# Classical music vs Great music. Of Mice, Mozart and Mahler



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

Is there a difference between Amadeus and Aaron, (Copland), in terms of how Classical a thing is in essence? One might say _Classical_ is an objective spectra in its closest form resembling that of the Big 3, and, others might say all _greats_ are equally Classical, some are not more-Classical just greater. But *blue* is a color. Can something be more blue, and something less blue? Are Mozart and Haydn more Classical than say, *Copland* or *Gershwin*? And the Great master Mahler?

Some first definitions I read:
n.	Music of the classical period; the music of Mozart, Haydn, etc; the musical period before the romantic.
n.	The more serious forms of European and American music, as opposed to folk music, jazz or the many forms of popular music.

"The term 'classical music' did not appear until the early 19th century, in an attempt to distinctly canonize the period from Johann Sebastian Bach to Ludwig van Beethoven as a golden age." - Julian Rushton

If some composers _are_ more Classical than others, it can be then argued that certain music often disputed on this forum, like film score or jazz, is simply "part Classical," and not instead "non-Classical." What are some predominant features of Classicism. Can a blue painting be more blue than a *less blue* painting?


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

"Classical" is a historical category. The closest circumscription that still covers a broad spectrum would probably be "European/Western Art Music". (Unless one means Viennese Classicism of ca. 1760-1820.)

In any case, I don't think it is fruitful to get too hung up on borderline cases. They will almost always exist but it is not helpful to revise definitions to cover more of them. Either definitions will get too broad or too narrow to be sensible. It was important for Gershwin that Porgy and Bess was an opera, not a musical play or comedy. We should not quibble about something like that. Similar cases could be found in 19th century comic opera vs. operetta. There is not much gained by sorting some Offenbach piece clearly into one or the other category. Better spend time and effort listening/appreciating/analysing the specific piece in question as such, not with the (main) goal of coming to some classification.

Similarly, for music between e.g. Jazz and Classical. If Jazz must have "genuine"? improvisation then Davis/Evans "Porgy and Bess" is not Jazz. For me it is still close enough to Jazz, that I'd rather put it into some subcategory such as "fully written out Jazz" (an oxymoron if there must be improvisation) than say it is "classical" with a jazz background or influenced by Jazz. 
(Whereas a classical piece influenced by Jazz like Stravinsky's ebony concerto is IMO clearly classical, just like a Hungarian Rhapsody by Liszt is clearly classical influenced by gypsy/folk music of some region.)

TLDR I find that for specific pieces the "problem" tends to vanish. It is a problem of overtheoretization, I'd say.


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus (Aug 8, 2020)

I just use the term "classical music " as a synonym for great music. That's why Einaudi (for example) isn't classical music. He just makes piano music.

Labels are useful, because music is different, but they are just labels, really its just a spectrum from great to garbage and everything in between. Classical music form Baroque to Romantic being the greatest. Bach, Mozart and Beethoven were not trying to make classical music, just great music.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

I wrote the above before I saw the poll. I don't really see the connection between the poll and the first post. 
In the broad sense of Western Art Music both Mahler and Haydn are without a doubt included, so any distinction between them, is always _within_ that tradition and does not help to distinguish that tradition or sharpen the borders.

It might be more interesting to ask e.g. if Gershwin was a greater composer than, say Dittersdorf or Moscheles. Both of the latter are clearly within "classical" but might be seen as considerably lesser composers than e.g. Haydn and Mahler. Whereas Gershwin is on the border (or maybe mostly outside) the classical tradition but might be considered a greater musician than Moscheles. 
Going by vocal music, Gershwin is very good, but for piano concertos I'd say it's about tie with Moscheles and inferior to Hummel. 

