



## Brahmsian Colors (Sep 16, 2016)

I experience greater satisfaction with each composer's chamber music and Mozart's piano concertos than the symphonies of both as a whole. Nonetheless, I generally find Haydn's symphonies more engaging than Mozart's.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

hammeredklavier said:


> You were the one who talked about how composers like Hummel are neglected compared to Mozart and Beethoven in another thread, remember?


Right, it's true that I think Hummel and others have been somewhat neglected, but I don't go a crusade about them trying to prove that they are superior to the "great masters".

I just mention it here an there, for what its worth, that IMO classical music would benefit of more repertory from a wider group of composers than repetitions of the same works by the same composers. But I'm not a big fan of the "Composer X is better than Composer Y" thing.


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

Amadea said:


> I believe Bernstein's knowledge of music is far superior to mine, yours, hammeredklavier and any youtuber... Anyway, he didn't mean compositions like the ones you mentioned were bad, he meant they weren't good _as fugues._


Glenn Gould is as much an authority as Bernstein is an he said that "For me, the 'Grosse Fuge' is not only the greatest work Beethoven ever wrote but just about the most astonishing piece in musical literature." According to Stravinsky, the same piece was a "miracle in music." Beethoven is always cited in threads asking for favorite or greatest fugues and I'm not going to agree that he couldn't compose a good fugue - I think that Bernstein with all his knowledge was mistaken about this and about other of his odd remarks on Beethovens music, what is weird because the composer of Bonn was his favorite.

To counter this...:






...there's this:


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

Allerius said:


> Glenn Gould is as much an authority as Bernstein is an he said that "For me, the 'Grosse Fuge' is not only the greatest work Beethoven ever wrote but just about the most astonishing piece in musical literature." According to Stravinsky, the same piece was a "miracle in music." Beethoven is always cited in threads asking for favorite or greatest fugues and I'm not going to agree that he couldn't compose a good fugue - I think that Bernstein with all his knowledge was mistaken about this and about other odd remarks on Beethovens music, what is strange because the composer of Bonn was his favorite.


I would disagree with Stravinsky, not being a big fan of Grosse Fuge, but the finale of Op. 106 is not a great fugue but is a monumental movement anyway. To paraphrase Northrop Frye again, in the Kyrie of the B minor Mass Bach showed what amazing things the fugue can do. In the last movement of Op. 106 Beethoven showed what amazing things can be done with the fugue.


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

consuono said:


> *I would disagree with Stravinsky, not being a big fan of Grosse Fuge*, but the finale of Op. 106 is not a great fugue but is a monumental movement anyway. To paraphrase Northrop Frye again, in the Kyrie of the B minor Mass Bach showed what amazing things the fugue can do. In the last movement of Op. 106 Beethoven showed what amazing things can be done with the fugue.


Well, it's a mammoth experimental work that has always divided opinions anyway:

"More than any other work of Beethoven, the _Great Fugue_ op. 133 has aroused only extreme opinions, favorable and unfavorable. (...) T. Helm and J. Marliave, in their books on Beethoven's string quartets, avoid the _Great Fugue_, W. Altmann and D.G. Mason pass negative judgements. The work was praised enthusiastically as early as 1826 by Anton Halm, in 1859 by Zellner and thereafter by Lenz (...), H. Scherchen, S. Grew, and E. Ratz. The most recent evaluation is from no less a pen than Igor Stravinsky's..." - The Great Fugue Op. 133: Beethoven's Art of Fugue.

I'm rather enthusiastic about the Grosse Fuge, to my ears it's as astonishing an accomplishment as the Kyrie of the B minor Mass.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

SanAntone said:


> Right, it's true that I think Hummel and others have been somewhat neglected, but I don't go a crusade about them trying to prove that they are superior to the "great masters".


I understand why you accuse me of doing "crusade", but I must stress again that the way certain people talk gets on my nerves sometimes; for example, those people who talk as if Joseph Haydn invented everything, when it comes to 18th century Classicism. (This isn't the topic of the thread, so I won't talk too much about it here.)


SanAntone said:


> I'm not a big fan of the "Composer X is better than Composer Y" thing.


Sure. I'm the type who thinks the "subjectivists" also have a good point, on this forum.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

hammeredklavier said:


> I don't know what your criteria for "excellence" are (they just seem random, whenever I hear you talk of your preferences).


Of course it seems random. That's because my disc collection is randomly organized. :lol:


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

Allerius said:


> Well, it's a mammoth experimental work that has always divided opinions anyway:
> 
> "More than any other work of Beethoven, the _Great Fugue_ op. 133 has aroused only extreme opinions, favorable and unfavorable. (...) T. Helm and J. Marliave, in their books on Beethoven's string quartets, avoid the _Great Fugue_, W. Altmann and D.G. Mason pass negative judgements. The work was praised enthusiastically as early as 1826 by Anton Halm, in 1859 by Zellner and thereafter by Lenz (...), H. Scherchen, S. Grew, and E. Ratz. The most recent evaluation is from no less a pen than Igor Stravinsky's..." - The Great Fugue Op. 133: Beethoven's Art of Fugue.
> 
> I'm rather enthusiastic about the Grosse Fuge, to my ears it's as astonishing an accomplishment as the Kyrie of the B minor Mass.


Yeah, I'm afraid that trotting rhythm gets on my nerves after awhile.


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

consuono said:


> Yeah, I'm afraid that trotting rhythm gets on my nerves after awhile.


Curious, but I have a similar response to the tick tock in Bach, for example in BWV 869.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Allerius said:


> Curious, but I have a similar response to the tick tock in Bach, for example in BWV 869.


I assume you're referring to the prelude. I find the tick tock effect intoxicating; you have to put yourself inside of it.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

*Please keep the focus on the thread topic, and not on members' posting habits.

Some posts have been removed because of personal comments.*


----------



## Amadea (Apr 15, 2021)

Allerius said:


> Glenn Gould is as much an authority as Bernstein is an he said that "For me, the 'Grosse Fuge' is not only the greatest work Beethoven ever wrote but just about the most astonishing piece in musical literature." According to Stravinsky, the same piece was a "miracle in music."


