# Haydn and Shostakovich



## Rach d minor (Apr 21, 2014)

I have always thought these two to be bad composers, Haydn I find dull and Shostakovich to be too incredibly dissonant to me and very dark twisted melodies


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

How much of either composer's music do you know? If you knew much Shostakovich, you would know that he has a great many works which are not particularly dissonant. Do you find his third, fourth, fifth, sixth, tenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth string quartets excessively dissonant? How many of Haydn's symphonies have you heard?


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

If you find Haydn dull and Shostakovich incredibly dissonant that's your own affair, but if you take one lesson away from this thread please let it be: "I don't like this" does not mean the same thing as "this is bad", and if you _mean_ "I don't like this", say that and not "this is bad". A subjective opinion stated as subjective opinion is less bothersome to most people than a subjective opinion stated as objective fact.


----------



## Rach d minor (Apr 21, 2014)

I believe that Shostakovich is not a bad composer I just don't like him, Haydn however it is my belief that he is an overrated composer
I am familiar with all of Hayden's London symphonies (102 Is by far my favorite) and the last few as well
Given my thoughts on Shosty I LOVE his second Waltz but that's about all
I am familiar with Shostys 5, 6, and 11 symphonies and the 8th quartet


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Rach d minor said:


> I believe that Shostakovich is not a bad composer I just don't like him, Haydn however it is my belief that he is an overrated composer
> I am familiar with all of Hayden's London symphonies (102 Is by far my favorite) and the last few as well
> Given my thoughts on Shosty I LOVE his second Waltz but that's about all
> I am familiar with Shostys 5, 6, and 11 symphonies and the 8th quartet


The London Symphonies may not be Haydn's most interesting work to listen to, you may want to try 68 before goving up on him. Of course he wrote lots of non symphonic music, and you may be interested to try some of it. I like the op 50 quartets, for example.

It sounds like Shostakovich isn't for you at all. My own favourite is op 147, a little sonata for viola, but cellists sometimes play it too. He's not a composer i've explored very deeply.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Rach d minor said:


> I believe that Shostakovich is not a bad composer I just don't like him, Haydn however it is my belief that he is an overrated composer
> I am familiar with all of Hayden's London symphonies (102 Is by far my favorite) and the last few as well
> Given my thoughts on Shosty I LOVE his second Waltz but that's about all
> I am familiar with Shostys 5, 6, and 11 symphonies and the 8th quartet


So, you know about 1% of Shostakovich's music and possibly a smaller percentage of Haydn's. This is not enough to have an informed opinion on either composer.

The London Symphonies are far from the most interesting of Haydn's work. Listen to Symphonies 44 through 47 and some of the other ones from the 1770s. They are much better.

The 8th quartet isn't among the best of Shostakovich's quartets. It is a curiosity - a pasitche - and owes its popularity to its alleged autobiographical dimension which, by the way, no one seems able to explain. You might consider doing some listening before expressing sweeping judgments.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Rach d minor said:


> I have always thought these two to be bad composers, Haydn I find dull and Shostakovich to be too incredibly dissonant to me and very dark twisted melodies


I personally do not care which composers you like or dislike, but in my opinion if you truly find Haydn dull, may I humbly suggest that you have not been exposed to enough Haydn?

If you wish to hear some "non-dull" Haydn, I would be happy to recommend some works in a PM.

PM me if interested.


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

Please take note. I'm speechless.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

If you don't like the music of Haydn and Shostakovich, I suggest getting away from it for a while (after you finish that concert with the 5th, of course), and come back to it later if you're interested.

Trying to force yourself to like something has always seemed odd to me, unless you feel that there's something there to interest you. More experience with a wide variety of music, and you may find you enjoy Haydn and Shostakovich a lot more. I've recently come to appreciate the former a good deal more myself. As for Shostakovich, I've always had something of a love-hate relationship, not because of the dissonance of his works, but just because of their content.


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

^ That is exactly what I was going to suggest  If you don't like a composer, then you probably just need to explore other directions in classical music for a while and, in a few years, after you have absorbed a lot of different things, these composers will soon start to fit into place, and, if your experience is like mine, you will ask yourself how you could have been so blind, or rather, tone-deaf for so long.


----------



## Roi N (Oct 22, 2013)

I've never seen anyone pair Haydn with Shostakovich.
That being said, Haydn isn't dull. And all those comments about the London Symphonies not showcasing his best ability are wong. The London Symphonies are the finest set of symphonies ever composed - there is nothing you can't find in them. Haydn's creativity is vividly apparent in them.
It sounds like you don't know Haydn, so I'll recommend some pieces:
Piano sonatas: 31 (A-Flat Major), 50 (D Major), 53 (E minor), 59 (E-Flat Major), 60 (C Major), 61 (D Major), 62 (E-Flat).
String Quartets: Op. 33 No. 1, 2, 3 (B minor, E-Flat Major, C Major), Op. 50 No. 1, 4 (B-Flat Major, F Major), Op. 54 No. 1 (G Major), the entire Op. 76.
Symphonies: 44-46, 61-75, 82-87 (Paris), 88, 93-104 (London)
Masses: 9-14

Hope you learn to love Haydn!