Copland is for me still firmly within the (broad) classical tradition but not such a central figure as e.g. Mozart or Mahler. So one could say that he was in a sense "less classical" but what does it help? He is not in a way standing between Genres like maybe Gershwin is where one could come up with a unhelpful pseudoquantification and say e.g. Gershwin is 20% classical and the rest popular 1920s musical theatre and jazz.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Not all equally Classical are equally great. Not all equally great are equally Classical.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Ethereality said:


> Is there a difference between Amadeus and Aaron, (Copland), in terms of how Classical a thing is in essence? One might say _Classical_ is an objective spectra in its closest form resembling that of the Big 3, and, others might say all _greats_ are equally Classical, some are not more-Classical just greater. But *blue* is a color. Can something be more blue, and something less blue? Are Mozart and Haydn more Classical than say, *Copland* or *Gershwin*? And the Great master Mahler?
> 
> Some first definitions I read:
> n.	Music of the classical period; the music of Mozart, Haydn, etc; the musical period before the romantic.
> ...


An analogy between classicism and color is incoherent. "Blue" is a single, specific concept, regardless of the shade of blue. "Classical" is at least three different concepts, one of which doesn't even have a clear definition. The only question that applies to "blue" is the point at which it shades into green or violet. The question about "classical" is "What are we talking about? 1. Historic Classicism? 2. General qualities associated with that historic style? Or 3. the conventional genre of 'classical music'?"

So - is Mozart "more classical" than Copland? Historically, he can't be "more classical," since Copland is not classical - or, more precisely, Classical - at all. Apples and oranges. In terms of general stylistic traits, yes, Mozart is more classical. In terms of the conventional classification of music by genre, no; both composers are, simply, classical.

The question of whether Mozart is "more classical" than Copland is thus three different questions. And blue is blue until it becomes green - and who cares where that happens?


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

I'll disregard the poll and just state my _preference_ for Mahler.


----------



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

Red Terror said:


> I'll disregard the poll and just state my _preference_ for Mahler.


You and I are of the same mind. Mahler any day of the week.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)




----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

hammeredklavier said:


>


The reason the Greeks couldn't see blue is that they were classical.

The profundity of that statement may not be apparent.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

Poll: A thought experiment. Select all that apply:
Be advised that this is a public poll: other users can see the choice(s) you selected.
☐ Haydn was a greater composer than Mahler
☐ Mahler was a greater composer than Haydn
☐ Haydn was greater at composing Classical music than Mahler
☐ Mahler was greater at composing Classical music than Haydn
[Vote Now] [View Poll Results]

Huh?



Ethereality said:


> Is there a difference between Amadeus and Aaron, (Copland), in terms of how Classical a thing is in essence? One might say _Classical_ is an objective spectra in its closest form resembling that of the Big 3, and, others might say all _greats_ are equally Classical, some are not more-Classical just greater. But *blue* is a color. Can something be more blue, and something less blue? Are Mozart and Haydn more Classical than say, *Copland* or *Gershwin*? And the Great master Mahler?
> 
> Some first definitions I read:
> n.	Music of the classical period; the music of Mozart, Haydn, etc; the musical period before the romantic.
> ...


What the ...? (Again) Huh?


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

I think Haydn is probably a greater composer than Mahler*, and certainly a more "Classical" composer than Mahler. He worked within the newfangled "classical" forms.

*Mahler was a better orchestrator and more sublime in many ways, but Haydn was more versatile, prolific, and influential.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

ORigel said:


> Haydn was more influential.






If you're talking about "influence to other major composers", Haydn's is exaggerated.


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus (Aug 8, 2020)

Is someone like Einaudi Classical?


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

I don't agree with any of the poll options


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

Woodduck said:


> The reason the Greeks couldn't see blue is that they were classical.
> 
> The profundity of that statement may not be apparent.


they should have put on some classes


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

The Greeks were too frequently drunk, therefore the sea was "wine dark" (oinops, literally rather "wine-face") to them...


----------



## Celloman (Sep 30, 2006)

I clicked onto this thread.

My brain just exploded.


----------



## Chilham (Jun 18, 2020)

The smoker you drink, the player you get.