I didn't say the compositions you listed are bad, theye are not, but according to Bernstein, they are bad as fugues (or at least that's what I understood of his points). Also, sorry but no, Glenn Gould is not an authority as much as Bernstein. Just look at the dumb things he said about Mozart. Please. Bernstein is a conductor who constantly studied scores and has been to Harvard and did a lot of conferences, published etc., Glenn Gould is just a great pianist. Clearly different competence. I really don't get what is the problem in saying Beethoven is not a great melodist as Mozart or a great contrapuntist as Bach. Beethoven is always seen as this "absolute composer" and I don't get it. Everyone has its own merits and weaknesses. But this has already been discussed in other threads. The point in previous discussions was that Haydn and Mozart use harmonies differently and maybe that's for counterpoint. Idk how that degenarated in a Beethoven's mastery of counterpoint discussion. (Anyway, I'm watching your video "Defending Beethoven" and I think you really misinterpreted Bernstein's words. Bernstein never said Beethoven was bad at counterpoint, or bad at orchestration, or a bad melodist. What he meant in my opinion is that Beethoven in the vast ocean of composers was not the greatest in those aspects taken alone compared to others and your video agrees. He meant one cannot say he's amongst the greatest melodists/harmonists/etc. There's a huge difference.)


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

Bulldog said:


> I assume you're referring to the prelude. I find the tick tock effect intoxicating; you have to put yourself inside of it.


So do I, as well as the intricate interplay between the two upper voices. I imagine it as a duet for oboe and flute. And the "tick tock" is more of a walking bass, as here:


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund (Jan 4, 2016)

I'll have both, thank-you


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

Amadea said:


> I didn't say the compositions you listed are bad, theye are not, but according to Bernstein,* they are bad as fugues* (or at least that's what I understood of his points).


But what is a good fugue? A work rich in formal procedures, such as invertible counterpoint? Because if so, then composer Anton Reicha has plenty of them. But again, if Reicha's fugues are so good, then why they are so obscure?

This link is to a brief explanation of the first movement of Beethoven's op. 131, a fugue. I think that it makes interesting points, showing how Beethoven uses counterpoint in a new way in that movement. How would a composer that created only bad fugues make such a complex, sophisticated, moving fugal piece such as this?


----------



## Amadea (Apr 15, 2021)

Olias said:


> For me, Haydn's London Symphonies, Paris Symphonies, and the ones in between (Channel Symphonies?) are the pinnacle of Classical Period Symphonic writing. Had Mozart lived longer though, I think he would have built onto Haydn's model. The Jupiter Symphony is perfect, so just imagine if he could have built on that.
> 
> BTW, my blog has walkthrough analysis videos for all of these:
> 
> http://somethingclassical.blogspot.com


Thanks for posting your blog! It is very interesting and I saved it. Anyway, I don't get why we keep ignoring the symphonic value of Mozart's piano concertos. Yes, they're not symphonies. It's true. Yet I think they had a role in the development of symphony, so we shouldn't consider just the symphonies as part of Mozart's work in the field in my opinion.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Amadea said:


> Thanks for posting your blog! It is very interesting and I saved it. Anyway, I don't get why we keep ignoring the symphonic value of Mozart's piano concertos. Yes, they're not symphonies. It's true. Yet I think they had a role in the development of symphony, so we shouldn't consider just the symphonies as part of Mozart's work in the field in my opinion.


I see your point, but I rather think that the fuss with the concertos (and the da ponte operas) is a bit too much in every thread/poll about Mozart. In this thead, wouldn't it be more appropriate to talk about works like 




,
which are actually closer to the symphonic form? (It makes sense cause J. Haydn also has a 6-movement symphony, his 60th, if I remember correctly)



hammeredklavier said:


> Also consider; K.345 - a cross between a 4-movement orchestral symphony and incidental/operatic music
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

Allerius said:


> But what is a good fugue? A work rich in formal procedures, such as invertible counterpoint?


Not in itself. There's also musical sense involved.



> I think that it makes interesting points, showing how Beethoven uses counterpoint in a new way in that movement. How would a composer that created only bad fugues make such a complex, sophisticated, moving fugal piece such as this?


Those "new ways" are what make those late Beethoven fugues "bad" in a formal sense. For example, the last movement of Op. 106 is indicated as being for 3 voices. Really?? :lol: But it's monumental anyway.


----------



## Gallus (Feb 8, 2018)

Not a _huge_ fan of Mozart's symphonies, other than maybe the Haffner, the Prague and the G minor.


----------



## Amadea (Apr 15, 2021)

hammeredklavier said:


> I see your point, but I rather think that the fuss with the concertos (and the da ponte operas) is a bit too much in every thread/poll about Mozart.


Oops. I'm new so I didn't know that.



hammeredklavier said:


> In this thead, wouldn't it be more appropriate to talk about works like K. 320 which are actually closer to the symphonic form? (It makes sense cause J. Haydn also has a 6-movement symphony, his 60th, if I remember correctly). Also consider; K.345 - a cross between a 4-movement orchestral symphony and incidental/operatic music


You are absolutely right. My point was that when it comes to Mozart's contribution to the symphony we can't merely look at the actual real symphonies and say "if only he did more", because there are also his other works to look at which contributed in some ways. It would be wrong to overlook them. The piano concertos are just the most famous (and arguably the most beautiful) examples of that.
(P.S.: I started this thread, it might be interesting: A Selection of "Musical Quotes/References")


----------



## cybernaut (Feb 6, 2021)

When it's a matter of personal preference, it's a waste of time trying to argue that your preference is actually based on some objective facts.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

@ #75

Berlioz also disliked Bach. He was a totally different temperament and had little regard for what was good in Haydn. Haydn was too different from most of the romantics, whereas they could appropriate a few select works of Mozart. Still, Brahms said about the largo from Haydn's #88 that he wanted his 9th symphony to sound like this.

Your quotations from Hoffmann are highly misleading as Hoffmann was one of the people responsible for the classical "trinity" of Joseph Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven in other writings (such as the famous text "Beethovens Instrumentalmusik"). (He was not the only one, 20 years earlier Count Waldstein sent Beethoven to Vienna with the phrase "Mozart's spirit from the hands of (Joseph) Haydn. Joseph was the most famous instrumental composer in Europe since the late 1770s. There is a reason why there are "Paris" and "London" symphonies (despite having been in Eisenstadt for decades which was even further off than Salzburg) by him but not by Michael Haydn or CPE Bach.
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. 

For some reason nobody cared enough about Michael Haydn's music to keep it in the repertoire in the early/mid 19th century as happened with at least some works of Handel, Bach Gluck and Joseph Haydn. This is normal, far more famous composers such as CPE Bach or Hasse basically vanished as well.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Kreisler jr said:


> Berlioz also disliked Bach........


