# Haydn's Symphony 104 - a question



## Guest (Sep 8, 2012)

So, listening to this symphony, I note that in the second movement, a repeated phrase is never resolved: Haydn keeps coming back to it, but it always ends confounding expectation.

First, can someone explain what he is doing - technically? Is it that the phrase ends with a diminished chord, which is what creates the frustrating lack of resolution?

Second, is this a common feature of symphonies?

Here (I hope) is the phrase I mean...and the chord I'm referring to is first heard at 1:19






Thanks


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

It seems to me that he is just creating an interrupted cadence using a diminished chord on C sharp rather than using a minor chord built on the sixth degree of the scale. Most interrupted cadences in G major would go D major chord to E minor Chord but Haydn changes one note up a tone/whole step (B to a C sharp) which makes a diminished chord. It creates more tension ultimately making the resolution more satisfying as the phrase is continued.


----------



## Guest (Sep 8, 2012)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> It seems to me that he is just creating an interrupted cadence using a diminished chord on C sharp rather than using a minor chord built on the sixth degree of the scale. Most interrupted cadences in G major would go D major chord to E minor Chord but Haydn changes one note up a tone/whole step (B to a C sharp) which makes a diminished chord. It creates more tension ultimately making the resolution more satisfying as the phrase is continued.


OK. Thanks for this...but one step at a time...! Let me apologise for the crude language here...

If a cadence is simply a set of notes going down the scale (am I right?) what is an 'interrupted cadence'?
Is a diminished chord one that has a 'lower' note, what is a chord called that isn't diminished?

The resolution never comes, does it? By the end of the movement, the last repetition is still diminished (6:25)...he prefers to end on the next phrase? Is that because the whole resolution does not come until the end of the whole symphony?


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

MacLeod said:


> OK. Thanks for this...but one step at a time...! Let me apologise for the crude language here...
> 
> If a cadence is simply a set of notes going down the scale (am I right?) what is an 'interrupted cadence'?
> Is a diminished chord one that has a 'lower' note, what is a chord called that isn't diminished?
> ...


One step at a time as you wish.

1. A cadence is basically two chords played one after the other. In G major, a G major chord to a D major chord is an _imperfect cadence,_ a D major chord to a G major chord is a _perfect cadence_ and a D major chord to an E minor chord is an _imperfect cadence._

2. An imperfect cadence is usually used to create tension and is often found at what one would suspect to be the end of a phrase. In the key of G major, when one hears a D major chord they would usually assume that it would resolve to a G major chord (using the notes G, B, D) but by changing one note (G, B, *E*) it creates an unexpected turn which must be resolved again.

3. Haydn uses a variant of the interrupted cadence. Instead of going from a D major chord to an E minor chord he goes to a diminished chord (a chord made up of three minor intervals, or you could describe it as a minor chord where the fifth degree, in C sharp minor would be a G sharp, is lowered to a G natural), in this case using the notes C sharp, E and G. The C sharp isn't in the key signature and this creates even more tension and the chord must be resolved back to a D major chord before continuing the phrase.


----------



## Guest (Sep 8, 2012)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> 1. A cadence is basically two chords played one after the other. In G major, a G major chord to a D major chord is an _imperfect cadence,_ a D major chord to a G major chord is a _perfect cadence_ and a D major chord to an E minor chord is an _imperfect cadence._


This is very helpful - I can get my son to show me this on his piano (if I can get him to put down his Telecaster, that is!)



ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> 2. An imperfect cadence is usually used to create tension and is often found at what one would suspect to be the end of a phrase. In the key of G major, when one hears a D major chord they would usually assume that it would resolve to a G major chord (using the notes G, B, D) but by changing one note (G, B, *E*) it creates an unexpected turn which must be resolved again.


Here's the bit that is dependent on subjective response. For there to be tension, I must to some extent be aware that there is an expected progression - and that where expectation is confounded, my ear/brain is 'irritated' until I hear the resolution. Am I right? It's certainly what I heard, even though I have little knowledge of the terms used to describe it.



ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> a diminished chord (a chord made up of three minor intervals, or you could describe it as a minor chord where the fifth degree, in C sharp minor would be a G sharp, is lowered to a G natural), in this case using the notes C sharp, E and G. The C sharp isn't in the key signature and this creates even more tension and the chord must be resolved back to a D major chord before continuing the phrase.


Three minor intervals? Can you exemplify what that might look like if I start with middle C?

At last, someone is beginning to respond as I had hoped they might! It's why I came here. So, to the next question. I'm assuming that what Haydn is doing here is fairly ordinary - it's what his predecessors did, and it's what those who came after did? Pleasing as it is to hear (I'm really enjoying Haydn's London symphonies) it's nothing 'special'... is it?


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

MacLeod said:


> Here's the bit that is dependent on subjective response. For there to be tension, I must to some extent be aware that there is an expected progression - and that where expectation is confounded, my ear/brain is 'irritated' until I hear the resolution. Am I right? It's certainly what I heard, even though I have little knowledge of the terms used to describe it.


Yes it could be described that way.



> Three minor intervals? Can you exemplify what that might look like if I start with middle C?


If you start with middle C, the note above that would be an E flat and then a G flat (enharmonic equivalent of F sharp.)

Here are all the three note diminished chords on any keyboard instrument:












> At last, someone is beginning to respond as I had hoped they might! It's why I came here. So, to the next question. I'm assuming that what Haydn is doing here is fairly ordinary - it's what his predecessors did, and it's what those who came after did? Pleasing as it is to hear (I'm really enjoying Haydn's London symphonies) it's nothing 'special'... is it?


What Haydn is doing is fairly ordinary. Many types of interrupted cadences can be found in all styles of western music. I'm glad I could help. :tiphat:


----------



## Guest (Sep 8, 2012)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> What Haydn is doing is fairly ordinary. Many types of interrupted cadences can be found in all styles of western music.


So, what _did _he do that accounts for his greatness? Are you able to draw my attention to any particular features of his symphonies that explains this?


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

MacLeod said:


> So, what _did _he do that accounts for his greatness? Are you able to draw my attention to any particular features of his symphonies that explains this?


I suppose he is famous for his Sturm und Drang style in the 70s and his sense of musical humour eg. _Farewell_ symphony. There is also another symphony of his (the exact number escapes me at the moment) where each section of the minuet is basically palindromic.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

stomanek said:


> _moderator: message deleted for trolling_


And I'll just add you to my Ignore List.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> And I'll just add you to my Ignore List.


Don't tell me your soh is limited to making absurd statements claiming minor composers are better than established masters.

Only a person with a sense of humour would post that photo of Eugene from Grease. Now come on - let's see what you really look like.


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> I suppose he is famous for his Sturm und Drang style in the 70s and his sense of musical humour eg. _Farewell_ symphony. There is also another symphony of his (the exact number escapes me at the moment) where each section of the minuet is basically palindromic.


That is no. 47.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

Ramako said:


> That is no. 47.


Thank you.


----------



## Guest (Sep 8, 2012)

stomanek said:


> Don't tell me your soh is limited to making absurd statements claiming minor composers are better than established masters.


So, stomanek, perhaps you'd like to answer my questions then? What _did Haydn do that accounts for his greatness? Are you able to draw my attention to any particular features of his symphonies that explains this?_


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

Can I completely divert this thread for a moment and say I've just the Adam Fischer recording of this movement is very good. Anyway...



MacLeod said:


> So, listening to this symphony, I note that in the second movement, a repeated phrase is never resolved: Haydn keeps coming back to it, but it always ends confounding expectation.


The point you bring up in this thread is to do with melody in a larger scale work. CoAG has pointed out that the chord is resolved. Haydn is aware that the simple voice leading isn't sufficient for the harmonic tension of the passage however, and that is the reason for the unusually long and relaxing codetta (and particularly coda at the very end) (also, just an hypothesis).