----------



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

ORigel said:


> I think Haydn is probably a greater composer than Mahler*, and certainly a more "Classical" composer than Mahler. He worked within the newfangled "classical" forms.
> 
> *Mahler was a better orchestrator and more sublime in many ways, but Haydn was more versatile, prolific, and influential.


I certainly won't argue Haydn's influence, but to say he was more influential than Mahler is a silly assertion. Okay, well Mahler wasn't as versatile as Haydn --- no argument there nor was Mahler as prolific, but given the size and scope of his symphonies and song cycles, the argument of whether he was prolific or not doesn't even matter. These works are massive sound-worlds that draw you in and leave you there. Kind of like how Wagner could draw you into his sonic worlds or how Sibelius can make you feel as if you've entered into some kind of desolate wasteland where there's nothing but ice and the wind to contend with. Haydn doesn't do any of this for me. Haydn wrote some nice music and it's great to listen to, but it doesn't really make question anything or make me feel in any particular way. I just kind of sit there and I'll say "Oh, well that sounds nice" and that's it. Mahler is a whole different kettle of fish. But this comes back to just how ridiculous this poll is and any poll of this kind. It proves nothing other than reinforce our preferences, which also don't really mean anything.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

ORigel said:


> I think Haydn is probably a greater composer than Mahler*, and certainly a more "Classical" composer than Mahler. He worked within the newfangled "classical" forms.
> 
> *Mahler was a better orchestrator and more sublime in many ways, but Haydn was more versatile, prolific, and influential.


I definitely like Haydn over Mahler, but I believe Mahler had a wider influence over a longer period and geographically, from Schnittke and Shostakovich to Malcolm Arnold. All the way to 1996D (snuck that one in).


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

hammeredklavier said:


> If you're talking about "influence to other major composers", Haydn's is exaggerated.


Three of the examples are Mahler getting influenced by earlier composers.


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

Neo Romanza said:


> I certainly won't argue Haydn's influence, but to say he was more influential than Mahler is a silly assertion. Okay, well Mahler wasn't as versatile as Haydn --- no argument there nor was Mahler as prolific, but given the size and scope of his symphonies and song cycles, the argument of whether he was prolific or not doesn't even matter. These works are massive sound-worlds that draw you in and leave you there. Kind of like how Wagner could draw you into his sonic worlds or how Sibelius can make you feel as if you've entered into some kind of desolate wasteland where there's nothing but ice and the wind to contend with. Haydn doesn't do any of this for me. Haydn wrote some nice music and it's great to listen to, but it doesn't really make question anything or make me feel in any particular way. I just kind of sit there and I'll say "Oh, well that sounds nice" and that's it. Mahler is a whole different kettle of fish. But this comes back to just how ridiculous this poll is and any poll of this kind. It proves nothing other than reinforce our preferences, which also don't really mean anything.


I think Mahler is almost as great as Haydn. I put Haydn at #5 (for having lots of good works) and putting Mahler at #7, just below Schubert.

I wasn't sure what the second thing about greater Classical composer meant, so I guessed "adhering to the Classical forms."


----------



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

ORigel said:


> I wasn't sure what the second thing about greater Classical composer meant, so I guessed "adhering to the Classical forms."


It doesn't mean anything. Who cares if Mahler didn't adhere to Classical forms? There's no question the man had a deep understanding of the music that preceded him. The whole pitting Haydn and Mahler against each other doesn't make any sense. As I said, it all boils down to who you _prefer_ and that's it. Some chose Mahler. Some chose Haydn. Some would've liked the option of 'can't choose' I'm sure.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

I like both of them! Couldn't this have been Haydn vs. Bruckner, or Haydn vs. Vaughn Williams instead?


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

I think the OP implied that this side-poll could be completed once you select any that apply, even if that's none. I think the additional poll is just to see if there's any truth to the topic, not fully about Haydn/Mahler.

Woodduck also responded that there are too many definitions of Classical music to answer the thread question, but I think I only know of one, whatever most members think of when they say 'Classical music.' It could be a conglomeration of all 3 definitions he gave, but I assume at this point it just refers to "Great music" as decided by the community, or "Western Art music."