Yet, even Mozart's own secular instrumental music shows far more linguistic similarities with Michael's than Joseph's. 
13:00 , 1:45 , 16:45 , 7:30 , 1:50 , 15:10 , 9:30 , 3:00 , 6:20
And as I said numerous times, Joseph's name was NOT in the list of composers Mozart and his circles of connoisseurs examined in the beginning of 1780s. That tells us something.
"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.*" (source)

It's no wonder cause Joseph Haydn's harmonies are (frankly) "dull"; after all, he was the kind of composer who wrote "banalities" like
















and the statically continuous sameness of rhythm in the parts (voices) of the slow movement of the same piece, even at the age of 40. It's exactly the kind of stuff a guy who self-taught himself with Fux's book after his puberty would write. Yes, there are some "innovative" things he did in instrumental music (in terms of "pomposity" and "cheeky surprises"; the Chaos from the Creation being one of his better symphonic intros) in the final decade of the 18th century, but frankly the dullness of harmony/counterpoint persists throughout his work (the 1-hour long "Seven Last words of Christ" being a good example) to make matters worse, he churned out way beyond the amount his talents and capabilities of melody and harmony would allow -and this contributes to the "homogeneity" of his work, more than any other famous composers. 
Just try and listen through his humongous cycles of 100+ symphonies, 70+ string quartets, (most of them having a length of 20~30 minutes) for God's sake. 
None of the things you say regarding church music is substantiated with facts or proof (except "weird personal biases" and "preconceived negative notions" against a highly successful genre of this period). Michael also pioneered the Deutsche hochamt (German high mass), the tradition of German-text settings Schubert and Brahms would later follow.
All you have to do is open your eyes and see the "naked emperor".



hammeredklavier said:


> The J. Haydn symphony is surely not one of his best. (Right?) The inane triadic theme repeated ad-nauseam in the development of the 1st movement strikes me as rather naïve and inflexible. Perhaps it reflects his tendency to "drag things out" with static harmonies (often just slowly circling fifths).
> And to think that he wrote the symphony at age 45... No wonder why he wrote the Seven last words of Christ the way he did.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Kreisler jr said:


> @ #75
> 
> This is normal, far more famous composers such as CPE Bach or Hasse basically vanished as well.


CPE Bach didn't disappear. He's currently regarded as the greatest instrumental composer of his generation.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

EdwardBast said:


> CPE Bach didn't disappear. He's currently regarded as the greatest instrumental composer of his generation.


Hard to reconcile the idea of a composer's disappearance and ongoing projects such as the excellent series of recordings of his keyboard sonatas, by Miklós Spányi, now almost 40 volumes. I think Naxos is also recording the complete solo piano works using a variety of pianists, and Danny Driver is doing a series on Hyperion (two volumes so far, maybe more to come). Also CPE Bach has his complete works available in a large box.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

SanAntone said:


> Hard to reconcile the idea of a composer's disappearance and ongoing projects such as the excellent series of recordings of his keyboard sonatas, by Miklós Spányi, now almost 40 volumes. I think Naxos is also recording the complete solo piano works using a variety of pianists, and Danny Driver is doing a series on Hyperion (two volumes so far, maybe more to come). Also CPE Bach has his complete works available in a large box.


In addition, CPE is now on ArkivMusic's most popular composers listing. The man is on an upward swing.


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

SanAntone said:


> Hard to reconcile the idea of a composer's disappearance and ongoing projects such as the excellent series of recordings of his keyboard sonatas, by Miklós Spányi, now almost 40 volumes. I think Naxos is also recording the complete solo piano works using a variety of pianists, and Danny Driver is doing a series on Hyperion (two volumes so far, maybe more to come). Also CPE Bach has his complete works available in a large box.


That's the piano/keyboard works only, regarding completeness.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

EdwardBast said:


> CPE Bach didn't disappear. He's currently regarded as the greatest instrumental composer of his generation.


Yes, *currently*, but that was not the point. I was talking about the 19th century (as Joseph vs. Michael Haydn's reception after their deaths was the point of contention with Hammeredklavier quoting some praise of Michael's church music. (As an aside, even for the friends of serious church music, Cherubini apparently replaced Michael H. as model in the early 1800s but it simply was not a field in which the interesting musical developments in the first half of the 19th century took place.)

Is it really so hard to read the context of what I wrote? 
The context was Hoffmann, Beethoven and early romanticism, or even more bluntly which dead composers were still (or again, like JSB) played in the early/mid 19th century, thus accessible to the public, not to specialists or composers like Brahms who were very interested in older music. Of course he did not disappear completely but largely disappeared from the public (during the 19th and early 20th century, Gluck was clearly better known and more highly regarded of the CPE Bach generation and maybe even Friedemann Bach was, partly because of a romantic novel, better known.) And by the early 20th century, musicology had arrived and the age of large catalogues and editions, so of course, CPE Bach was also honored in that way
CPE Bach was considered great in the second half of the 18th century and still highly regarded by someone like Beethoven.

But already for Beethoven JS Bach was far more important. I'd say that 50 years after their respective deaths CPE was at least as forgotten to the public as JS Bach was and the latter's music was 1800 better known and used for keyboard and composition teaching than CPE was in 1840. Beethoven encountered a bit of CPE Bach as a youth but in his maturity he took pains to get as much music of JS as possible (and actually had the more important keyboard works all in his library)

Even today, the "revival" of CPE Bach is (like most other such revivals, with the exception of Baroque opera) almost entirely restricted to recordings.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Allerius said:


> But what is a good fugue? A work rich in formal procedures, such as invertible counterpoint? Because if so, then composer Anton Reicha has plenty of them. But again, if Reicha's fugues are so good, then why they are so obscure?
> 
> This link is to a brief explanation of the first movement of Beethoven's op. 131, a fugue. I think that it makes interesting points, showing how Beethoven uses counterpoint in a new way in that movement. How would a composer that created only bad fugues make such a complex, sophisticated, moving fugal piece such as this?


Yes. In any case, this whole line of argument is silly. Beethoven's fugues are exactly right for the works of which they are part. They are not independent abstract works, but functional parts of larger wholes. Critiques that don't take this into account are pedantic and shallow.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Kreisler jr said:


> *But already for Beethoven JS Bach was far more important.* I'd say that 50 years after their respective deaths CPE was at least as forgotten to the public as JS Bach was and the latter's music was 1800 better known and used for keyboard and composition teaching than CPE was in 1840. Beethoven encountered a bit of CPE Bach as a youth but in his maturity *he took pains to get as much music of JS as possible* (and actually had the more important keyboard works all in his library)
> 
> *Even today, the "revival" of CPE Bach is (like most other such revivals, with the exception of Baroque opera) almost entirely restricted to recordings.*


Fifty years after his death, if one said the name Bach unqualified, it was assumed one meant CPE. Beethoven repeatedly sought scores of CPE's works from his publisher. CPE's influence on Beethoven's music, on it's most innovative features, is substantial. The construction of Beethoven's themes, with their internal contrasts and violent disjunctions owes more to CPE than to anyone else.