MacLeod said:


> So, what _did _he do that accounts for his greatness? Are you able to draw my attention to any particular features of his symphonies that explains this?


However, Haydn was the one who pioneered the idea you referred to in the OP, about a melody being 'resolved' throughout the course of a whole movement. For example, suppose we have a melody 'B'. At the beginning it might be played with an imperfect cadence, giving the movement momentum and helping the initial modulation to the dominant. B might be played again during or after the modulation to the dominant, but broken off, thereby increasing the tension as was Classical practice for the second group in the exposition. In the development it would be fragmented and 'developed' in the character of the section; the frustration of not hearing the thing in whole contributing to the tension, but at the same time symptomatic of it -this is of course the high point of tension (can't think of another word, sorry) in the work. In the recap B might be played again at first with an interrupted cadence, paving the way for resolution, but taking it away just before you get it, and then at the very end of the piece played with a perfect cadence, giving complete resolution. This is completely in abstract, and he may well never have used this exact formula, but it gives an idea of his practice.

In this way, melody can be used and contorted to help articulate the main structural points of sonata form. This articulation is absolutely central to the functioning of the Classical style, and indeed is probably it's most important characteristic (I tend to follow Charles Rosen in this, and would recommend _The Classical Style_ as a very informative, and also interesting read on this subject). This use of melody is only one of the many techniques that Haydn either invented or brought to coherence. Texture, rhythm both melodic and harmonic, harmony, orchestration etc. were also subjected to similar treatment under the Classical manner of writing at the time (interestingly, he was the only one to do this for orchestration really - neither Mozart, Beethoven, or I believe Schubert used orchestration to articulate structural points). More importantly, perhaps, he was definitely the first composer to bring these techniques together so that they worked together in a coherent way.

He is also a great composer because he wrote good music by the way


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> So, stomanek, perhaps you'd like to answer my questions then? What _did Haydn do that accounts for his greatness? Are you able to draw my attention to any particular features of his symphonies that explains this?_


He did much to expand the forms - symphony, string quartets - as far as I understand. I suppose he deserves great credit for that. I don't think Mozart's output would have suffered significantly had he not known the music of Haydn and he owes more to the Bach family than to haydn. I also think Beethoven learned little from haydn. M took opera and piano concertos, not to mention other areas - into unchartered territory - showed the way forward and he owes little or nothing to haydn for that. I also think he left haydn behind from sy 36 on - his slow intro to sy 36 is more advanced than any slow intro to a sy composed by haydn at that time. 
No doubt others will disagree with this view.


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

stomanek said:


> He did much to expand the forms - symphony, string quartets - as far as I understand. I suppose he deserves great credit for that. I don't think Mozart's output would have suffered significantly had he not known the music of Haydn and he owes more to the Bach family than to haydn. I also think Beethoven learned little from haydn. M took opera and piano concertos, not to mention other areas - into unchartered territory - showed the way forward and he owes little or nothing to haydn for that. I also think he left haydn behind from sy 36 on - his slow intro to sy 36 is more advanced than any slow intro to a sy composed by haydn at that time.
> No doubt others will disagree with this view.


Oh dear.

just

Oh Dear!!!

What historical facts/studies do you base this on?


----------



## Guest (Sep 8, 2012)

Ramako said:


> helping the initial modulation to the dominant.


Modulation?

What I don't get is that any resolution of the whole is not until the end of the 4th movement, by which time the beginner listener can't refer to what was unresolved in the 2nd. Unless, as you say, the extended codetta (I get that bit) is simply a substitute resolution.



Ramako said:


> This use of melody is only one of the many techniques that Haydn either invented or brought to coherence.


Can you give an example of how either Mozart or Beethoven advanced on what Haydn did?



Ramako said:


> He is also a great composer because he wrote good music by the way


Lol! I just love circularity.


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> Modulation?
> 
> What I don't get is that any resolution of the whole is not until the end of the 4th movement, by which time the beginner listener can't refer to what was unresolved in the 2nd.