It truly makes me wonder if our _TC's Favorite Works list_ should just include all music we listen to. The results wouldn't change much. However, if the game were to be played *this way* instead, I believe the results would change to include much less avant-garde, and much more styles like film music, jazz etc. That is because avant-garde is more widely regarded, while film and other styles are more highly regarded. I explained it in that link and here:

In other words, even such agreement on what 'Classical music' or 'Great music' means fully later down the list, will depend on the style of polling. In the latter style, certain composers like Korngold, Messiaen, J. Williams, and some jazzists, will show up as 'greater' or 'more classical,' Wagner as well, because some individuals highly think so. On the former list by contrast, Science's list, it will be more like "Copland, Grieg, Gershwin, Gubaidulina" are greater than most of these, because _more_ people will safely agree with that. I believe there could be some ignorance bias involved in that method, ie. more strict mindset.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Neo Romanza said:


> Haydn wrote some nice music and it's great to listen to


Yeah, it's baffling, when I hear testimonies like the ones said in a recent (now-closed) poll thread- "_Op.76 No.5/ii is a miracle; evidence that Joseph Haydn towers above all his contemporaries (except Mozart, Beethoven)", "listening to the miracles that are the slow movements of Op.20 makes me fall off a chair", "Op.76 No.5/ii conveys the deepest sense of sorrow. You're just deaf to it, if you can't hear it."._ -I wonder; why not also describe Pachelbel's canon in the same way?


----------



## Aries (Nov 29, 2012)

Phil loves classical said:


> I definitely like Haydn over Mahler, but I believe Mahler had a wider influence over a longer period and geographically, from Schnittke and Shostakovich to Malcolm Arnold. All the way to 1996D (snuck that one in).


I prefer Mahler over Haydn, but I believe Haydn had a much more influence. Mahler is often described as the last great austrian composer. Maybe true. But influence doesn't matter. Mahler has a bigger message than Haydn and better tools.

Haydn vs. Mahler is a good comparison because of the stylistic difference. It is rules and order against no rules and chaos. Mahlers music is great with flaws. Haydns music is nice. I choose the greatness. But it is good to come back sometimes to the eternal courtly order, peace and glory in Haydns music.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

Aries said:


> I prefer Mahler over Haydn, but I believe Haydn had a much more influence. Mahler is often described as the last great austrian composer. Maybe true. But influence doesn't matter. Mahler has a bigger message than Haydn and better tools.
> ...


Yeah, Mahler had a bigger symphony orchestra at his disposal, but what is this "bigger message"?


> It is rules and order against no rules and chaos.


I don't think Mahler is "no rules and chaos". Mahler frequently used a modified sonata form.


----------



## RogerWaters (Feb 13, 2017)

I think that Haydn is more told and in superior from Mahler's voice.

I've come to that conclusion over much serious thought about one of the most sensical polls ever on TC.


----------



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

Aries said:


> I prefer Mahler over Haydn, but I believe Haydn had a much more influence. Mahler is often described as the last great austrian composer. Maybe true. But influence doesn't matter. Mahler has a bigger message than Haydn and better tools.
> 
> Haydn vs. Mahler is a good comparison because of the stylistic difference. It is rules and order against no rules and chaos. Mahlers music is great with flaws. Haydns music is nice. I choose the greatness. But it is good to come back sometimes to the eternal courtly order, peace and glory in Haydns music.