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Roi N said:


> I've never seen anyone pair Haydn with Shostakovich.
> That being said, Haydn isn't dull. And all those comments about the London Symphonies not showcasing his best ability are wong. The London Symphonies are the finest set of symphonies ever composed - there is nothing you can't find in them. Haydn's creativity is vividly apparent in them.
> It sounds like you don't know Haydn, so I'll recommend some pieces:
> Piano sonatas: 31 (A-Flat Major), 50 (D Major), 53 (E minor), 59 (E-Flat Major), 60 (C Major), 61 (D Major), 62 (E-Flat).
> ...


Of course, I agree with everything you wrote here. Haydn is my number one love.

Shostakovich I find dull by the way.


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock (Jul 6, 2013)

I'm not familiar enough with Shostakovich's work to comment. 

As regards Haydn:

I fully agree with Roi N as to the value of the London symphonies. They are probably his greatest symphonic works. 
However, some prefer his Sturm und Drang-era symphonies, a.k.a. 26, 39, 44, 45, 46, 49, 52 - these generally have a more 'baroque' sound and are quite different from the London symphonies. 

Haydn has excellent works in all genres. Some of his best works are definitely the oratorios The Creation and The Seasons - filled with excellent ideas, meticulously detailed orchestration, awesome choirs, just great music. His orchestral piece The Seven Last Words of Our Saviour on the Cross (also known in quartet, oratorio and piano versions) is great as well.

Haydn's masses have lots of great music as well, especially in the last 6. His quartets were the basis for basically all later composers and are great works.


----------



## mirepoix (Feb 1, 2014)

Vaneyes said:


> Please take note. I'm speechless.


Shosty takes note, agrees fully - and then agrees some more.


----------



## Guest (May 22, 2014)

I can only echo those who've said, "If you don't like it, stop listening to it."

Actually, I should add that, in my exploration of 'new' music, I find I come across things that don't engage me as much as the enthusiasms of others suggest I should. At what point am I going to walk away from Ravel's _Daphnis and Chloe_, I wonder?


----------



## Roi N (Oct 22, 2013)

hpowders said:


> Of course, I agree with everything you wrote here. Haydn is my number one love.
> 
> Shostakovich I find dull by the way.


Great minds think alike. Haydn is, in my opinion as well, the greatest composer to ever live. And I too can't seem to find beauty in Shotakovich.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Roi N said:


> Great minds think alike. Haydn is, in my opinion as well, the greatest composer to ever live. And I too can't seem to find beauty in Shotakovich.


Statements like this always make me curious, so I'll ask the same question I asked the OP: What music of Shostakovich have you heard?


----------



## Guest (May 23, 2014)

Roi N said:


> Great minds think alike. Haydn is, in my opinion as well, the greatest composer to ever live. And I too can't seem to find beauty in Shotakovich.


I find beauty in both. Conclusion?


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

I'd suggest going for Mozart and Dvorak as alternate options. Way more enjoyable Composers imo.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

neoshredder said:


> I'd suggest going for Mozart and Dvorak as alternate options. Way more enjoyable Composers imo.


To quote Dilbert: That's wrong on so many levels...


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

KenOC said:


> To quote Dilbert: That's wrong on so many levels...


Different strokes for different folks...


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Roi N said:


> Great minds think alike. Haydn is, in my opinion as well, the greatest composer to ever live. And I too can't seem to find beauty in Shotakovich.


Yes. I've heard most of Shostakovich's symphonies, two: violin concertos, cello concertos, piano concertos; also, string quartets, chamber music with piano, etc; and while there are high points, there aren't enough to sustain my interest.

Haydn? He can say more in 4 minutes than other composers usually say in 75.

For me Haydn has staying power. Shostakovich doesn't.

We are all different. Like what you like.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

Haydn was the biggest progressive power in the symphony and quartet of pretty much ever. No big deal....


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

I have to admit though, I am a sucker for a good performance of the Shostakovich 5th Symphony, when nobody's looking.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Vesuvius said:


> Haydn was the biggest progressive power in the symphony and quartet of pretty much ever. No big deal....


Yeah. No big deal. :lol:


----------



## Roi N (Oct 22, 2013)

EdwardBast said:


> Statements like this always make me curious, so I'll ask the same question I asked the OP: What music of Shostakovich have you heard?


Well, I've heard his symphonies (all 15 of them) and his string quartets (all 15 of them as well). Man, was that a waste of my time...


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

If you enjoy chamber music, you will find Haydn's huge output of string quartets a treasure trove. I like most of Haydn, but I adore the quartets. Composers can put their most personal thoughts into works where each part can be played by one person, with all the subtlety of expression that makes possible. Haydn's a blithe spirit and joy is basic to his personality, but the quartets often exhibit as well a degree of poignancy not often found in his orchestral stuff. The sheer invention is astonishing! You can't know the full scope of Haydn if you don't know the quartets.