CPE is widely performed today by the same instrumentalists and ensembles that play JS.


----------



## Musicaterina (Apr 5, 2020)

I listen to the symphonies of both. By Mozart, the symphony no. 29 (KV 201) and the "Jupiter Symphony" are my favourites. By Joseph Haydn, I like best the London Symphonies.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

EdwardBast said:


> Fifty years after his death, if one said the name Bach unqualified, it was assumed one meant CPE.


Why then in A.F.C. Kollmann's sun diagram of composers created in 1799, is J.S. Bach featured in the center?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustus_Frederic_Christopher_Kollmann


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

*Reminder of the long-standing forum rule: do not comment negatively about people's posting styles, and don't get personal.

Some posts have been removed.*


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

tdc said:


> Why then in A.F.C. Kollmann's sun diagram of composers created in 1799, is J.S. Bach featured in the center?
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustus_Frederic_Christopher_Kollmann


Probably because he had a different opinion?


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

EdwardBast said:


> Probably because he had a different opinion?


Yeah, I believe it was J.N. Forkel who created the diagram, and it was Kollman who published on newspaper. I'm not entirely sure, I have to check.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

EdwardBast said:


> CPE's influence on Beethoven's music, on it's most innovative features, is substantial. The construction of Beethoven's themes, with their internal contrasts and violent disjunctions owes more to CPE than to anyone else.


In certain aspects though, C.P.E. Bach seems to belong more in the older traditions, the Doctrine of the affections. I think in certain slow movements of his keyboard concertos, there's not enough juxtaposition of feelings to be considered fully "Classical". Take the E minor Wq.14, for example. The outer movements are bangers, but the slow movement with its constant recitative-like expressions in the soloist strikes me as rather the opposite of the kind of style you described.
The abrupt shock effect created in Wq.182 No.3 symphony in C (the way to begin the second movement) might come off as something Beethovenian. But again, Beethoven owes far more to Knecht's Pastoral symphony (1783) more than anything in this regard.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

hammeredklavier said:


> In certain aspects though, C.P.E. Bach seems to belong more in the older traditions, the Doctrine of the affections. I think in certain slow movements of his keyboard concertos, there's not enough juxtaposition of feelings to be considered fully "Classical". Take the E minor Wq.14, for example. The outer movements are bangers, but the slow movement with its constant recitative-like expressions in the soloist strikes me as rather the opposite of the kind of style you described.
> The abrupt shock effect created in Wq.182 No.3 symphony in C (the way to begin the second movement) might come off as something Beethovenian. But again, Beethoven owes far more to Knecht's Pastoral symphony (1783) more than anything in this regard.


Here some prime examples of what I was talking about:

The first movement of the third Prussian Sonata modulates to G major from E major within the first theme and, like many of Beethoven's opening themes, it can't be recapitulated in anything like its original form because its dramatic juxtapositions don't bear repeating. It would be like repeating a scene in a stage play:






The symphonies Wq. 182 are full of dramatic contrasts and disjunctions. The first movements of #3 and#5 are good examples. The slow movement of #3 is strangely dark. (And Knecht's influence on the Pastoral is irrelevant and off point. The idea of a pastoral symphony is nothing like common elements of thematic process.) This video, for reasons I can't discern, features the tallest man in Croatia on bassoon, which is odd given that there is no bassoon part. 

Symphony Wq. 182 #3






Symphony Wq. 182 #5


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

EdwardBast said:


> Here some prime examples of what I was talking about:
> The first movement of the third Prussian Sonata modulates to G major from E major within the first theme and, like many of Beethoven's opening themes, it can't be recapitulated in anything like its original form because its dramatic juxtapositions don't bear repeating. It would be like repeating a scene in a stage play:


You mean third relations and the post-Baroque style binary form? None of those expressions seems really striking in terms of linguistic similarity to Beethoven, to me, I'm afraid. They remind me of Emanuel's German contemporaries; G.M. Monn, G. Benda, C.H. Graun, J.J. Quantz, F.X. Richter, and his brother W.F. Bach, who actually had idiomatic expressions similar to Emanuel. Is there any evidence Beethoven actually admired C.P.E. Bach (or was interested in studying C.P.E. Bach's work) to the same extent Mozart, J. Haydn did?

If you really think those things in C.P.E. Bach are serious "resemblances" to Beethoven, try these:

J. Haydn Mass in E flat: 



Beethoven Op.55/ii: 




J. Haydn Op.20/5/iv: 



Beethoven Op.55/iv: 




J. Haydn Op.76 No.6/ii: 



Beethoven Op.130/v: 






EdwardBast said:


> The symphonies Wq. 182 are full of dramatic contrasts and disjunctions. The first movements of #3 and#5 are good examples. The slow movement of #3 is strangely dark.


Well, this is "strangely dark"; (it was even written in the same year as Emanuel's Wq.182 set)




and this contains "dramatic contrasts";







> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz_Xaver_Richter#Early_Symphony
> "The Adagio and Fugue in G minor for Strings (1760) is one of Franz Xaver Richter's symphonies, which features the learned style in 18th century orchestral works. His experience in churches also contributes to his sophisticated contrapuntal style in his orchestral works.[18] The first movement begins with the tonic key, G minor, entitled Adagio and fugue, and it distinguishes from later sonata form by Haydn and Mozart. The opening material is quite different from the primary theme in symphonies by Mozart and Haydn. *First, the opening material is not highly melodically recognizable and easy to grasp for the audience.* One could call it primary key area instead of the primary theme. It is in highly learned style with a lot of sequential passages. ... As Jochen Reutter acclaims, Franz Xaver Richter's compositional idiom "changed from a late Baroque sound to a tonal language which reached the threshold of the Classical style. He was influenced by the 18th-century learned style and he adapted the Mannheim symphonic style with his own differentiated instrumentation." Also according to Reutter, "his [Richter's] works from this period include such conservative traits as fugal techniques, *Baroque sequences and the frequent use of minor tonality."* As shown in this work Adagio and Fugue in G minor for Strings, the first movement is almost entirely based on various kinds of sequences and fugal style. This early symphony makes an intriguing subject for a scholarly study of early symphonies."


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

EdwardBast said:


> Knecht's influence on the Pastoral is irrelevant and off point. The idea of a pastoral symphony is nothing like common elements of thematic process.