I think a better comparison would've been Mahler and Sibelius. Both were obviously contemporaries and have both even met in-person to discuss music. As a result of this meeting both men promoted each other's music. They kind of buried this rivalry they had (or appeared to have to the public). But, let's not kid ourselves, both composers couldn't be more different from the other. Mahler's musical philosophy was more worldly and he tried to incorporate everything from polkas to funeral marches to waltzes and sometimes in the same movement. Remember that famous quote of his: "The symphony must be like the world. It must embrace everything." Sibelius, on the other hand, came from a completely angle altogether, especially with this quote: "I admire the symphony's style and severity of form, as well as the profound logic creating an inner connection among all of the motives." But, more importantly, Sibelius' music has long stretches of silence and when he has said what he wanted to musically speaking, the music just stops --- it doesn't ramble on and on. Not saying that Mahler is a rambler of course, but Sibelius seemed less concerned with filling canvases and more concerned with expressing what was only necessary. Mahler came from Bruckner, Wagner, etc. Sibelius, more or less, didn't have any models except for Tchaikovsky perhaps, but it has been argued that Bruckner and Palestrina had an effect on him and I'd love to read more about these particular influences. Anyway, to end this yammering post, I think Haydn, Mahler and Sibelius achieved considerable success and took the symphonic form to new and wondrous places.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Aries said:


> I believe Haydn had a much more influence.


How? Explain. Are you the kind who believes the (nonsensical) Joseph-Haydn-centric propaganda "The Father of the symphony, the Father of the string quartet"?


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

hammeredklavier said:


> How? Explain. Are you the kind who believes the (nonsensical) Joseph-Haydn-centric propaganda "The Father of the symphony, the Father of the string quartet"?


James Webster summarizes Haydn's role in the history of classical music as follows: "He excelled in every musical genre… He is familiarly known as the 'father of the symphony' and *could with greater justice be thus regarded for the string quartet*; no other composer approaches his combination of productivity, quality and historical importance in these genres."


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

hammeredklavier said:


> How? Explain. Are you the kind who believes the (nonsensical) Joseph-Haydn-centric propaganda "The Father of the symphony, the Father of the string quartet"?


Haydn popularized the string quartet ensemble, and developed the genre into a mature form. Even now, he is considered one of the greatest string quartet composers. On a poll here years ago, he just about tied with Bartok and Schubert as the second-greatest string quartet composer.

And the greatest string quartet composer, Beethoven, was strongly influenced by Haydn and Mozart's contributions to the genre before coming into his own. Mozart in his string quartets was himself inspired and influenced by Haydn's Op 20 and Op 33.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

Neo Romanza said:


> But, more importantly, Sibelius' music has long stretches of silence and when he has said what he wanted to musically speaking, the music just stops --- it doesn't ramble on and on.


Silence is succeeding harmonic resolution without tampering with the key, ie. not bearing responsibility. It's phase shift. It's a plethora of rhythmic statements and inquiries. I love it.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

Just accept that Hammeredklavier knows more about the classical era than virtually any music historian and musicologist from Tovey to Webster and all in between. They were paid for writing books about Joseph Haydn (rather than about at least equally important composers like Michael Haydn or Franz Xaver Richter) and furthermore were all parrotting each other to get tenure. And the general public and the lesser musicologists have been duped by that, with very few exceptions who see the truth.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Kreisler jr said:


> Just accept that Hammeredklavier knows more about the classical era than virtually any music historian and musicologist from Tovey to Webster and all in between. They were paid for writing books about Joseph Haydn (rather than about at least equally important composers like Michael Haydn or Franz Xaver Richter) and furthermore were all parrotting each other to get tenure. And the general public and the lesser musicologists have been duped by that, with very few exceptions who see the truth.


We talked about this before, the so-called experts you regard "reliable" are all from the 20th century Neoclassical era, and their knowledge of the Classical period was limited (due to the relative lack of its revival compared to our time). Tovey even said something to the effect that Beethoven's missa solemnis derives from pre-common practice music in a way that was never done in the 18th century. 



They made many errors by assuming "J. Haydn invented everything and Mozart, Beethoven simply followed him." You regard someone like Greenberg, who says "J. Haydn was the only contemporary Mozart admired", as an authority figure? 
This is why I keep saying "Don't rely on schoolteachers and textbooks always brainwashing you "Haydn and Mozart", do your own research and use your own judgement."