Now Shostakovich's quartets are something else again... Don't like 'em much myself - S.'s "personal thoughts" aren't generally ones I care to share - but that's _my_ problem, if it _is_ a problem. Ain't askin' for help solving it!


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Haydn's music is cheerful and optimistic. 
Shostakovich's is gloomy and will put you on antidepressants.

Don't send me cards and letters. That's the way I see it.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Roi N said:


> Well, I've heard his symphonies (all 15 of them) and his string quartets (all 15 of them as well). Man, was that a waste of my time...


Oh good! Glad to see you suffered through with such stoicism. Most folks who give blanket critiques like yours have heard the same three works everyone else has heard and think that entitles them to an opinion. Glad to see you aren't one of those.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

For me, Shostakovich wrote one symphony that doesn't make me squirm, and that's the Fifth.
It is a masterpiece, no doubt about it.

Now that I brought it up, I will schedule it, either Haitink or Järvi, over the next several days.....
....in-between dozens of glorious Haydn symphonies and string quartets.


----------



## Dustin (Mar 30, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> If you enjoy chamber music, you will find Haydn's huge output of string quartets a treasure trove. I like most of Haydn, but I adore the quartets. Composers can put their most personal thoughts into works where each part can be played by one person, with all the subtlety of expression that makes possible. Haydn's a blithe spirit and joy is basic to his personality, but the quartets often exhibit as well a degree of poignancy not often found in his orchestral stuff. The sheer invention is astonishing! You can't know the full scope of Haydn if you don't know the quartets.
> 
> Now Shostakovich's quartets are something else again... Don't like 'em much myself - S.'s "personal thoughts" aren't generally ones I care to share - but that's _my_ problem, if it _is_ a problem. Ain't askin' for help solving it!


Great post there. I've always been a sucker for chamber music and particularly string quartets. I feel the music is more exposed and concentrated.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

hpowders said:


> Haydn's music is cheerful and optimistic.
> Shostakovich's is gloomy and will put you on antidepressants.
> 
> Don't send me cards and letters. That's the way I see it.


In a very general sense this is true. But I wouldn't say that Haydn is 'pretentiously' cheery. He was much more of a 'sturdy' human being, so his music reflected that. I don't feel the angst or anxiety of a lot of other composers in his music. He was sound and steady, which further allowed him to explore new ground.


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

A good read on Shostakovich and depression, among other things...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio3/shostakovich/feature.shtml


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Vesuvius said:


> In a very general sense this is true. But I wouldn't say that Haydn is 'pretentiously' cheery. He was much more of a 'sturdy' human being, so his music reflected that. I don't feel the angst or anxiety of a lot of other composers in his music. He was sound and steady, which further allowed him to explore new ground.


Under the ruling aesthetic ideas and systems of Haydn's day, music was not generally heard as a medium of individual expression. Nor were its aesthetic qualities thought to reflect the inner life, disposition, or psychology of its composers. This is an anachronistic mode of thought. Have you noticed the ratio of works in the major mode versus the minor mode among Haydn's symphonies and quartets? The fact that it is probably (estimating here) upwards of 8:1, has nothing to do with Haydn's sturdiness, steadiness - though he indeed had those qualities in abundance - or even cheeriness, it had to do with classical (meaning specifically the high classical period in the last years of the 18th century) music's ambivalent and uncomfortable relationship to affect, emotion, the passions - however one wishes to put it. Remember, this was arguably the lowest point in the prestige of western instrumental music, a time when it was thought to be a low art precisely because of its inability to "imitate" significant aspects of human life - like emotion or the manifestations of inner experience. It was thought by many to amount to nothing more than ear tickling. So of course one would not expect to find "angst or anxiety." But the absence of such qualities in Haydn's music does not mean the same thing it would mean if they were absent in the music of Beethoven or Mahler or Tchaikovsky - or Schoenberg or Shostakovich or Bartok or Scnittke.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

EdwardBast said:


> Under the ruling aesthetic ideas and systems of Haydn's day, music was not generally heard as a medium of individual expression. Nor were its aesthetic qualities thought to reflect the inner life, disposition, or psychology of its composers. This is an anachronistic mode of thought. Have you noticed the ratio of works in the major mode versus the minor mode among Haydn's symphonies and quartets? The fact that it is probably (estimating here) upwards of 8:1, has nothing to do with Haydn's sturdiness, steadiness - though he indeed had those qualities in abundance - or even cheeriness, it had to do with classical (meaning specifically the high classical period in the last years of the 18th century) music's ambivalent and uncomfortable relationship to affect, emotion, the passions - however one wishes to put it. Remember, this was arguably the lowest point in the prestige of western instrumental music, a time when it was thought to be a low art precisely because of its inability to "imitate" significant aspects of human life - like emotion or the manifestations of inner experience. It was thought by many to amount to nothing more than ear tickling. So of course one would not expect to find "angst or anxiety." But the absence of such qualities in Haydn's music does not mean the same thing it would mean if they were absent in the music of Beethoven or Mahler or Tchaikovsky - or Schoenberg or Shostakovich or Bartok or Scnittke.