The similarities in construction of themes, with their internal contrasts and violent disjunctions between Knecht and Beethoven seem far more striking to me. And there's actually evidence Beethoven studied Knecht's work.
"Vollständige Orgelschule (Leipzig, 1795-1798/1989) - Ludwig van Beethoven owned a copy of this work"

Knecht symphony: 



Beethoven Op.125/i: 




Knecht symphony: 



Beethoven Op.67/iii: 









I. Allegretto - Andante pastorale - Allegretto - Villanella grazioso, un poco adagio : 00:00
II. Tempo mederno (Allegretto) : 09:40
III. Allegro molto : 12:44
IV. Tempo mederno (Allegro molto) : 18:38
V. L´inno con variazioni - Andantino -Coro : Allegro con brio - Andantino : 20:59

also, notice the continuity












and recalling of themes across movements


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

hammeredklavier said:


> You mean third relations and the post-Baroque style binary form? None of those expressions seems really striking in terms of linguistic similarity to Beethoven, to me, I'm afraid.


My remark was primarily about thematic process, specifically, themes that can't be literally recapitulated because of their dramatic structure and internal contrasts. The harmonic language is just one obvious element in the sense of disjunction. Listen to the whole movement and compare the truncated version of the theme in the recap with the exposition. Ask yourself why the recap of the theme consists of a single phrase in the major mode and then a contrasting statement in the minor and why it's only a quarter the length of the original statement. (It encapsulates the modal contrast of the original theme in the most stark and direct way possible.) The commonality with Beethoven is the dramatization of thematic processes and its effect on structure. In this case it has an effect on the structure of the whole cycle. The unresolved dramatic issues of the first movement are taken up in the second movement, whose theme transforms the theme of the first movement in C# minor (which harks back to the final phrases of the first movement's development, also in C# minor). A similar example of dramatic thematic process and its implications for overall structure is the Symphony in D in the Wq 183 set - I'm talking about the connection between the opening movement and finale themes.



hammeredklavier said:


> Is there any evidence Beethoven actually admired C.P.E. Bach (or was interested in studying C.P.E. Bach's work) to the same extent Mozart, J. Haydn did?


As I've written before: Yes, Beethoven's letters to publishers seeking CPE's works and his statement that his works are worthy of everyone's study.


----------



## jkl (May 4, 2021)

I enjoy listening to both composers' symphonies. It's not such a case of one or the other.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

EdwardBast said:


> The commonality with Beethoven is the dramatization of thematic processes and its effect on structure. In this case it has an effect on the structure of the whole cycle. The unresolved dramatic issues of the first movement are taken up in the second movement, whose theme transforms the theme of the first movement in C# minor (which harks back to the final phrases of the first movement's development, also in C# minor). A similar example of dramatic thematic process and its implications for overall structure is the Symphony in D in the Wq 183 set - I'm talking about the connection between the opening movement and finale themes.


Ok, but how much of it was really C.P.E. Bach's individual/distinct characteristics?

10-minute symphonies or concertos with-
movements that transition into the next movements (without proper resolution)
OR
movements with thematic resemblances
-weren't uncommon at the time. Even Mozart's 23rd, 26th, 32nd contain them.

And I think that the "strange darkness" of the slow movement of Wq.182 No.3 is just something that's idiomatically similar to stuff like Mozart's 5th symphony, (which predates the C.P.E. Bach work); 




These practices exercised in Mozart K.243, for instance-
smooth transition across movements:








thematic resemblances across movements;








-were originated from the Salzburg Catholic music tradition (Biber, Eberlin, Adlgasser, L. Mozart, etc), not C.P.E. Bach.



EdwardBast said:


> As I've written before: Yes, Beethoven's letters to publishers seeking CPE's works and his statement that his works are worthy of everyone's study.


Yes, I've heard you say this several times before. But in which letter does Beethoven specifically talk about C.P.E. Bach? I just don't think Beethoven cared about C.P.E. Bach to the extent you claim he did.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

The CPE revival has definitely been fun, it's gotten me into the Hamburg Symphonies which have been great listening.

Who's actually the most historically important post-baroque composer due for a revival after him? Gluck?


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

fbjim said:


> Who's actually the most historically important post-baroque composer due for a revival after him? Gluck?


Gluck, Adolph Hasse, and Michael Haydn;


hammeredklavier said:


> (13:18, 13:24 and 14:34)
> 
> 
> 
> ...





hammeredklavier said:


> Look at the melodic charm;
> 
> 
> 
> ...





hammeredklavier said:


> Listen at the way to set the text "Lacrimosa dies illa" to music at 11:40.
> And the subsequent passages of chromaticism from the rest of the movement.





hammeredklavier said:


> Schubert wept after his visit to Michael's grave and wrote about the experience to his (Schubert's) brother. His Deutschemesse is his homage to Michael, who pretty much started the tradition of German-text settings. As for Beethoven, there's strong evidence, later in his life, he was inspired by Michael's use of Gregorian modes. Of course Michael wasn't one of his "heroes" (Handel, Bach, Mozart), but neither was Joseph.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

hammeredklavier said:


> Ok, but how much of it was really C.P.E. Bach's individual/distinct characteristics?
> 
> 10-minute symphonies or concertos with-
> movements that transition into the next movements (without proper resolution)
> ...


As should be obvious, and as I took pains to stress, it's not a few individual traits at issue. It's the dramatization of thematic processes and following through with the implications of doing so.

Look in a collection of Beethoven's letters with an index under CPE Bach. I've given direct quotations in other posts on this matter and don't feel like looking it up again.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

I enjoy both equally well from two of the greatest composers of the symphony. With Haydn, his imagination and development is unparalleled when you listen to his early chamber scale symphonies and then his large scale grand public symphonies for London. This is artistic progress. Likewise with Mozart on his infant symphonies compared to his early pre-Romantic last few masterpieces foreshadowing Romanticism to come.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Some people say Joseph Haydn's early symphonies are "more mature" than Mozart's. But are they really?










"*I know of no other composer as fundamentally transformed while writing in minor keys*, and none except Gesualdo and Wagner, who made such unforgettable use of chromaticism. (For Wagner himself, Mozart was 'the great Chromatiker'.)"
< Music, Sense and Nonsense: Collected Essays and Lectures , By Alfred Brendel , Page 14>

Even in works Mozart wrote in 1772/3, I still hear "it".
KV 129 - Symphony No. 17 in G major 



 (14:30)

14th: 



16th: 



15th: 




Joseph Haydn just doesn't sound like this in terms of harmony:
Symphony No. 26 in E-Flat Major, K. 184: II. Andante (1773) 




Remember; Mozart was writing like this by 1773:




the harmonies of the slow movement:


----------



## CopistaSignorGomez (Dec 9, 2021)

tdc said:


> Why then in A.F.C. Kollmann's sun diagram of composers created in 1799, is J.S. Bach featured in the center?
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustus_Frederic_Christopher_Kollmann


I guess he really likes Bach.