In the Classical style, every movement can be regarded as a self-subsistent whole. The form applies only over a single movement. Each movement will tend to have a different character, mirroring sonata form (to some extent - not thematically) on a large scale, but each movement by itself is also coherent, and this one is in sonata form. As time goes on the barriers between movements grew less, but the most extreme example of what I was talking about in melody, or at least very extreme, is in Tristan und Isolde, where the opening theme, though played often throughout, is only resolved on the very last page, hours later.



MacLeod said:


> Unless, as you say, the extended codetta (I get that bit) is simply a substitute resolution.


The voice leading is resolution for the chord itself, however the chord is also preceded by a fair amount of exotic harmony. Thus the voice-leading alone doesn't calm things sufficiently so the codetta is more emotional resolution than technical.



MacLeod said:


> Can you give an example of how either Mozart or Beethoven advanced on what Haydn did?


In this context? One thing comes to mind. Haydn worked out from the theme. He took the theme, and worked out what he thought it implied structurally and thus wrote the whole movement based on the theme. Beethoven worked from both ends - he did what Haydn did, but also knew what he wanted structurally and so changed the theme to fit the structure as well. This confusing process is probably why he sketched so much .


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Ramako said:


> Oh dear.
> 
> just
> 
> ...


We're allowed speculation on here - it's part of the attraction of TC.
My main point is that the genius of mozart and beethoven would have blossomed without Haydn.


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

stomanek said:


> We're allowed speculation on here - it's part of the attraction of TC.


Naturally, but facts are allowed too 



stomanek said:


> My main point is that the genius of mozart and beethoven would have blossomed without Haydn.


I won't argue the innovations that Haydn produced because I agree with the main point. However, without Haydn's innovations, Mozart's great works would not have been possible. Mozart might or might not have made those innovations instead, but Mozart's innovations were also required for Mozart's great works, and even Mozart only had time for so many innovations! The same applies to Beethoven, but doubly so, because Mozart was before him.

It's worth pointing out that without Haydn the four movement form would not have taken hold. It's worth pointing out that without Haydn the symphony and especially the string quartet would not be the two most respected forms of instrumental music of the day. It's worth pointing out that without these forms and their reputation at the time, Beethoven's output would have been very different, and thus their current reputation very different. But these are only minor points, though ones which should cause little disagreement.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Ramako said:


> Naturally, but facts are allowed too
> 
> I won't argue the innovations that Haydn produced because I agree with the main point. However, without Haydn's innovations, Mozart's great works would not have been possible. Mozart might or might not have made those innovations instead, but Mozart's innovations were also required for Mozart's great works, and even Mozart only had time for so many innovations! The same applies to Beethoven, but doubly so, because Mozart was before him.
> 
> It's worth pointing out that without Haydn the four movement form would not have taken hold. It's worth pointing out that without Haydn the symphony and especially the string quartet would not be the two most respected forms of instrumental music of the day. It's worth pointing out that without these forms and their reputation at the time, Beethoven's output would have been very different, and thus their current reputation very different. But these are only minor points, though ones which should cause little disagreement.


Yes I accepted that Haydn got those forms going.


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

stomanek said:


> Yes I accepted that Haydn got those forms going.


And that is called responding to the bottom 4 lines ignoring the top 6...

They are pretty big points, which would make the face of Classical music pretty different today. Not as important as the fact he innovated the relation between melody and structure, invented Classical counterpoint (the relation between the instruments that was to serve for the next 150 years at least), and made a new musical aesthetic viable, in which contrasting ideas could be presented in a dynamic way.

It is hard to argue that Haydn was not an influential composer, given that his works were the school models for the 19th century, and although he was and is less respected than Bach, Mozart or Beethoven he was at least as innovative, and thus influential. This is partly due to when he lived and the style he inherited - and someone else (in his league or above that is) could have done it - but so is his perceived inferiority to them in his music - which would affect someone else as well. Also I find it hard to justify that Beethoven got little from him, since they are by far the most similar composers in motivic practice, among other things.

