# Chamber Music: Haydn or Schubert



## peeyaj

Poll: Who is your favorite chamber music composer between Haydn and Schubert..

Joseph Haydn is generally credited with creating the modern form of chamber music as we know it.[12] In 83 string quartets, 45 piano trios, and numerous string trios, duos and wind ensembles, Haydn established the conversational style of composition and the overall form that was to dominate the world of chamber music for the next two centuries.

As Beethoven, in his last quartets, went off in his own direction, Franz Schubert carried on and established the emerging romantic style. In his 31 years, Schubert devoted much of his life to chamber music, composing 15 string quartets, two piano trios, string trios, a piano quintet commonly known as the Trout Quintet, an octet for strings and winds, and his famous quintet for two violins, viola, and two cellos.

*Haydn*

*Piano Trios*

(the cello part may be lacking, but they were delightful, nonetheless)

Piano Trios # 1-15
Piano Trios # 16-30
Piano Trios # 31-45

*String Quartets*

String Quartets Opp. 1, 2, & 3
String Quartets Opp. 9, 17, & 20
String Quartets Opp. 64, 71, 74, & 76 (shows his mastery in the string quartet foem)
String Quartets Opp. 77 & 103

String Trios

String Trios # 1-15
String Trios # 16-30

*Schubert*

*
Piano Trios*

Piano Trio in Bb, D.898
Piano Trio in Eb, D.929

*String Quartets*

String Quartet in c, D.703 *"Quartettsatz"*
String Quartet in a, D.804 *"Rosamunde"*
String Quartet in d, D.810 "*Death and the Maiden"* (one of the greatest quartets ever written)
String Quartet in G, D.887

*Octet in F Minor*

*Piano Quintets*

Piano Quintet in A, D.667 *"Trout"* (one of the most popular chamber works)

*String Quintets*

String Quintet in C, D.956 (the greatest chamber music ever written?)

Haydn has the greatest number, but Schubert has the variety (and arguably the superior oeuvre).

*
Who's works do you enjoy more?*

(
Interestingly, DDD ranked Schubert second to Beethoven as the greatest chamber composer, but they replaced him with Mozart and he's now in the 3rd place and Haydn is in the 4th place. In 100 Greatest Chamber works, Schubert has three works in the top 10 (occupying the 2nd, 5th and 6th place), while Haydn's Emperor is on the 16th place.

Haydn's appears 14 times on the list while Schubert has 9 items with all of his substantial works appearing on the top 100.)


----------



## Arsakes

I always like to put Schubert near Schumann, for their alphabetically similarity, and if this poll was between them I would vote Schumann certainly.

But your question is a challenging one. 

I listened to two of Schubert Piano Trios, they're very long and well written ... Haydn's are very good as well. But Haydn's Trios have practical use for me plus their beauty! so I prefer them to Schubert's.
Haydn's string quartet 1,2,3 are so great that sometimes I listen to them in the car!

It was a hard one for me to choose, but I vote for Haydn because I've lived with them for 6 years, but I know Schubert just for a year.


----------



## Quartetfore

The last three quartets of Schubert are at the highest level of the Quartet form, though there are some beautiful moments in the early works. On the other hand, from the Op 20 Haydn composed one outstanding work after another. I for one can`t pick one composer over another.


----------



## Moira

Death and the Maiden alone gets my vote. It is a "perfect" string quartet.


----------



## Arsakes

Now we have two polls to bash poor Haydn


----------



## Moira

Not bashing Haydn. I like Haydn. I just prefer Schubert's String Quartets.


----------



## kv466

I have never been able to properly digest Schubert but my mind clearly recognizes his depth and beauty; or at least that of his works. Now, Haydn is someone who I have always liked and now more than ever. Still, I think my answer to this question is: Schubert. Just because I don't love him and don't know him as well as I should (even though I am familiar with all those pieces you listed), I still can't place Haydn above his chamber works. Wow,...this is interesting because I would have a similar problem with the symphonies of these two great composers. Perhaps this is why I don't compare composers, only performers.


----------



## peeyaj

I just want to express my admiration to Schubert's Notturno for Piano trio. It is such a sublime masterpiece..


----------



## Andy Loochazee

peeyaj said:


> I just want to express my admiration to Schubert's Notturno for Piano trio. It is such a sublime masterpiece..


It is divine.


----------



## neoshredder

I'll take Haydn since I prefer the Classical Era.