In response to the topic:

I really like Mozart symphonies, I'm a mozartian so it's not strange.

I can find lot of motifs from Myslivecek, Michael Haydn ( as hammerklavier had demonstrate extensively ) or JC Bach in Mozart "mature" output, you can make a huge list; but it's not that recurent Mozart using Haydn theme.

In my taste, I found Myslivecek, Michael Haydn and JC Bach tremendous composers and prefer them to Haydn.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

I have probably only listened to 30 of Haydn's symphonies - the London set - Paris and some sturm and drang. No 88. I like them all and probably enjoy most the last 4. I doubt if I have missed any that I could take a really strong liking to. But the best Mozart symphonies - to my taste - are better. I feel like the Jupiter is the equal of any Beethoven symphony - but dont feel the same about Haydn's best - good as they are. Mozart's symphonies are certainly more famous in the general public perception - few mature people will not recognise the music of the g minor 1st movement - the Jupiter symphony is more famous than any Haydn symphony - so is the Prague. None of this proves that Mozart's symphonies are objectively better - just some observations.
PS - Haydn' trumpet concerto it seems is the one piece that the general public will recognise - and not any of the symphony music.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

The "general public" will very probably not recognize any Mozart symphony besides the beginning of the #40, thanks to Waldo de los rios or makers of ringtones. Eine Kleine Nachtmusik or the Andante from K 467 or the "out of Africa" slow clarinet concerto movement are far more famous than anything from the Jupiter (the most memorable melody of which is that buffonesque ditty at the end of the exposition, so it does not really make a great "best of classics sampler" piece).

If one goes by the people who have heard *some* classical music, the difference would not be large either. Haydn's 94, 100, 101, 104, maybe also 82, 83, 85 are about as well known as late Mozart. The two last Mozart symphonies might have the edge over all of the other symphonies by either composer but I strongly doubt that the "Linz" or "Prague" or 39th symphonies are better known than the "Surprise", Military or "Clock" by Haydn. I got to know them basically at the same time as a beginner and it was mostly by accident and an already looming Mozart anniversary that led me to listening to most Mozart symphonies before more than a handful of Haydn's.


----------



## Rogerx (Apr 27, 2018)

CopistaSignorGomez said:


> I guess he really likes Bach.
> 
> In response to the topic:
> 
> ...


Nice first post, welcome.
On topic . I like them equal


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Kreisler jr said:


> The "general public" will very probably not recognize any Mozart symphony besides the beginning of the #40, thanks to Waldo de los rios or makers of ringtones. Eine Kleine Nachtmusik or the Andante from K 467 or the "out of Africa" slow clarinet concerto movement are far more famous than anything from the Jupiter (the most memorable melody of which is that buffonesque ditty at the end of the exposition, so it does not really make a great "best of classics sampler" piece).
> 
> If one goes by the people who have heard *some* classical music, the difference would not be large either.* Haydn's 94, 100, 101, 104, maybe also 82, 83, 85 are about as well known as late Mozart.* The two last Mozart symphonies might have the edge over all of the other symphonies by either composer but I strongly doubt that the "Linz" or "Prague" or 39th symphonies are better known than the "Surprise", Military or "Clock" by Haydn. I got to know them basically at the same time as a beginner and it was mostly by accident and an already looming Mozart anniversary that led me to listening to most Mozart symphonies before more than a handful of Haydn's.


I would dispute that. I used to run a classical music CD shop and from the feedback I had from buyers over the years - Mozart's symphonies were much better known than Haydn's. I had people coming in and buying several different versions of the last 4 Mozart symphonies - that never seemed to happen with Haydn. I would see someone come in for the London symphonies - buy the DG set with Karajan conducting - and never see them again. I had one or two really keen Haydn devotees who would seek out the less famous works or ask if I had the Dorati complete set on Decca. 
But on this forum - there seems to be more favour for Haydn than is actual the case in the general classical music buying public.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

CopistaSignorGomez said:


> I guess he really likes Bach.
> 
> In response to the topic:
> 
> ...


did you vote in this poll? If not - please vote.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Kreisler jr said:


> The "general public" will very probably not recognize any Mozart symphony besides the beginning of the #40, thanks to Waldo de los rios or makers of ringtones.


Actually Mozart's another G minor, K.183 also beats (by having more views on youtube; 22,463,598 & 5,993,182; than) any of Haydn symphonies in "popularity". If you're trying to suggest Mozart is "unjustly popular because of Waldo de los rios or makers of ringtones" compared to Haydn, remember I can make countless arguments of the opposite (don't get me started). I don't know why some Haydn enthusiasts think this way: "Not to be obnoxious, but I sometimes wonder if Mozart is more popular than Haydn because of "Amadeus"". -wkasimer (post1416485)


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)




----------



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

If Mozart had lived as long as Haydn, there would be no competition. Mozart was already the greater symphonist by the time he died, but his life was too short to compete with Haydn's lifetime of mature symphonies.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

vtpoet said:


> If Mozart had lived as long as Haydn, there would be no competition. Mozart was already the greater symphonist by the time he died, but his life was too short to compete with Haydn's lifetime of mature symphonies.


That all depends on whether you think Mozart's last 4 symphonies are better than Haydn's best 4 or not regardless of how long they lived.


----------



## HenryPenfold (Apr 29, 2018)

vtpoet said:


> If Mozart had lived as long as Haydn, there would be no competition. Mozart was already the greater symphonist by the time he died, but his life was too short to compete with Haydn's lifetime of mature symphonies.


Agreed.

Voted Mozart.

Thinking about 25, 38, 39, 40 & 41, what if Mozart had lived another 50 years?


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

vtpoet said:


> Mozart was already the greater symphonist by the time he died


They sound different to me to the point it can't be established one is objectively better than the other. 
Anyway, in the slow movements of K.319, K.338, K.551, I feel the sense of nostalgia is just infinite.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

the harmonies (K.184/ii): 



 (anticipates K.421/i and K.477)


----------



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

hammeredklavier said:


> They sound different to me to the point it can't be established one is objectively better than the other.
> Anyway, in the slow movements of K.319, K.338, K.551, I feel the sense of nostalgia is just infinite.


