# String quartets: Mozart versus Haydn



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

I’ve never been overly-fond of Mozart’s string quartets, being more likely to reach for Haydn’s instead. Tonight I’m listening to Mozart’s String Quartet No. 18, K.464, and it strikes me that this was about the most sophisticated music Mozart could write. He seems to be aiming at a very narrow audience – the “connoisseurs” of music of his time, without much regard for the broader musical audience that he usually tried to reach. Haydn’s quartets, on the other hand, seem always to be aimed at that wider audience.

Or so it seems to me. What do you think?


----------



## Guest (Oct 17, 2018)

I don't tend to ascribe to the kinda snobby notion that the more complex works are specifically aimed at a narrow audience. My understanding of Mozart's quartets is that he was extremely invested in contrapuntal techniques, as that was something that interested him. It's curious to know that Mozart regarded all six quartets in that collection no. 18 belongs to as his 'children'; obviously he loved them dearly, and in his letter to Haydn he expressed his wishes for him to 'protect' them as they are sent into the wide world. I doubt that Mozart wanted them to have a narrow audience at all, but from what I gather Mozart was really going full composition-nerd with these piece with the additional intention that they would be published and sold to anyone interested in having a crack at performing them.

_That_ is more than can be said for the majority of Haydn's privately commissioned and privately performed string quartets.


----------



## Heliogabo (Dec 29, 2014)

"He seems to be aiming at a very narrow audience – the “connoisseurs” of music of his time, without much regard for the broader musical audience that he usually tried to reach."

I had the same feeling here listening to his symphony #25. 
Not the kind of work that most people expected from him when he composed it.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

shirime said:


> ...from what I gather Mozart was really going full composition-nerd with these piece with the additional intention that they would be published and sold to anyone interested in having a crack at performing them.
> 
> That is more than can be said for the majority of Haydn's privately commissioned and privately performed string quartets.


I don't understand this comment. Haydn was certainly happy that his quartets were published, made widely available, and then bought by a lot of amateur musicians. That's how he made his living, especially after being quasi-retired from the Esterhazys. Do you think otherwise?

​


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

KenOC said:


> I've never been overly-fond of Mozart's string quartets, being more likely to reach for Haydn's instead. Tonight I'm listening to Mozart's String Quartet No. 18, K.464, and it strikes me that this was about the most sophisticated music Mozart could write. He seems to be aiming at a very narrow audience - the "connoisseurs" of music of his time, without much regard for the broader musical audience that he usually tried to reach. Haydn's quartets, on the other hand, seem always to be aimed at that wider audience.
> 
> Or so it seems to me. What do you think?


I don't really know about Haydn's quartets, and I'm not sure how to measure sophistication anyway. What I will say is that just from superficial listening, I find most of Haydn op 30 and even parts of op 50 no less elusive than most of the Mozart/Haydn series. I've given more time to the Mozart, so that elusiveness has worn off for me - Haydn still defeats me.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

There’s another thing I want to say about Ken’s opening post. 

Maybe some people (Ken?) have certain expectations of C 18. music, they expect it to be a sort of instantly accessible light entertainment. Contrast c 19 and c 20 music, it would be crass to judge late Beethoven or Schumann or Debussy negatively for being connoisseurs’ music, too sophisticated. There’s a double standard around here which may not be fair.


----------



## Guest (Oct 17, 2018)

KenOC said:


> I don't understand this comment. Haydn was certainly happy that his quartets were published, made widely available, and then bought by a lot of amateur musicians. That's how he made his living, especially after being quasi-retired from the Esterhazys. Do you think otherwise?​




No, you're certainly right, but I've always thought of Haydn as more of a 'court composer', still very happy and eager for his music to be made widely available but perhaps at least prioritising the needs of court musicians first and foremost. As far as I'm aware, Mozart's Haydn Quartets weren't written to commission for specific musicians for specific performances, so in a sense he did have the opportunity to go full-nerd and compose these pieces more conceptually. Same can be said about the final three symphonies, I think.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Mandryka said:


> There's another thing I want to say about Ken's opening post.
> 
> Maybe some people (Ken?) have certain expectations of C 18. music, they expect it to be a sort of instantly accessible light entertainment. Contrast c 19 and c 20 music, it would be crass to judge late Beethoven or Schumann or Debussy negatively for being connoisseurs' music, too sophisticated. There's a double standard around here which may not be fair.