----------



## elgar's ghost

Schubert, especially for the wider variety and (later) emotional depth of his chamber output but I'm somewhat reluctant to pick between two masters from what were essentially two different eras. I'd have a similar dilemma if I had to choose between Bach/Haydn or Mozart/Beethoven.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

I think Schubert.


----------



## ProudSquire

I haven't really explored Schubert's chamber music to an adequate depth! So...It's back to listening for me. 

I'll return some months later to cast my opinion/vote!


----------



## peeyaj

TheProudSquire said:


> I haven't really explored Schubert's chamber music to an adequate depth! So...It's back to listening for me.
> 
> I'll return some months later to cast my opinion/vote!


You won't be disappointed. He composed some of the glorious chamber music ever written.


----------



## Polyphemus

TheProudSquire said:


> I haven't really explored Schubert's chamber music to an adequate depth! So...It's back to listening for me.
> 
> I'll return some months later to cast my opinion/vote!


For the Quintet alone he would top any poll and the late string Quartets elevate him to celestial rank.


----------



## Hausmusik

peeyaj said:


> *String Quartets*
> 
> String Quartets Opp. 1, 2, & 3
> String Quartets Opp. 9, 17, & 20
> String Quartets Opp. 64, 71, 74, & 76 (shows his mastery in the string quartet foem)
> String Quartets Opp. 77 & 103


peeyaj, you left off the Op. 33 quartets--some of my very favorites. Shame! 

For me, Haydn is always a composer whose achievement I have to judge in the aggregate. The Op. 76 quartets or the Op. 20 quartets, taken as a set, are each awe-inspiring masterpieces, but no _single _quartet from either cycle quite equals Schubert's D Minor or G Major quartets, for me anyway.

And Schubert, while less prolific than the long-lived Haydn, wrote chamber music in a wider variety of genres.

So I'd give the nod to Schubert. It would be tougher for me to choose between Schubert and Brahms as a chamber composer.

To the poster who would choose Schumann over Schubert as a chamber composer (!)---well, I do not know what to say.


----------



## Ukko

Hausmusik said:


> [...]
> 
> To the poster who would choose Schumann over Schubert as a chamber composer (!)---well, I do not know what to say.


Wasn't me, and wouldn't be my choice, but... I can (easily) imagine a mentality/sensibility that would consider most of Schubert's music too lavishly emotional... kind of icky.


----------



## Hausmusik

Hilltroll72 said:


> Wasn't me, and wouldn't be my choice, but... I can (easily) imagine a mentality/sensibility that would consider most of Schubert's music too lavishly emotional... kind of icky.


Agreed, but I would think the same sensibility would find the same thing true of Schumann. Schumann was clearly a better composer of concertos, though.


----------



## Ukko

Hausmusik said:


> Agreed, but I would think the same sensibility would find the same thing true of Schumann. Schumann was clearly a better composer of concertos, though.




If that sensibility is superficial enough, you're right. Nearly all of Schumann's solo and chamber music has a faint shadowy feel of inevitable doom, sometimes accompanied by a suggestion of 'whistling past the cemetery'. that feeling counteracts any ickiness that might be present. Schubert didn't get into that until late, and even then it was mostly an interpretive choice by the performers. D956 is not very cheerful, but that's one work.


----------



## Hausmusik

Hilltroll72 said:


> If that sensibility is superficial enough, you're right. Nearly all of Schumann's solo and chamber music has a faint shadowy feel of inevitable doom, sometimes accompanied by a suggestion of 'whistling past the cemetery'. that feeling counteracts any ickiness that might be present. Schubert didn't get into that until late, and even then it was mostly an interpretive choice by the performers. D956 is not very cheerful, but that's one work.


Well maybe I was being superficial, or maybe you weren't being clear enough---in fact your meaning still isn't totally clear, at least for this "superficial" reader. 

You originally wrote "lavishly emotional" and "icky," not morbid, death-haunted, etc. Now that you've dramatically qualified your original statement, then yeah, I can see how there might be a difference between Schubert and Schumann in terms of the "lavishness" of emotionalism in their work, but probably a difference of kind (i.e. what sorts of affects dominate) rather than degree (of "lavishness").

I definitely see "lavish emotionalism" in Schumann, such as--and I am just choosing examples from Schumann works I like without reservation, so this is not a criticism--the unabashed sentimentality of much of Kinderszenen and the piano quartet, the intense melancholy of the Adagio Espressivo of the second symphony and the cello concerto, the manic exuberance of the piano quintet's outer movements, etc.

I suppose what I don't hear in Schumann--in the chamber music anyway--is the mood of anguish found in the slow movements of D.956, D.959 and D.887.