Whoo, you're wearing me out with all these technicalities, man... Maybe you can't, but I very much am able to sense the individuality of the composers from Medieval-Renaissance-Baroque-Classical, and onward. I'm not new to this stuff, so the general aesthetic of each genre is clearly visible, but still the composers disposition shines through.

Further on... Haydn has a much different feel than Mozart or Vanhal... Prokofiev has a much different feel than Shosty. So on, and so on....


----------



## Guest (May 25, 2014)

Vesuvius said:


> Maybe you can't, but I very much am able to sense the individuality of the composers from Medieval-Renaissance-Baroque-Classical, and onward.


I'm fairly sure Edward was not saying that he can't, or that it is not possible to 'sense the individuality'. What I took from his post is that it is wrong to expect two composers from such different periods to have similar qualities when the prevailing musical expectations of the 1780s and 1940s were quite different.

However, whatever the orthodoxy of the time, whether Haydn was expected to express his inner emotions in his music or not, the listener may nevertheless ascribe a 'personality' to the music. To the extent that a preference for one key over another, (for dissonance over consonance, for the 'delicate' over the 'lumbering') can be read as an expression of personality, such personalities are valid readings of the music. The mistake would be to assume that what you hear (and read into) is who the composer is.


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock (Jul 6, 2013)

I like the discussion we have going here, keep the posts coming, hehe. 

Personally, I definitely don't think Haydn was 'all convention' - he broke conventions very often, and his humour and musical deceptiveness is a trait that appears less frequently in both Mozart and Beethoven. I do think that the strong formal organisation of Haydn's music also reflected a strong, sturdy character. Also, Haydn's music is very rhythmatic, which in my opinion also points to a 'driven' and goal-oriented character.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

MacLeod said:


> I'm fairly sure Edward was not saying that he can't, or that it is not possible to 'sense the individuality'. What I took from his post is that it is wrong to expect two composers from such different periods to have similar qualities when the prevailing musical expectations of the 1780s and 1940s were quite different.
> 
> However, whatever the orthodoxy of the time, whether Haydn was expected to express his inner emotions in his music or not, the listener may nevertheless ascribe a 'personality' to the music. To the extent that a preference for one key over another, (for dissonance over consonance, for the 'delicate' over the 'lumbering') can be read as an expression of personality, such personalities are valid readings of the music. The mistake would be to assume that what you hear (and read into) is who the composer is.


The music won't tell all about the composer, but their personality will most definitely shine through... particularly when these artist have dedicated so much of their life to this art. The eras of each composer are vastly different... of course. But an era doesn't completely define the artist, that's simply the structure they're working with. Kraus had a tendency to dive into darker and more melancholy emotions than Haydn... yet they both were working with the 'Classical' structure. Prokofief was much more light and playful than Shosty, yet they both were coming from the very unhealthy state of 20th century Russia.

Regardless of era, Shosty and Haydn were much, much different people. One depressed and full of angst - the other quite sound and content... and their music reflected that.


----------



## Guest (May 25, 2014)

Vesuvius said:


> Regardless of era, Shosty and Haydn were much, much different people. One depressed and full of angst - the other quite sound and content... and their music reflected that.


Well, I can't say I knew either of them well enough to speak so confidently of their character, but obviously their music is different.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

MacLeod said:


> Well, I can't say I knew either of them well enough to speak so confidently of their character, but obviously their music is different.


Haha, I guess we have to have a 'bit' of faith in the history books. Because I didn't get the privilege to meet either of them....

But their music speaks volumes.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Vesuvius said:


> The music won't tell all about the composer, but their personality will most definitely shine through... particularly when these artist have dedicated so much of their life to this art. The eras of each composer are vastly different... of course. But an era doesn't completely define the artist, that's simply the structure they're working with. Kraus had a tendency to dive into darker and more melancholy emotions than Haydn... yet they both were working with the 'Classical' structure. Prokofief was much more light and playful than Shosty, yet they both were coming from the very unhealthy state of 20th century Russia.
> 
> Regardless of era, Shosty and Haydn were much, much different people. One depressed and full of angst - the other quite sound and content... and their music reflected that.


MacLeod is more or less right about what I meant. I wasn't arguing that a classical era composer's personality isn't in some sense apparent in their work. Only that it is anachronistic to read classical era music as a record of inner life and personal expression.

If by content you mean Haydn was happy to have a menial job for most of his life where his art was accorded the same level of respect as a good pot roast, then I guess you are right. You should also remember that when his music began to take on a darker, more individual tone in the early 1770s, his employer complained about it and requested that he rein it in.

The comparison with Shostakovich is meaningless for the reasons given in #34. Watermelons and bananas.