Au contraire! I'm always interested in how composers interacted with the music markets of their time. They were, after all professionals, and composition (perhaps combined with performance) was how they made their livings. Like the rest of us, they had to pay the rent, put food on the table, buy nice clothes, and so forth. That was true then and remains true now. As true of Reich or Glass as of Mozart or Haydn.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

KenOC said:


> Au contraire! I'm always interested in how composers interacted with the music markets of their time. They were, after all professionals, and composition (perhaps combined with performance) was how they made their livings. Like the rest of us, they had to pay the rent, put food on the table, buy nice clothes, and so forth. That was true then and remains true now. As true of Reich or Glass as of Mozart or Haydn.


Yes. Material relations are always the fundamental concepts of historical explanations.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Well, perhaps composers survive on ambrosia and nectar, though my readings suggest otherwise.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Re Quartet 18, K 464, the variations movement is one of my favourite pieces of classical music.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

KenOC said:


> Well, perhaps composers survive on ambrosia and nectar, though my readings suggesrt otherwise.


No of course not, but they may occasionally behave as if they do, in certain compositions. And these may sometimes be their best, their freest, their most authentic, works.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

shirime said:


> No, you're certainly right, but I've always thought of Haydn as more of a 'court composer', still very happy and eager for his music to be made widely available but perhaps at least prioritising the needs of court musicians first and foremost. As far as I'm aware, Mozart's Haydn Quartets weren't written to commission for specific musicians for specific performances, so in a sense he did have the opportunity to go full-nerd and compose these pieces more conceptually. Same can be said about the final three symphonies, I think.


An interesting observation. I've read that Mozart rarely composed without a paying commission, and that some of his major works remained unfinished because the revenue potential was no longer there. But in the case of the Haydn quartets and the final symphonies, I have no idea what the revenue potential, if any, was.

Perhaps (as Mandryka suggests) he just wrote them out of love of music.​


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

KenOC said:


> I've never been overly-fond of Mozart's string quartets, being more likely to reach for Haydn's instead. Tonight I'm listening to Mozart's String Quartet No. 18, K.464, and it strikes me that this was about the most sophisticated music Mozart could write. He seems to be aiming at a very narrow audience - the "connoisseurs" of music of his time, without much regard for the broader musical audience that he usually tried to reach. Haydn's quartets, on the other hand, seem always to be aimed at that wider audience.
> 
> Or so it seems to me. What do you think?


I'm not hearing anything in the Mozart that might restrict it's appeal to the connoisseur.


----------



## Hermastersvoice (Oct 15, 2018)

No doubt that Mozart didn’t excel with his string quartets in the same manner that the string quintets are absolute master pieces. However, the Vegh Quartet’s version of 4 of the “Haydn” quartets opened my ears to this music. With regards to the comment about lack of sophistication the often quoted rebuke of “too many notes’ comes to mind.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

I arrived at Mozart's quartets after having already listened to Haydn's. I know Haydn's better, but I still think Mozart's are a supreme achievement and that, as Shirime wrote, he was at that point, in the later quartets, heavily occupied with fugal and contrapuntal techniques which he had been employing throughout his works.

Nevertheless Mozart's string quartets were already developed before this. Listen to the andante (2nd movement) of his quartet no.8 from the so-called 'Viennese quartets'. K.168. These are a decade before the quartets dedicated to Haydn and 17 years before the Prussian quartets; those latter being absolute gems in the quartet literature.

Haydn certainly had more influence. So many late 18thC and early 19thC quartets are in the Haydn mould - Hummel's three quartets, even Schubert. Mozart took the influence and did more with it than either of those two and any others who wrote Haydn-like quartets.


----------



## Triplets (Sep 4, 2014)

KenOC said:


> I've never been overly-fond of Mozart's string quartets, being more likely to reach for Haydn's instead. Tonight I'm listening to Mozart's String Quartet No. 18, K.464, and it strikes me that this was about the most sophisticated music Mozart could write. He seems to be aiming at a very narrow audience - the "connoisseurs" of music of his time, without much regard for the broader musical audience that he usually tried to reach. Haydn's quartets, on the other hand, seem always to be aimed at that wider audience.
> 
> Or so it seems to me. What do you think?


The Vienna Public that Mozart was writing for was very sophisticated. In general he didn't have to dumb his music down and he actually made a fair amount of money, contrary to the common image of him struggling to get by. His financial problems were due to poor money management (i.e. he spent a lot) and then the economy tanked at the end of his life.
Regarding his late Quartets, Mozart's 'Haydn' Quartets we're composed as an attempt to match the Master at his game. W.A.M. deliberately was trying to refine his Art, but given the general level of sophistication of the Viennese he was no doubt hoping that they would find a market. His last 3 Quartets were intended for the Cello playing King of Prussia and set up their own Compositional
Challenges (I.e., elevating the role of the Cello to keep the Royal Moneybags happy).