I'm not disputing your point that one has to have a high tolerance for emotional display to derive a great deal of enjoyment out of Schubert. I am just suggesting that the same is needed for Schumann. I have a hard time imagining too many people who would like Schumann's piano quintet and quartet and dislike Schubert's piano trios, for example.


----------



## Ukko

Hausmusik said:


> Well maybe I was being superficial, or maybe you weren't being clear enough---in fact your meaning still isn't totally clear, at least for this "superficial" reader.
> 
> You originally wrote "lavishly emotional" and "icky," not morbid, death-haunted, etc. Now that you've dramatically qualified your original statement, then yeah, I can see how there might be a difference between Schubert and Schumann in terms of the "lavishness" of emotionalism in their work, but probably a difference of kind (i.e. what sorts of affects dominate) rather than degree (of "lavishness").
> 
> I definitely see "lavish emotionalism" in Schumann, such as--and I am just choosing examples from Schumann works I like without reservation, so this is not a criticism--the unabashed sentimentality of much of Kinderszenen and the piano quartet, the intense melancholy of the Adagio Espressivo of the second symphony and the cello concerto, the manic exuberance of the piano quintet's outer movements, etc.
> 
> I suppose what I don't hear in Schumann--in the chamber music anyway--is the mood of anguish found in the slow movements of D.956, D.959 and D.887.
> 
> I'm not disputing your point that one has to have a high tolerance for emotional display to derive a great deal of enjoyment out of Schubert. I am just suggesting that the same is needed for Schumann. I have a hard time imagining too many people who would like Schumann's piano quintet and quartet and dislike Schubert's piano trios, for example.


Looks like you may be tub-thumping for an argument. Also looks like we aren't reading the same story, so there's no profit in arguing about it. Let the tides roll on.


----------



## Hausmusik

Sorry you feel that way. That was my attempt at a reasoned response. You describe it as "tub-thumping." Previously you described my thinking as "superficial." I am therefore surprised that you would say I am the one who is being belligerent. I now recall that recently in another thread you gratuitously pounced on an inconsequential typo in a lengthy post--my stylus slipped and I typed a space instead of a b--and ignored my larger argument.

I would appreciate your ceasing to antagonize me. 

I was and remain curious to better understand your point as words like "icky " are far from exact.


----------



## Ukko

Hausmusik said:


> Sorry you feel that way. That was my attempt at a reasoned response. You describe it as "tub-thumping." Previously you described my thinking as "superficial." I am therefore surprised that you would say I am the one who is being belligerent. I now recall that recently in another thread you gratuitously pounced on an inconsequential typo in a lengthy post--my stylus slipped and I typed a space instead of a b--and ignored my larger argument.
> 
> I would appreciate your ceasing to antagonize me.
> 
> I was and remain curious to better understand your point as words like "icky " are far from exact.


You _could_ read the subject post without a chip on your shoulder. Or maybe you can't. It may be useless to point out that the 'superficial' does not refer to you. I'll say again - let the tides roll on. We ain't going to stop them anyway, and if you want to climb on that high horse I can't prevent that either.


----------



## Andy Loochazee

I've heard several types of criticism of Schubert. In the present context, especially in the exchanges above, the one that may be relevant is that some of his music is too sugary and possibly too much of a sop to the demand for Viennese simplistic waltz-inspired melody, i.e. it that it was infected with too much "schmaltz". If that's true then I'm a lover of schmaltzy music.

But it is not true that Schubert's music writing is little more than sugary, highly charged emotional music for novices only, whilst the cognoscenti favour more sophisticated works by other composers like Haydn, Beethoven, Mozart or whoever. Some people may prefer other composers but there's no denying that there is both sweetness and sadness in Schubert's music, plus genuine depth and sophistication, most especially in his chamber music.

We all know the String Quintet, D 956, and some of the string quartets (or ought to know them) but go and listen to something possibly new like his Octet or to his Arpeggione sonata (which is currently being discussed in another thread now), and see how brilliant they are. Neither of these works could have been written by anyone else but Schubert, whose stamp of brilliance permeates all the way through. That is another feature I most like about Schubert, its uniqueness. You know it can't be anyone else but Schubert. He was brilliant and, in my view, the consummate master of creating extremely good melody and making it all hang together seamlessly in an often amazing kaleidoscope of emotions.