Prokofiev's major works written in the USSR were not light and playful, especially after the honeymoon of his return was over. The first violin sonata is as dark as anything Shostakovich wrote, as is the Sixth Symphony. All of the war sonatas are dark. And of course Prokofiev was not a particularly sensitive individual. He let his whole family be exiled without putting up a fight and was willing to trade the freedom he had in the west for honors, awards, and largesse bestowed by a psychopath. Hardly an example of health and balance.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

EdwardBast said:


> MacLeod is more or less right about what I meant. I wasn't arguing that a classical era composer's personality isn't in some sense apparent in their work. Only that it is anachronistic to read classical era music as a record of inner life and personal expression.
> 
> If by content you mean Haydn was happy to have a menial job for most of his life where his art was accorded the same level of respect as a good pot roast, then I guess you are right. You should also remember that when his music began to take on a darker, more individual tone in the early 1770s, his employer complained about it and requested that he rein it in.
> 
> ...


I see what you're saying. Although it is getting a bit extreme in the nit-picking. We really don't know how any of these composers really were in real life, if we want to be completely honest and empirical. But from the collected biographies... Shosty was quite dark and Haydn was quite content. Everyone has their idiosyncrasies and dynamics of life that makes it harder to 'bookmark.' But in a general sense, I find it rather odd that I have to make such an effort to declare the differences in 'individuality' of these two composers.

Go read a book or two on them, or watch a couple documentaries... it's not hard to get to the same conclusion I have. And that's the closest we are going to get to actually understanding how they were day-to-day. Beyond the fact that the whole ambience of their music was vastly different, and not just because of the era they were in. An era doesn't define the composer... as I've tried to point out in earlier post.


----------



## SARDiver (Jan 6, 2014)

HaydnBearstheClock said:


> I'm not familiar enough with Shostakovich's work to comment.
> 
> As regards Haydn:
> 
> ...


I'm still a relative neophyte when it comes to orchestral music. What I have heard of Shostakovich I have not particularly enjoyed. It just wasn't to my liking, and I haven't sought out more, honestly.

I took the plunge with Haydn and purchased all of his symphonies. I stayed away from this board for a while (or was careful about what I read). I didn't want to be influenced by what others liked or disliked. I made notes about which symphonies really "caught my ear". If I found myself listening and really enjoying what I was hearing, I wrote down the symphony. 16, 19, 26, 39, 44, 45, 51, 52...there are others, but they aren't relevant. I had heard of the "Sturm und Drang" works, but didn't know which ones they were. I guess I'm drawn to them. LOL Thanks for posting that.


----------



## mikey (Nov 26, 2013)

I can't believe the comments on the London symphonies! They are certainly up there with his greatest works!
If you're looking for 'more unorthodox' Haydn shall we say, try something like the finales of Symphony no.60, the joke quartet, and the cmaj fantasie.
Haydn at his best can be first and foremost hilarious, touching, thrilling, inventive, but NEVER dull.

As for Shosta, if you think he's incredibly dissonant, you have a of catching up to do!
Try the Festive Overture - as bright and cheerful as one can hope for. Also the Second Piano Concerto, the 9th Symphony and the Jazz suites.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Vesuvius said:


> . . . I find it rather odd that I have to make such an effort to declare the differences in 'individuality' of these two composers.


This isn't the issue in dispute. The issue is whether differences in the expressive qualities of their music are primarily attributable to differences in personality, as opposed to the stylistic premises under which they composed. If Haydn was a depressed alcoholic would he have written anxious and tortured music? No. He still would have composed music almost exclusively in the major mode which we today, anachronistically applying our expressive theory, would say was sunny and cheerful.



Vesuvius said:


> Beyond the fact that the whole ambience of their music was vastly different, and not just because of the era they were in. An era doesn't define the composer... as I've tried to point out in earlier post.


When you are comparing two composers nearly two centuries apart, the differences in content _are_ overwhelmingly due to the eras in which they composed. You say Haydn's music was, unlike Shostakovich's, free of anxious and tortured expression because he had a sunnier disposition, while ignoring a far more obvious factor: Haydn's music was free of anxious and tortured expression because the whole modern notion of musical expression simply didn't exist when he was composing. This factor makes the comparison absurd.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

EdwardBast said:


> The 8th quartet isn't among the best of Shostakovich's quartets. It is a curiosity - a pasitche - and owes its popularity to its alleged autobiographical dimension which, by the way, no one seems able to explain. You might consider doing some listening before expressing sweeping judgments.


This has always been a very strong opinion of mine too. Glad to find someone who agrees.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

EdwardBast said:


> This isn't the issue in dispute. The issue is whether differences in the expressive qualities of their music are primarily attributable to differences in personality, as opposed to the stylistic premises under which they composed. If Haydn was a depressed alcoholic would he have written anxious and tortured music? No. He still would have composed music almost exclusively in the major mode which we today, anachronistically applying our expressive theory, would say was sunny and cheerful.
> 
> When you are comparing two composers nearly two centuries apart, the differences in content _are_ overwhelmingly due to the eras in which they composed. You say Haydn's music was, unlike Shostakovich's, free of anxious and tortured expression because he had a sunnier disposition, while ignoring a far more obvious factor: Haydn's music was free of anxious and tortured expression because the whole modern notion of musical expression simply didn't exist when he was composing. This factor makes the comparison absurd.