I agree with all that but, you know, we had a choice to make...


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

I voted for Haydn because I listen to his much more often than Mozart's. I find it amazing that the vote is tied after 87 votes.


----------



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

SanAntone said:


> I voted for Haydn because I listen to his much more often than Mozart's. I find it amazing that the vote is tied after 87 votes.


Me too, and apart from a handful of Mozart's symphonies, I find that J Haydn's have far more character and variety both in tone and instrumentation.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

I choose Mozart at this time for the only reason being I’ve spent more time with them.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

A little bit of column A, a little bit of column B ... actually more than a little bit.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

vtpoet said:


> J Haydn's have far more character and variety both in tone and instrumentation.


Haydn is great at bringing out happiness and forte with them. (I don't think the Sturm-und-drang deviates from this very much as I explained on several occasions 



 and the harmonies are less dissonant) Personally tbh, I would have given him more points if he cut down the number of his works by half, wrote his minor works as shorter overture-like symphonies, and diverted his creativity into writing different orchestral stuff like K.345, or K.477 that utilizes the exoticness of 3 basset horns, 1 contrabassoon.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Haydn, Joseph. For the ones I like of each composer, I get tired of Mozart's, but not of Haydn, J's.


----------



## Haydn man (Jan 25, 2014)

Voted Haydn for the overall enjoyment and variety 
However Mozart Prague Symphony is probably my all time number 1 symphony


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

RogerWaters said:


> Which do you prefer?
> 
> I have a special soft spot for Haydn's symphonies where Mozart's, despite any technical brilliance they possess, leave me cold.
> 
> ...


Agree 100% .


----------



## Animal the Drummer (Nov 14, 2015)

Mozart's, and it isn't even close. There are numerous Haydn symphonies I like, but some Mozart symphonies (36, 39, 41) have found their way into my heart at a far deeper level than his distinguished contemporary's music has ever done.


----------



## Terrapin (Apr 15, 2011)

I like Mozart's 40 and 41 more than any of Haydn's. Having said that, there are only about a dozen Mozart symphonies worth listening to (mainly due to so many being youthful works) while there are hardly any duds among Haydn's 104. My favorites are 44, 45, 92, 103, and 104. If the choice is between a hundred good symphonies and a couple of great symphonies, I would definitely take the former. I would make the same argument regarding the string quartets of the two composers.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Terrapin said:


> there are only about a dozen Mozart symphonies worth listening to (mainly due to so many being youthful works) while there are hardly any duds among Haydn's 104.


On what grounds? I sense "immaturity" 



 in Haydn works from 1760~1772 



 as well (eg. the part-writing of Op.20/2/ii or the C major sequencing in the ending of Op.20/2/iv). Compare
Haydn 26th: 



Mozart 18th: 



 (take note of the expressiveness at 3:04) 






hammeredklavier said:


> the harmonies (K.184/ii):
> 
> 
> 
> (anticipates K.421/i and K.477)


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Terrapin said:


> I like Mozart's 40 and 41 more than any of Haydn's. Having said that, there are only about a dozen Mozart symphonies worth listening to (mainly due to so many being youthful works) while there are hardly any duds among Haydn's 104. My favorites are 44, 45, 92, 103, and 104. If the choice is between a hundred good symphonies and a couple of great symphonies, I would definitely take the former. I would make the same argument regarding the string quartets of the two composers.


There are people who like all of Mozart's symphonies and none of Haydn's - and vice versa.

I have heard enough of the lesser known symphonies of Haydn to understand I only need the best dozen or so. I dont need to plough through the whole lot. Of the last dozen symphonies by Mozart - I think they are all worth listening to and many of the early works too. Its just a case of preference.
Vivaldi composed over 100 good violin concertos and Mozart just 5 - 3 of them are great in my view and I would take them over the Vivaldi 100+ though the thought of losing the 4 seasons is painful.
Would I let Haydn's 104 symphonies go to save Beethoven's Eroica? Absolutely. And I would do it for the Jupiter too.


----------



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

When I was younger, I would have readily chosen Mozart over Haydn. Haydn seldom touches the ebullience, energy and insouciance of Mozart's youthful symphonies. Each one of them just makes me: Happy. But being older I've learned to appreciate the less brilliant but more characterful genius of Haydn's symphonies, like his "Philosopher" Symphony or the "Fire" Symphony. I love his Paris Symphonies and his London Symphonies, especially the 104th, I mean, Damn. Haydn just kept getting better and better and better. It's not like you can say that Haydn ever plateaued.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

vtpoet said:


> When I was younger, I would have readily chosen Mozart over Haydn. Haydn seldom touches the ebullience, energy and insouciance of Mozart's youthful symphonies. Each one of them just makes me: Happy. But being older I've learned to appreciate the less brilliant but more characterful genius of Haydn's symphonies, like his "Philosopher" Symphony or the "Fire" Symphony. I love his Paris Symphonies and his London Symphonies, especially the 104th, I mean, Damn. Haydn just kept getting better and better and better. It's not like you can say that Haydn ever plateaued.


yes I agree with you there - the 104th is as good as the best of them - and maybe the best.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

so memorable, yet concise:


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

I've been skimming Haydn, and I do indeed find Mozart more sophisticated and brilliant. But Haydn does have a simplicity about him, even more so than Mozart, that is quite charming, but it doesn't work for me.


----------



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I've been skimming Haydn, and I do indeed find Mozart more sophisticated and brilliant. But Haydn does have a simplicity about him, even more so than Mozart, that is quite charming, but it doesn't work for me.


I can appreciate that, but nowhere in Mozart's symphonies will you find anything like Haydn's 6th, 7th and 8th symphonies, Morning, Noon and Evening. But I get it. Haydn seldom approaches Mozart's lyricism and pathos.


----------



## Rogerx (Apr 27, 2018)

This is a very close call by voters.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

vtpoet said:


> But I get it. Haydn seldom approaches Mozart's lyricism and pathos.


But if you're not after lyricism and pathos, Mozart simply won't do!


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I've been skimming Haydn, and I do indeed find Mozart more sophisticated and brilliant. But Haydn does have a simplicity about him, even more so than Mozart, that is quite charming, but it doesn't work for me.


ha ha thats funny - some others have been saying Haydn is more complex and Mozart is simple


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

It's probably been said several times before but of Mozart's symphonies are ca. 30 early, followed by a handful of occasional pieces and 3-5 late masterpieces. The 30+ early ones contain a few very good works but are overall pretty similar, mostly italianate JC Bachian (not to forget the important influence of Hieronymus Spitalgassler and other unjustly forgotten Austrian church musicians), very regular, melodic and charming.