----------



## Hausmusik

Good post Andy. To judge from what I have read of recent scholarship, the view that Schubert was a naive Romantic tunesmith is passé. There is an entire monograph (Fisk's _Returning Cycles) _that explores the harmonic and intertextual complexity and richness of FS's late piano music, not to mention Susan McClary's work on Schubert which reclaims his compositional style as a selfconscious alternative to Beethoven's harmonic vocabulary and approach to sonata form. Brendel's writings on Schubert have also been important to this revisionist view. Any claim as has been made on these boards (forget where) that Schubert was a deer caught in Ludwig's headlights has to contend with this convergence of educated opinion behind Schubert as a sophisticated and innovative composer.

There's a surprisingly excellent Wikipedia article on the last sonatas that synthesizes a lot of this scholarship, btw.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schubert's_last_sonatas


----------



## Andy Loochazee

Hausmusik said:


> ... To judge from what I have read of recent scholarship, the view that Schubert was a naive Romantic tunesmith is passé ...


 You're probably correct. I would say that favourite candidates for knocking on T-C appear to have been Mozart and Schubert. Regards Schubert, I recall seeing over the past few years several threads touching on different aspects of his alleged weaknesses. I'm afraid that I haven't kept a record of them, and they're not easy to find unless you know exactly what you're looking for. The only one I can recall is the following: http://www.talkclassical.com/16191-schubert-great-symphonist.html

On a wider perspective, there's a whole load of interesting comical reading in the following thread where various people have set out their perceptions of underrated and overrated composers in general: http://www.talkclassical.com/12497-most-overrated-underrated-composers.html

On a quick re-read, I'm not sure if there is anything on Schubert. There's material on Mozart for sure. There appear to be several now banned members involved in those threads.


----------



## Quartetfore

I am late for this interesting thread, but I do have an opinion about the Chamber Music of Robert Schumann. First let me say that I do know just about every note that he composed in this area of music, and that includes the Violin Sonatas which never seem to be mentioned. With the exception of the Piano Quintet, the Piano Quartet and perhaps the first Violin Sonata there seems to me a lack of depth. Yes, the third String Quartet is a " nice work", and yes the first Piano Trio has a touch of sad feeling in the first movement, but compared to the the great late master works of Schubert he comes up short. Of course the Piano Quintet in my opinion one of the very great works of the mid-romantic era, but as a body of work his chamber music falls far short of Schubert and his body of work.


----------



## peeyaj

All of the threads that Andy mentioned is all my doing.. ! 

Shows how much I love ''little Mushroom''.


----------



## Andy Loochazee

peeyaj said:


> All of the threads that Andy mentioned is all my doing.. !  Shows how much I love ''little Mushroom''.


 You little mushroon fan, you!


----------



## Alydon

What gives the most joy, and what lingers in the mind for ever? I think this is an impossible question as we are not comparing like for like. I was listening to a selection of Haydn quartets today and I marvelled at their freshness and invention - they are like in new rain shower in a plain of drought and as a famous musical critic said of the Haydn trios, 'balm for the soul.' 
In this unfair contest I have to confess that the 1st mov. of Death and the Maiden circles in the imagination and haunts you as no other work of the genre; and that is the difference between something that is you know has been given the best possible skill as a composer and a one - off genius.
Schubert had the advantage of recieved wisdom and he forced the art to another level, but never without Haydn, who has our unreserved love.


----------



## PlaySalieri

There are too many Haydn fans on this board with a point to prove.
What is there in Haydn's music that can match the great Quintet in C? Or Death and the Maiden - or the 2 incredible piano trios.
Come on now - like Haydn if you must - but be real!


----------



## peeyaj

stomanek said:


> There are too many Haydn fans on this board with a point to prove.
> What is there in Haydn's music that can match the great Quintet in C? Or Death and the Maiden - or the 2 incredible piano trios.
> Come on now - like Haydn if you must - but be real!


The only work that Haydn approach Schubert is the Emperor string quartet.. But Schubert has the Rosamunde, Death and the Maiden and the G major quartet. Add the two piano trios, the Octet, the Trout quintet and the transcedental String quintet, and Haydn lost the battle already..


----------



## PlaySalieri

He wins on quantity of course. To be fair there are some lovely movements in haydn's quartets and divertimenti - though you have to do a lot of listening to find them.


----------



## TrazomGangflow

If I were a king, queen, emperor, empress, duke, duchess, lord, lady, count, countess, margrave, baron, electir, or any other sort of nobility I would probably choose Haydn for his experience with people of rank but since I'm just Trazom I'll go with Schubert. I prefer Haydn in orchestral works and Schubert in chamber works.


----------