You have valid points, but as I've said before, I just disagree that an era so defines a composer. That's a much more 'superficial' way of examining an artist. The era was simply the structure they worked with, but it doesn't curtail the artists' genuine intentions. We have to look a little bit past the surface. Not everyone in the Classical era wrote cheerful music... Kraus wrote many pieces in the minor key to express darker and melancholic feelings... so did Mozart. Even Haydn explored the darker sides, but he would never over-indulge in it...

Furthermore, not everyone in the 20th century wrote such demented music as Shostakovich. Of course he too had sunny moments, but in totality, he wrote very dark music because that's how he was inside.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Why the comparison of Haydn and Shostakovich? Completely different composing styles and "sociologies".

Compare Haydn to Mozart. Compare Shostakovich to Mahler.

But Haydn to Shostakovich? Why? It's an irrational leap, in my opinion.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

hpowders said:


> Why the comparison of Haydn and Shostakovich? Completely different composing styles and "sociologies".
> 
> Compare Haydn to Mozart. Compare Shostakovich to Mahler.
> 
> But Haydn to Shostakovich? Why? It's an irrational leap, in my opinion.


I wouldn't say it's irrational. They're both people wanting to express their relationship with life. Same sack of emotions... just a different time. It's a bit more of a challenge, but a welcome one to me.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

I'm curious about those who say that Shostakovich's music depresses them. Does it actually make you yourself *feel* depressed or do you just recognize that the music is expressing depressing emotions?

The latter I can completely understand and relate to, but I don't think I have ever had music itself actually cause me to experience a personal state of depression.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

violadude said:


> I'm curious about those who say that Shostakovich's music depresses them. Does it actually make you yourself *feel* depressed or do you just recognize that the music is expressing depressing emotions?
> 
> The latter I can completely understand and relate to, but I don't think I have ever had music itself actually cause me to experience a personal state of depression.


There's obviously a relation that people share with certain stimuli and emotions based on social conditionings. Of course it varies, but in a general sense... there are tones, melodies, expressions that bring an air of darkness rather light. Otherwise horror movies wouldn't be horrific, Black Metal wouldn't be aggressive and dark, etc... It's just a way we try to relate with each other.

Of course, I don't myself feel 'depressed' when listening to Shosty, but it's very much apparent that he was expressing something dark... much of the time. And it's very much apparent that Haydn was expressing something more sound and sturdy... much of the time.


----------



## Guest (May 26, 2014)

Vesuvius said:


> Although it is getting a bit extreme in the nit-picking. We really don't know how any of these composers really were in real life, if we want to be completely honest and empirical.


So, since you agree "we don't really know" it's hardly "nitpicking" to point this out!



Vesuvius said:


> But from the collected biographies... Shosty was quite dark and Haydn was quite content.
> 
> Go read a book or two on them, or watch a couple documentaries... it's not hard to get to the same conclusion I have.


On the other hand, listen to the music...



> But this is a birthday party, and birthday parties should be gay and amusing, not necessarily noble and moving. Besides, you should know that Shostakovich is also world-famous for his marvelous sense of humor. He has written some of the most downright funny music there is to be heard, and therefore I think it's especially proper for us to celebrate just hisbirthday in an atmosphere of fun. So in just a moment, instead of a long serious work, we're going to play you one of his gayest and most amusing works-his Ninth Symphony.


http://www.leonardbernstein.com/ypc_script_a_birthday_tribute_to_shostakovich.htm


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

MacLeod said:


> So, since you agree "we don't really know" it's hardly "nitpicking" to point this out!
> 
> On the other hand, listen to the music...
> 
> http://www.leonardbernstein.com/ypc_script_a_birthday_tribute_to_shostakovich.htm


This is starting to feel argumentative for argumentative's sake. If you completely disagree that Shosty was a darker character than Haydn, then I have no where else to go if we can't even get past the starting line. I never said Shosty didn't express any other ideas but 'darkness'... I'm saying it is a primary ambience in his music.


----------



## Guest (May 26, 2014)

Vesuvius said:


> This is starting to feel argumentative for argumentative's sake. If you completely disagree that Shosty was a darker character than Haydn, then I have no where else to go if we can't even get past the starting line. I never said Shosty didn't express any other ideas but 'darkness'... I'm saying it is a primary ambience in his music.


"Argumentative"? Possibly. But if you post an opinion I disagree with, what am I to do? Not disagree in order to avoid being "argumentative"?


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

MacLeod said:


> "Argumentative"? Possibly. But if you post an opinion I disagree with, what am I to do? Not disagree in order to avoid being "argumentative"?


Oh, sure. You're just not putting out any valid argument to the contrary of what I'm saying. You can go right now and watch several documentaries by people who have studied these characters immensely and come to the general conclusion that I'm at. A silly quote from Bernstein won't change my view.

I've also posted a neat little documentary on Haydn in his guestbook, and many on that video have said the same thing about Haydn being rather sound minded... and yes, his music reflected that. I've read quite a bit about Shosty, as well. And I've gathered that he was a rather dark character, but that's pretty obvious from his music to begin with. Of course I'm being very 'general' here, but as a more simplistic gathering of information, I feel that's a quite acceptable view.