Every genius would have blossomed without another (probably), but the question is how much?


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Ramako said:


> And that is called responding to the bottom 4 lines ignoring the top 6...
> 
> They are pretty big points, which would make the face of Classical music pretty different today. Not as important as the fact he innovated the relation between melody and structure, invented Classical counterpoint (the relation between the instruments that was to serve for the next 150 years at least), and made a new musical aesthetic viable, in which contrasting ideas could be presented in a dynamic way.
> 
> ...


I repect Haydn and like his music. You may be correct in some of what you say there and I will consult some of my books on M to see what they say about the relationship between H and M. It's a bit of a cliche but I read years ago that H taught M how to compose sy, qts - and then H then learned from M.


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

stomanek said:


> I repect Haydn and like his music. You may be correct in some of what you say there and I will consult some of my books on M to see what they say about the relationship between H and M. It's a bit of a cliche but I read years ago that H taught M how to compose sy, qts - and then H then learned from M.


Yes, regrettably cliches are often true!

Haydn learned a lot from Mozart too, and the London symphonies are perhaps the most obvious show of this.


----------



## Guest (Sep 9, 2012)

stomanek said:


> We're allowed speculation on here - it's part of the attraction of TC.
> My main point is that the genius of mozart and beethoven would have blossomed without Haydn.


You crumbled rather too easily there...


----------



## Guest (Sep 9, 2012)

stomanek said:


> I also think Beethoven learned little from haydn. [...] No doubt others will disagree with this view.


Well, it does of course depend on your definition of 'learning' and on your source for your assertion. Are you saying that you can hear no evidence in B's music that he was influenced by Haydn? Or that, despite the fact that Beethoven was a pupil of Haydn, he learnt nothing?

Lewis Lockwood would disagree with you (though he does note that Beethoven did not enjoy counterpoint lessons and seemed to make no progress). Here's a review of Lockwood's book, if you're not familiar with it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2005/apr/16/featuresreviews.guardianreview21

He devotes a number of pages to exploring the relationship between them, and observes evidence of Haydn influences in Beethoven's work.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> Well, it does of course depend on your definition of 'learning' and on your source for your assertion. Are you saying that you can hear no evidence in B's music that he was influenced by Haydn? Or that, despite the fact that Beethoven was a pupil of Haydn, he learnt nothing?
> 
> Lewis Lockwood would disagree with you (though he does note that Beethoven did not enjoy counterpoint lessons and seemed to make no progress). Here's a review of Lockwood's book, if you're not familiar with it.
> 
> ...


Beethoven also studied with Salieri.
I did not say he learned nothing -

He probably took more from Mozart whose minor key works foreshadow what Beethoven did later.


----------



## Guest (Sep 9, 2012)

stomanek said:


> I did not say he learned nothing


You're right - you didn't, and I was careless in asking whether you were saying he 'learnt nothing' from Haydn as his pupil. I should have asked more positively - "What do you think he _did _learn from Haydn?" and "Could you give an example from his music?"


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> You're right - you didn't, and I was careless in asking whether you were saying he 'learnt nothing' from Haydn as his pupil. I should have asked more positively - "What do you think he _did _learn from Haydn?" and "Could you give an example from his music?"


I'm not schooled in music - so I just go on what I hear. I suppose what I mean is I can't hear any influence of Haydn from what I know but I accept musicologists may and probably do have a good case.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

stomanek said:


> I'm not schooled in music - so I just go on what I hear. I suppose what I mean is I can't hear any influence of Haydn from what I know but I accept musicologists may and probably do have a good case.


Hah. I too do not (usually) notice 'influences', possibly because I am musicologically ignorant. Doesn't mean that they aren't obvious to the cognoscenti - just means that I am happy in my ignorance.

:cheers:

[The sun is not yet over the yardarm, so the potion represented is... a root beer float.]


----------