----------



## CnC Bartok (Jun 5, 2017)

The Haydn Quartets are just as good as the Haydn Quartets (sic!), but I do find Mozart's other quartets less interesting. Maybe he's "more sophisticated " than Haydn himself, but the same might well be said if comparing their symphonies, and I know who I prefer there as well.

Incidentally, the majority of Haydn's quartets were published by Pleyel in 1801. Yes I did have to look that up. He lived eight years beyond this, so his quartets hopefully made him a pretty penny or two....


----------



## senza sordino (Oct 20, 2013)

For the past five years for a week each summer we've been getting together to play string quartets. We've played Mozart and Haydn. Before we get together we try to decide what to play. Often the others want to play Haydn, and I'm always left with the first violin part. They see their second violin, viola and cello parts and say this doesn't look to difficult "let's do it" The first violin part is much more challenging technically. The Haydn quartets are like first violin concerti with second violin, viola and accompaniment. We gave up on a few Haydn quartets and moved to Mozart. It was too difficult for me to learn in one week.

The Mozart quartets are more manageable for us, the parts are more equitable, lots to do for all four players. 

Now we haven't looked at all of Haydn's quartets, maybe there are some that have more equitable parts. And maybe there are some Mozart quartets we can't play. But generally we've managed to play the Mozart but not Haydn.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

senza sordino said:


> For the past five years for a week each summer we've been getting together to play string quartets. We've played Mozart and Haydn. Before we get together we try to decide what to play. Often the others want to play Haydn, and I'm always left with the first violin part. They see their second violin, viola and cello parts and say this doesn't look to difficult "let's do it" The first violin part is much more challenging technically. The Haydn quartets are like first violin concerti with second violin, viola and accompaniment. We gave up on a few Haydn quartets and moved to Mozart. It was too difficult for me to learn in one week.
> 
> The Mozart quartets are more manageable for us, the parts are more equitable, lots to do for all four players.
> 
> Now we haven't looked at all of Haydn's quartets, maybe there are some that have more equitable parts. And maybe there are some Mozart quartets we can't play. But generally we've managed to play the Mozart but not Haydn.


Not much can be concluded from this anecdote but thanks for sharing.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

eugeneonagain said:


> I arrived at Mozart's quartets after having already listened to Haydn's. I know Haydn's better, but I still think Mozart's are a supreme achievement and that, as Shirime wrote, he was at that point, in the later quartets, heavily occupied with fugal and contrapuntal techniques which he had been employing throughout his works.
> 
> Nevertheless Mozart's string quartets were already developed before this. Listen to the andante (2nd movement) of his quartet no.8 from the so-called 'Viennese quartets'. K.168. These are a decade before the quartets dedicated to Haydn and 17 years before the Prussian quartets; those latter being absolute gems in the quartet literature.
> 
> Haydn certainly had more influence. So many late 18thC and early 19thC quartets are in the Haydn mould - Hummel's three quartets, even Schubert. Mozart took the influence and did more with it than either of those two and any others who wrote Haydn-like quartets.


I am glad you cited one of the early quartets. I remember how amazed I was when I got the Italian Qt Cd box set of these and started at the beginning thinking the early quartets would be barely worth a listen. I know Mozart was learning from Haydn - but they are fine music.

I think Mozart Qts are up a level from Haydns and I dont think they are inferior to his (Mozarts) string quintets as many people say.


----------



## senza sordino (Oct 20, 2013)

stomanek said:


> Not much can be concluded from this anecdote but thanks for sharing.


Exactly right, it's an observation not a conclusion.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

senza sordino said:


> Exactly right, it's an observation not a conclusion.


It seems to me your are saying that Haydn puts too much emphasis on the first violin part.

As a group of musicians coming to together I can understand why you would want equal parts.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

senza sordino said:


> Now we haven't looked at all of Haydn's quartets, maybe there are some that have more equitable parts.


Which pieces of Haydn did you play?


----------



## senza sordino (Oct 20, 2013)

stomanek said:


> It seems to me your are saying that Haydn puts too much emphasis on the first violin part.
> 
> As a group of musicians coming to together I can understand why you would want equal parts.





Mandryka said:


> Which pieces of Haydn did you play?


Haydn wrote about 60 quartets, we haven't looked at all to see which had more equitable parts. I'm sure some do.

We've tried to play Haydn Op 76 Emperor in C major, second movement. I couldn't quite play all those notes well and evenly throughout all the variations. And we've tried Op 9 no 1 in Dm first movement, and again I had, on first violin, all the challenging parts. There have been a couple more quartets of Haydn we've tried but I can't remember and I no longer have the music.

We have performed a Mozart divertimento for string quartet, I don't know exactly which one as I no longer have the music. We've also performed Mozart Quartet no 3 in G major K156 first movement, and also Mozart Quartet no 22 in Bb K589 first movement. We did perform one Haydn, the third movement, a minuet, of the op 9 no 1 quartet.