Every man is an ocean of many currents, but we're talking about the most prominent and easily visible characteristics here.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Vesuvius said:


> I wouldn't say it's irrational. They're both people wanting to express their relationship with life. Same sack of emotions... just a different time. It's a bit more of a challenge, but a welcome one to me.


Their music couldn't be more different: one optimistic; witty; glad to be alive and the other, depressive; sarcastic and angry.

One is sparkling water. The other is triple vodka. Hold the ice.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

hpowders said:


> Their music couldn't be more different: one optimistic; witty; glad to be alive and the other, depressive; sarcastic and angry.
> 
> One is sparkling water. The other is triple vodka. Hold the ice.


Haha, they certainly are very different.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Vesuvius said:


> Haha, they certainly are very different.


One, pithy, the other musically "verbose."

I'm thinking of commencing The Pithy Fund, to encourage composers and folks on fora to:

"get to the point; I haven't got all day!" (Copyrighted 03/27/2014, hpowders.)


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

hpowders said:


> One, pithy, the other musically "verbose."
> 
> I'm thinking of commencing The Pithy Fund, to encourage composers and folks on fora to:
> 
> "get to the point; I haven't got all day!" (Copyrighted 03/27/2014, hpowders.)


Pithy is good. Haydn is definitely so. I've enjoyed both composers, really. But Shostakovich can start to feel like an anchor around my neck after a while. Haydn is never a burden, and his musical brilliancy is nearly always engaging.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Vesuvius said:


> I wouldn't say it's irrational. They're both people wanting to express their relationship with life. Same sack of emotions... just a different time. It's a bit more of a challenge, but a welcome one to me.


That's just the thing you aren't getting: There is no reason to believe Haydn had the slightest intention of expressing his relationship to life. HE WASN'T COMPOSING UNDER AN EXPRESSIVE THEORY OF AESTHETICS. That wasn't (generally) in the mindset of composers in that era. It is in your mindset and you are foisting it on Haydn.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

EdwardBast said:


> That's just the thing you aren't getting: There is no reason to believe Haydn had the slightest intention of expressing his relationship to life. HE WASN'T COMPOSING UNDER AN EXPRESSIVE THEORY OF AESTHETICS. That wasn't (generally) in the mindset of composers in that era. It is in your mindset and you are foisting it on Haydn.


I completely disagree with this robotic premise. I understand the air of detachment and ethics in the Classical era, but it wasn't so dry to the point of being devoid of individuality. If an era is so completely defining, then lets just listen to one composer of each and be done with it. I think it's hogwash to shackle composers in this way.

Haydn put a lot of his own soul into his music. I question that you've even listened to him very much.

This view is utterly superficial, and I just don't perceive with such absolute boundaries. I'm sorry you do.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Vesuvius said:


> Pithy is good. Haydn is definitely so. I've enjoyed both composers, really. But Shostakovich can start to feel like an anchor around my neck after a while. Haydn is never a burden, and his musical brilliancy is nearly always engaging.


I feel the same. But I do love the Shostakovich 5th Symphony.


----------



## Guest (May 27, 2014)

Vesuvius said:


> *I completely disagree with this robotic premise.* I understand the air of detachment and ethics in the Classical era, but it wasn't so dry to the point of being devoid of individuality. If an era is so completely defining, then lets just listen to one composer of each and be done with it. *I think it's hogwash* to shackle composers in this way.
> 
> Haydn put a lot of his own soul into his music. *I question that you've even listened to him very much*.
> 
> *This view is utterly superficial*, and I just don't perceive with such absolute boundaries. I'm sorry you do.


And you wonder why others might get a little "argumentative"...


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

I suspect a lot of the problems people have with Shostakovich lie in the aesthetics of his music. In my view, he was the finest and most direct musical communicator since Beethoven; but he communicates, generally, a quite different message.

As Shostakovich said, most people are neither black nor white but a dirty shade of grey. His music is similarly ambiguous. Many don't like this; they want to hear music reflecting themselves as they want to be, or want to believe that they are. Fair enough. But the purely musical force in Shostakovich's music forces us to listen to another viewpoint, one perhaps more reflective of reality.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Vesuvius said:


> I completely disagree with this robotic premise. I understand the air of detachment and ethics in the Classical era, but it wasn't so dry to the point of being devoid of individuality. If an era is so completely defining, then lets just listen to one composer of each and be done with it. I think it's hogwash to shackle composers in this way.
> 
> Haydn put a lot of his own soul into his music. I question that you've even listened to him very much.
> 
> This view is utterly superficial, and I just don't perceive with such absolute boundaries. I'm sorry you do.


No one said anything about a lack of individuality. Or dryness. Or that Haydn's personality isn't in many ways discernible in his compositional choices. I have no idea where you are getting this from what I have written. My point is that music of Haydn's era was not intended as a reflection of internal, emotional life, and it was not heard as a glimpse into the composer's soul. I don't hear the absence of this kind of personal expressiveness as a shortcoming or defect. It is just part of the essence of the style. If hearing his music in this light is important to you, then you are listening to Haydn with a sensibility that is foreign and anachronistic to the spirit in which it was composed. This doesn't bother me. Whatever floats yer boat and makes it enjoyable for you. The problem I have is when you compare this _imaginary_ personal expressive content you are foisting on Haydn's music with the _actual_ personal expressive content in Shostakovich, and use this comparison to evaluate the relative spiritual health of two composers whose life circumstances could not have been more different.