Whereas with Haydn we have ~23 late symphonies (82-104) and then many more often stylistically rather different ones from his earlier work. They cover a much wider range, from the concertante elements of the Morning/Noon/Evening or #13 or #31 to experiments with slow first movements like 22 or 34, the "raw" minor mode pieces around 1770 (44, 45, 49 etc.), theatrical pieces like #60 etc.
I suspect the main reason for some preferences is that the 5-6 latest Mozart symphonies are easy to get and hardly anyone cares about the early ones anyway whereas people cannot even be bothered to listen to the best 30 Haydn symphonies, including some not late ones to get an impression of the diversity, much less all 104. 
And I admit that especially the last 3 Mozart symphonies have an "individuality" of each work that is more pronounced than with most Haydn symphonies and more in line with romantic tastes. Although I find the last three Haydn symphonies (or 82, 83, 86) every bit as individual, this feature is not as obvious as with Mozart 39-41 where the very sound (down to instrumentation: no trumpets in the g minor, no oboes in the Eb flat major, no clarinets in the Jupiter) of each work is strikingly different.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Haydn is in fact more cookie-cutter than some members here make him out to be.

45th/i: 



60th/i: 



85th/i: 




85th/ii: 



100th/ii: 




44th/iv: 



60th/iv: 




83rd: 



 (7:44)
65th: 



 (3:51)
60th: 



 (2:12)

+The slow movements of the 49th and 56th.

Yes, there is some use of asymmetrical phrasing and whatnot in the middle range of the symphonies, but the melodies and harmonies are not very memorable, it's hard to tell one apart from another. The problem lies more in the quantity and overall length (ie. Haydn having far less overture-symphonies than Mozart). 
Mozart's 2nd, 3rd, 11th are works misattributed to him, btw.


----------



## HenryPenfold (Apr 29, 2018)

hammeredklavier said:


> Haydn is in fact way more cookie-cutter than some members here make him out to be.
> 
> 45th/i:
> 
> ...


Sadly, what you say contains a lot of truth. I do love Papa, though.


----------



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

Just a shout out for Michael Haydn and Carl Ditters von Dittersdorf. Dittersdorf is said to have written some 120 symphonies and they are largely unrecorded. His six surviving Orpheus symphonies are works of genius. As much as I like M Haydn, I'd probably call Dittersdorf the greater 18th symphonist after Joseph and Mozart.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

The passage in 85,i is an intentional quotation because the "Farewell" was particularly popular in Paris (those ignorant idiots who took Joseph Haydn for the best instrumental composer of his age because they had not heard enough Michael and Spitalgasser). So this is about as silly to claim this as a "fault" as pointing out the Figaro quotation in the Giovanni finale.
I am too tired of the other typical HK strawmanning and cherrypickings to even bother. ANY classical composer has lots of "pre-cut" passages, Mozart and Beethoven no fewer than Haydn. If one cannot see beyond this, bad luck.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

vtpoet said:


> As much as I like M Haydn, I'd probably call Dittersdorf the greater 18th symphonist after Joseph and Mozart.


It's up to you if you don't care for harmonic depth.


hammeredklavier said:


> Take note of the harmonies at 4:10 (I feel 'pain' at 5:00 and 'consolation' at 5:27). The slow movement in a major key is so sad; the harmonies at 9:20, and the interplay of wind solos at 10:45. The contrapuntal acrobatics (17:30) in the third, final movement are also dazzling. I think he's especially good at this sort of stuff (as an organist); building up with contrapuntal dissonance and climaxing with a pedal - kind of reminds me of the Domine jesu from Mozart's Requiem.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

PlaySalieri said:


> yes I agree with you there - the 104th is as good as the best of them - and maybe the best.


Post 153 suggests you haven't heard them all, or perhaps even most of them? Were this true, then your rating of the best wouldn't mean much, would it?


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

EdwardBast said:


> Post 153 suggests you haven't heard them all, or perhaps even most of them? Were this true, then your rating of the best wouldn't mean much, would it?


There may be better symphonies of Haydn that I have not heard - unlikely - but you are right.

I suppose I will have to live with that.


----------



## CopistaSignorGomez (Dec 9, 2021)

Kreisler jr said:


> It's probably been said several times before but of Mozart's symphonies are ca. 30 early, followed by a handful of occasional pieces and 3-5 late masterpieces. The 30+ early ones contain a few very good works but are overall pretty similar, mostly italianate JC Bachian (not to forget the important influence of Hieronymus Spitalgassler and other unjustly forgotten Austrian church musicians), very regular, melodic and charming.
> 
> Whereas with Haydn we have ~23 late symphonies (82-104) and then many more often stylistically rather different ones from his earlier work. They cover a much wider range, from the concertante elements of the Morning/Noon/Evening or #13 or #31 to experiments with slow first movements like 22 or 34, the "raw" minor mode pieces around 1770 (44, 45, 49 etc.), theatrical pieces like #60 etc.
> I suspect the main reason for some preferences is that the 5-6 latest Mozart symphonies are easy to get and hardly anyone cares about the early ones anyway whereas people cannot even be bothered to listen to the best 30 Haydn symphonies, including some not late ones to get an impression of the diversity, much less all 104.
> And I admit that especially the last 3 Mozart symphonies have an "individuality" of each work that is more pronounced than with most Haydn symphonies and more in line with romantic tastes. Although I find the last three Haydn symphonies (or 82, 83, 86) every bit as individual, this feature is not as obvious as with Mozart 39-41 where the very sound (down to instrumentation: no trumpets in the g minor, no oboes in the Eb flat major, no clarinets in the Jupiter) of each work is strikingly different.


Hieronymus Spitalgassler ?

I can't find anything about this composer.

I'm been searching systematically the influences of other composers on Mozart composition style, so I'm pretty interest to know about this composer.


----------



## CopistaSignorGomez (Dec 9, 2021)

vtpoet said:


> Just a shout out for Michael Haydn and Carl Ditters von Dittersdorf. Dittersdorf is said to have written some 120 symphonies and they are largely unrecorded. His six surviving Orpheus symphonies are works of genius. As much as I like M Haydn, I'd probably call Dittersdorf the greater 18th symphonist after Joseph and Mozart.


I think there a list of very good galante symphonic composers with Michael Haydn, Myslivecek, JC Bach at the top in my opinion.

I like very much Johann Stamitz as well, a bit earlier, and in my view, real father of the classical symphony pattern; plus many others like Vanhal.


----------