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

ORigel said:


> On a poll here years ago, he just about tied with Bartok and Schubert as the second-greatest string quartet composer.


So you think TC polls provide definite answers to these issues? If you ask me, J. Haydn wins everyone else by quantity, but not in other areas. Haven't you noticed; like for every 1 good piece, there's at least like 3~4 simply not worth listening to? Berlioz, Schumann, Hanslick said something to the effect that J. Haydn produced too many pieces and they all sound samey. If you still enjoy his music and his music continues to remain popular, there's nothing wrong with that, but problems arise when people go so far as to distort history to other composers' disadvantage.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

^ You mean this quote from Berlioz:

"For a long while composers wished – and some do even now – to keep the
symphony in the narrow framework outlined by Haydn. Mozart did not
make the least effort to break out of it. For him, as for Haydn, it is always
the same design, the same layout, the same succession of effects, always an
allegro followed by an andante, by a minuet and then a lively and frisky
finale. And in these four movements there is never anything but a more or
less skillful sequence of pretty phrases, little melodic coquetries, smart and
witty orchestral tricks; these compositions had no other purpose but to please
the ear … Never is there the least tendency towards that level of ideas we call
poetic … the musical note was all to them, it was the end and not the means.
Their sense of expression was dormant, and seemed to come to life only when
they composed for words. The symphonies followed each other and were all
alike … so that it is indeed no exaggeration to say of the ninety symphonies
written by Haydn and Mozart, that they are ninety variations on the same
theme, for the same instrument. "

Sorry but you can't pick and choose portions of quotes to praise Mozart, while to criticize Haydn. Berlioz also thought Mozart was clearly below Beethoven.

BTW, Berlioz is basically saying Haydn is the father of the symphony in the "narrow framework", to Mozart and others "for a long while". I'm not sure how you can keep twisting logic on your podium.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

ORigel said:


> Mozart in his string quartets was himself inspired and influenced by Haydn's Op 20 and Op 33.


Yes, Mozart was "inspired" by Joseph Haydn, but only about to the same extent as he was by Christian Bach. http://mrc.hanyang.ac.kr/wp-content/jspm/20/jspm_2006_20_10.pdf#page=4
"Mozart wrote to his father on 29 March 1783 about the musical gatherings in the apartments of Baron van Swieten: "we love to amuse ourselves with all kind of masters, ancient and modern." So music was the main object of the other of the composers Mozart and his colleagues studied in these sessions is mentioned in the Mozart correspondence by name: *Johann Ernst Eberlin, for instance, or Georg Friedrich Handel, or J.S. Bach and his sons Wilhelm Friedemann and Carl Phillip Emmanuel, or Michael Haydn.*"
^Why is the "Father" missing from this list? Was he simply not good enough a model?



Kreisler jr said:


> Michael Haydn


Isn't it ironic there's more "Michael" than "Joseph" in Mozart's "Haydn quartets"?**. I know Phil will always give examples of Joseph Haydn's influence, but to me they're all minor and trivial (such as the use of some rustic rhythms in Op.55 No.1, which is said to have had influence on Mozart (K.590/iv)). 
For instance, to me, the expressions of harmonic, dynamic emphasis in K.551/ii, K.516/iii, K.593/ii epitomize the heart and soul of "Mozartian" classicism. They originate more from Michael's work, such as
string quintet in G (1773): [ 4:27 ]
symphony No.22 in D (1779): [ 12:25 ]
than anything else.
Likewise, I find more commonalities between Michael and Mozart in terms of sensibilities. I talked about how Joseph "never had the guts" to set the text "Lacrimosa dies illa" this disturbing psychologically 



 (written in 1771, this really speaks to me of Michael's sorrow for the loss of his daughter) To me, this is the sort of stuff I consider "significant influence".