We perform for each other, the other quartets that get together each summer. Not a paying audience, they get in for free, they get their money's worth.

I've usually been grouped with three other players a little weaker than me. I lead and they try to follow, and sometimes they can't and often their supporting role isn't strong enough for me in my challenging parts. I might have an easier time with the tricky parts if my three partners were stronger.

Only once did I get grouped with a strong group and I played second, that was the Mozart divertimento. That was a great experience. We sounded pretty good.

(Sorry for the delay in responding, it took a while to find all the music I could)

Post Script: After some research on imslp I found which divertimento we performed. It was Mozart Divertimento in F major K138. We rehearsed the first and second movements, but because of time constraints we performed the second half of the first movement and the entire second movement. A lovely piece of music


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

senza sordino said:


> Haydn wrote about 60 quartets, we haven't looked at all to see which had more equitable parts. I'm sure some do.
> 
> We've tried to play Haydn Op 76 Emperor in C major, second movement. I couldn't quite play all those notes well and evenly throughout all the variations. And we've tried Op 9 no 1 in Dm first movement, and again I had, on first violin, all the challenging parts. There have been a couple more quartets of Haydn we've tried but I can't remember and I no longer have the music.
> 
> ...


Thanks for your comments. I dont play myself but I can appreciate how tough it must be when you are better than your playing partners.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

KenOC said:


> Haydn's quartets, on the other hand, seem always to be aimed at that wider audience.
> 
> Or so it seems to me. What do you think?


Have you listened to Haydn op 20?

I can imagine what you say is truer of op 76


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Mandryka said:


> Have you listened to Haydn op 20?
> 
> I can imagine what you say is truer of op 76


I think we have to remember that quartets during the classical period were written for players, mostly amateurs, not for listeners. Only sheet music was sold to provide revenues for composers. There were no recordings, no CDs, LPs, or 78s!

Mozart (from his letters) was quite proud of the fact that his piano concertos could be appreciated by connoisseurs and also by rank amateurs, who might not know why they liked the music but would like it nonetheless. I am not talking about Haydn in this thread, only Mozart. On listening to his quartets dedicated to Haydn, I get the feeling he pushed the needle over to the "expert" side, probably since he knew that Haydn, the dedicatee, hung our over there. And in doing so, he pretty much abandoned his usual even-handed approach and tripled up on the classic sophistication, leaving many of the unsophisticated behind.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

KenOC said:


> I think we have to remember that quartets during the classical period were written for players, mostly amateurs, not for listeners. Only sheet music was sold to provide revenues for composers. There were no recordings, no CDs, LPs, or 78s!
> 
> Mozart (from his letters) was quite proud of the fact that his piano concertos could be appreciated by connoisseurs and also by rank amateurs, who might not know why they liked the music but would like it nonetheless. I am not talking about Haydn in this thread, only Mozart. On listening to his quartets dedicated to Haydn, I get the feeling he pushed the needle over to the "expert" side, probably since he knew that Haydn, the dedicatee, hung our over there. And in doing so, he pretty much abandoned his usual even-handed approach and tripled up on the classic sophistication, leaving many of the unsophisticated behind.


Yes. Maybe. I'm not sure. I mean I am sure that he leaves many of the unsophisticated behind, but he does that elsewhere (570; 576; 526; 593; . . . ) His music is for the sophisticated, not the neanderthals, though sometimes he wrote stuff that neanderthals say they like, but mostly not.


----------



## Pyotr (Feb 26, 2013)

I’ll take Haydn’s by a considerable extent, but I like Mozart’s too. I’ve heard a few scholars say that Haydn perfected the string quartet. Thoughts?


----------



## Gallus (Feb 8, 2018)

I agree with the general view here that other than the 'Haydn' quartets Mozart's efforts in the genre are generally uninteresting compared to his elder's.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Gallus said:


> I agree with the general view here that other than the 'Haydn' quartets Mozart's efforts in the genre are generally uninteresting compared to his elder's.


This is your view shared by some. I can only find one post in this thread which agrees with your point so I dont know on what basis you are making this claim.

I know many listeners who prefer the Prussian quartets.


----------



## Guest (Oct 24, 2018)

I fkn love the Mozart Haydn Quartets. No. 19 is absolutely amazing. Earlier this year I had a string quartet of mine performed in Hannover which used quotations from that particular quartet. I love that quartet. All six in that set are great though.


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

Why not both? I don't particularly care who they were trying to please when they wrote them, but I'm glad that they please me now. In terms of personal preference, Mozart's set dedicated to Haydn might edge it a little bit, but you know, whatever.


----------