I have studied works of Haydn in the major instrumental genres from all eras of his life in great detail. I enjoy and admire his music. I also love the music of Shostakovich. I listen to these two composers in completely different ways and with different expectations because their styles, world views, and aesthetic assumptions were too different to do otherwise. You are listening to them with the same set of assumptions and expectations - which is why you are coming up with these bizarre comparisons. You like peppy, sturdy, cheerful music more than bleak, dark, and depressing music. I get it. I just don't get why you feel the need to justify your preference by deriding the moral qualities of a composer who endured stresses, threats, grief and horror which I doubt you can begin to imagine.


----------



## Alydon (May 16, 2012)

KenOC said:


> I suspect a lot of the problems people have with Shostakovich lie in the aesthetics of his music. In my view, he was the finest and most direct musical communicator since Beethoven; but he communicates, generally, a quite different message.
> 
> As Shostakovich said, most people are neither black nor white but a dirty shade of grey. His music is similarly ambiguous. Many don't like this; they want to hear music reflecting themselves as they want to be, or want to believe that they are. Fair enough. But the purely musical force in Shostakovich's music forces us to listen to another viewpoint, one perhaps more reflective of reality.


A very profound statement and although at times I have found Shostakovich difficult to grasp there is light in the bleakness which demands to be acknowledged and which ultimately reflects our own lives - just listened to the 10th conducted by Karajan.

As for Haydn he must be the least dull composer I know.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

MacLeod said:


> And you wonder why others might get a little "argumentative"...


I thought I'd return the favor.



EdwardBast said:


> No one said anything about a lack of individuality. Or dryness. Or that Haydn's personality isn't in many ways discernible in his compositional choices. I have no idea where you are getting this from what I have written. My point is that music of Haydn's era was not intended as a reflection of internal, emotional life, and it was not heard as a glimpse into the composer's soul. I don't hear the absence of this kind of personal expressiveness as a shortcoming or defect. It is just part of the essence of the style. If hearing his music in this light is important to you, then you are listening to Haydn with a sensibility that is foreign and anachronistic to the spirit in which it was composed. This doesn't bother me. Whatever floats yer boat and makes it enjoyable for you. The problem I have is when you compare this _imaginary_ personal expressive content you are foisting on Haydn's music with the _actual_ personal expressive content in Shostakovich, and use this comparison to evaluate the relative spiritual health of two composers whose life circumstances could not have been more different.
> 
> *I have studied works of Haydn in the major instrumental genres from all eras of his life in great detail. I enjoy and admire his music. I also love the music of Shostakovich. I listen to these two composers in completely different ways and with different expectations because their styles, world views, and aesthetic assumptions were too different to do otherwise. You are listening to them with the same set of assumptions and expectations - which is why you are coming up with these bizarre comparisons. You like peppy, sturdy, cheerful music more than bleak, dark, and depressing music. I get it. I just don't get why you feel the need to justify your preference by deriding the moral qualities of a composer who endured stresses, threats, grief and horror which I doubt you can begin to imagine.*


Well, these are assumptions you're making. But maybe I've made some on your behalf, as well. I never said I prefer peppy music more than bleak. I know we're pretty much strangers, but if you knew me at all, you'd find this assumption to be silly... I even talked about Kraus and Mozart diving into darker expressions. I was simply arguing the fact that the Classical era does not wash out individuals relationship with life. Of course it's not as indulgent as the Romantic/Post-Romantics, and its musical ethics were quite different. I put those variables into my conclusions.

I was simply trying to look past all of this noise towards the composers themselves.... Different times, but at the core they were both humans wanting to relate to this world.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Vesuvius said:


> I thought I'd return the favor.
> 
> Well, these are assumptions you're making. But maybe I've made some on your behalf, as well. I never said I prefer peppy music more than bleak. I know we're pretty much strangers, but if you knew me at all, you'd find this assumption to be silly... I even talked about Kraus and Mozart diving into darker expressions. I was simply arguing the fact that the Classical era does not wash out individuals relationship with life. Of course it's not as indulgent as the Romantic/Post-Romantics, and its musical ethics were quite different. I put those variables into my conclusions.
> 
> I was simply trying to look past all of this noise towards the composers themselves.... Different times, but at the core they were both humans wanting to relate to this world.


Okay, I probably did make some overreaching assumptions. And I enjoy the darker side of classical music as well. If you take anything away from my side of this discussion I hope it is this: There is a difference between a piece of music being moving, on one hand, and being personally expressive in the modern (and Romantic) sense (meaning it directly reflects, records or springs from the composer's emotional life), on the other. For me, the darker side of Haydn can be quite moving, but I would never assume Haydn was trying to record his own emotional experience by creating his darker works.


----------