**
Michael Haydn string quintet in G major MH189 (1773) [ 0:05 ]
Mozart string quartet in G major K.387 [ 0:01 ]

Michael Haydn string quintet in G, MH 189 (1773) : [ 0:49 ~ 1:06 ]
Mozart string quartet in E flat, K.428 (1783) : [ 0:49 ~ 1:14 ]

Also look at the style of chromaticism in the MH189 minuet (Joseph just doesn't sound like this) [ 15:35 ]. Is there any minuet by Joseph that sounds like [ 12:00 ] (1786)?

Michael Haydn string quintet in F, MH367 (1784) [ 5:38 ]
Mozart string quartet K.465 [ 6:34 ]

Michael Haydn symphony No.22 in D (1779) [ 6:06 ]
Mozart string quartet K.465 [ 7:38 ]

Michael Haydn string quintet in C, MH187 (1773) 0:56 (1:06)
Mozart string quartet K.387 [ 4:38 ]
Mozart string quartet K.458 [ 9:27 ]

"Symphony No. 23 (Michael Haydn)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symphony_No._23_(Michael_Haydn)
The third movement was at first mistaken by Köchel for a work of Mozart's. Mozart did in fact copy out the first 45 measures of it (Simon Sechter completed the score of the finale). Some time afterwards, he wrote his String Quartet in G major, K. 387, with a finale that is also a fugato and also begins with a theme consisting of four whole notes first stated by the second violin."

Likewise, I also question the significance of Joseph's influence on Weber, Reicha (Michael's pupils) and Schubert (who visited Michael's grave to gain inspiration for writing Catholic music and wept afterwards, and also wrote the Deutschmesse as an homage to Michael).



Kreisler jr said:


> Franz Xaver Richter


I don't see how Richter (with his influence on the Mannheim and Viennese schools) was less a "father figure" than Joseph Haydn. I remember Joseph Haydn enthusiasts trashed his music too, when I raised this question.

Early Symphony
"The Adagio and Fugue in G minor for Strings (1760) is one of Franz Xaver Richter's symphonies, which features the learned style in 18th century orchestral works. His experience in churches also contributes to his sophisticated contrapuntal style in his orchestral works. 
As Jochen Reutter acclaims, Franz Xaver Richter's compositional idiom "changed from a late Baroque sound to a tonal language which reached the threshold of the Classical style. He was influenced by the 18th-century learned style and he adapted the Mannheim symphonic style with his own differentiated instrumentation." Also according to Reutter, "his [Richter's] works from this period include such conservative traits as fugal techniques, Baroque sequences and the frequent use of minor tonality." As shown in this work Adagio and Fugue in G minor for Strings, the first movement is almost entirely based on various kinds of sequences and fugal style. This early symphony makes an intriguing subject for a scholarly study of early symphonies."


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Phil loves classical said:


> Sorry but you can't pick and choose portions of quotes to praise Mozart, while to criticize Haydn. Berlioz also thought Mozart was clearly below Beethoven.


Yes, I know that, but also: "Most revealing in this respect are the passages in Berlioz's criticism that compare Mozart to Haydn. For Berlioz, Haydn is manifestly beneath the level of the 'Great Masters'. He is treated as 'outdated' and someone whose 'boring … phrases … have tired rather than interested the public'. In his earlier critiques he takes care to stress the difference between the two: after commenting on Haydn's obsolete style he speaks of Mozart as 'full of passion and gloominess'. But later he tends to amalgamate the two into one entity, embodying all those features of scholarly Classicism that the Romantic spirit of Berlioz had sworn to overcome and to surpass."

Benjamin Pearl: "I have the strong impression that Berlioz envied Mozart's professional skill as a musician, and was conscious of his own inferiority. Despite the apologetic discourse of Barzun and other Berliozians, his shortcomings in harmony, counterpoint and formal organization are unmistakable even in his mature works. How could he, who grew up at La Côte-Saint-André isolated from any serious music-making until the age of 18, receiving only a rudimentary musical education in his childhood and youth, never mastering an instrument, not encouraged by his family at any stage to understake a musical career, compete with the child of Salzburg, son of a highly skilled musician who devoted his life to his son's musical upbringing and who took him from early childhood all around Europe to meet the greatest masters of his day? Berlioz must have felt this difference, and his often arrogant tone in discussing Mozart's music seems barely to mask a deep-rooted sense of insecurity about his musical abilities. No one more than Mozart could embody for Berlioz the ideal of professional musicianship, so far out of his reach, and thus he remains the ultimate reminder of his shortcomings, and thus a permanent source of irritation. It is this recognition of Mozart's superior mastery of compositional skills that lies behind Berlioz's choice of words: 'this unfailing beauty, always serene and self-assured'. Beethoven, of course, was a perfect musician too, but he had to work hard for it, while for Mozart, the myth had already taken root that his proficiency came with ease. This difference between the two was already evident to Berlioz's generation, and thus Beethoven was conceived as more 'human', and Berlioz could feel closer to him. Gluck, on the other hand, who like Berlioz reached artistic ripeness at a relatively advanced age and whose contrapuntal skills were compared by Handel to those of his cook, was much easier to identify with than the 'enfant prodige' who grew up to become the emblem of perfection."


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

^ The amalgam of your arguments and quotes, in full context and correlated with each other, don't support any of your putting Haydn, Mozart, or Beethoven over the other. You are not seeing the forest for the trees. In the end you are picking and choosing to support your stance.


----------



## Chilham (Jun 18, 2020)

................


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Phil loves classical said:


> I definitely like Haydn over Mahler, but I believe Mahler had a wider influence over a longer period and geographically, from Schnittke and Shostakovich to Malcolm Arnold. All the way to 1996D (snuck that one in).


+Shoenberg and Bernstein, who was buried with a score of Mahler's 5th placed on his chest.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Kreisler jr said:


> Just accept that Hammeredklavier knows more about the classical era than virtually any music historian and musicologist from Tovey to Webster and all in between. They were paid for writing books about Joseph Haydn (rather than about at least equally important composers like Michael Haydn or Franz Xaver Richter) and furthermore were all parrotting each other to get tenure. And the general public and the lesser musicologists have been duped by that, with very few exceptions who see the truth.


"Why is Michael Haydn not popular nowadays as his elder brother?"
"He's suffered from being a supporting figure in two careers, Mozart's and Haydn's. The fact that his music was not distributed very widely in his lifetime did not help, also the fact that he couldn't be captured in the narrative of Vienna the musical capital pushed him to the margins."
This might seem a rather uninspiring thing to say but Michael Haydn's music has a thorough competence of technique as well a real sense of theatre (in the broadest sense) that is reflected in Mozart's music. One of the many unfortunate legacies of nineteenth-century biographical writing is the excessive focus on the Wunderkind Mozart and the Incomparable Genius Mozart. In Salzburg, if not throughout his life, Mozart was writing in a lingua franca and many of the features of that language are to be found in Michael Haydn too. That Mozart recognized Michael Haydn's mastery is suggested by a letter he sent to his father from Vienna, asking for the latest symphonies of Michael, so that he could perform them in that city." -Professor David Wyn Jones

"I think one of the reasons why he did not get as famous as his brother is that he never wanted his music printed. Joseph Haydn's works really disseminated throughout Europe via printing also, and that's what lacks with Michael Haydn's music. And, of course, Michael Haydn stayed in Salzburg all the time, so he didn't have the same exposure to other kinds of music. So that's maybe one of the reasons he did not get as famous as his brother." -Dr. Eva Neumayr


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

ORigel said:


> Three of the examples are Mahler getting influenced by earlier composers.


btw, I would have added these (as a joke), if I were the creator of the video.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

ORigel said:


> Mozart in his string quartets was himself inspired and influenced by Haydn's Op 20 and Op 33.


Another thing I question is "was Joseph Haydn really a more mature composer in the early 1770s than Mozart?"
Op.20 (published in 1774) No.2:













Mozart K.174 quintet (December 1773):


----------

