# Handel and Bach, Haydn and Mozart



## sosophisticated (Feb 4, 2016)

Note that I didn't call this Handel vs Bach or Haydn vs Mozart because I hate the idea of battles, isn't life stressful enough without squabbling about who's into the coolest composer?:lol:

Anyway like The Beatles vs The Stones debate, it seems that often there are two contemporary composers who wrote in a similar style yet posterity has revealed one to be the clear winner in terms of acclaim and popularity. Of course if you ask people to name the top 3 composers _someone_ has to fit in to just those 3, and 99% of the time it's JS Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart.

But why is JS Bach "better" than Handel, and why is Mozart "better" than Haydn? I honestly couldn't pick a favourite between those 4. It seems opinions change too, Haydn was immensely regarded in his lifetime, these days he's overshadowed by Mozart. Handel too was much acclaimed but again he's overshadowed today by JS Bach.


----------



## premont (May 7, 2015)

This has been discussed since the beginning of time, and indeed it is one of the big questions of life, which can not be answered definitely. It is a matter of belief, and the fact is, that we shall never know.


----------



## Abraham Lincoln (Oct 3, 2015)

JSB > all (personal opinion)


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

sosophisticated said:


> Note that I didn't call this Handel vs Bach or Haydn vs Mozart because I hate the idea of battles, isn't life stressful enough without squabbling about who's into the coolest composer?:lol:
> 
> Anyway like The Beatles vs The Stones debate, it seems that often there are two contemporary composers who wrote in a similar style yet posterity has revealed one to be the clear winner in terms of acclaim and popularity. Of course if you ask people to name the top 3 composers _someone_ has to fit in to just those 3, and 99% of the time it's JS Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart.
> 
> But why is JS Bach "better" than Handel, and why is Mozart "better" than Haydn? I honestly couldn't pick a favourite between those 4. It seems opinions change too, Haydn was immensely regarded in his lifetime, these days he's overshadowed by Mozart. Handel too was much acclaimed but again he's overshadowed today by JS Bach.


Re Bach and Handel, it's interesting that Bach, the more popular one, is the one who looks away from the modern galant style, whose music is more complicated and more dissonant. That may say something about high baroque style - I'm putting Handel in the same bracket as Purcell and Corelli and Rameau.

Re Haydn and Mozart, I really think it's more straightforward - Mozart wrote a lot more humane poetry, and that matters to listeners more than any pioneering he may have done w.r.t. various forms.


----------



## sosophisticated (Feb 4, 2016)

I bet it's because Mozart and JS Bach were way better looking.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

I think Handel's music starts edging closer to style galante or ultimately the classic period while Bach's seems to be the pinnacle of counterpoint, and this may be why some revere Bach over Handel. It would certainly be my reason, though I consider them both indispensable.

The Haydn / Mozart thing I've never understood. Haydn is by far the more interesting composer for me.


----------



## GreenMamba (Oct 14, 2012)

Handel put a lot of his eggs in the opera basket, and that hasn't paid off for him. On the other hand, Mozart's operas are surely one of the main reasons he's more popular today than Haydn.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

They are my four favorite composers of all time. It's like asking your girlfriend why she prefers ruby versus emeralds or diamonds versus sapphire etc. One is evaluating the best of the best. Handel was a man of the theater whereas Bach wrote music for the church. We are so fortunate to have the two (both born in the same year) pursuing different careers to enrich the High Baroque giving us so much choice today!


----------



## Xaltotun (Sep 3, 2010)

Haydn is my favourite of this bunch. The greatest drive, willpower, focus, trajectory, dare I say "sexual energy" in the music. Mozart and Bach are also wonderful in their own way. But Haydn fits my personality best, I think.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

GreenMamba said:


> Handel put a lot of his eggs in the opera basket, and that hasn't paid off for him. On the other hand, Mozart's operas are surely one of the main reasons he's more popular today than Haydn.


I think that's one of the main reasons for Handel's lack of popularity among certain groups of classical listeners. I think Mozart's operas tend to be a little more appealing because Baroque virtuoso singing can tend to rub people the wrong way...


----------



## Chronochromie (May 17, 2014)

To me, Haydn is the equal of Mozart. I've tried to get into Handel, but he puts me sleep most of the time, something about Italian style Baroque opera...Bach is great of course, even though he can be too dry and academical (i.e. The Art of Fugue, A Musical Offering). I find Rameau to be the best and most interesting Baroque composer. A good question might be why is Rameau not considered the equal of (at least) Handel. It may have to do with the general aversion to opera and Baroque music (even on this forum). But I did notice that he is growing in popularity.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

GreenMamba said:


> Handel put a lot of his eggs in the opera basket, and that hasn't paid off for him. On the other hand, Mozart's operas are surely one of the main reasons he's more popular today than Haydn.


not to mention his piano concertos, violin concertos etc etc


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Weston said:


> I think Handel's music starts edging closer to style galante or ultimately the classic period while Bach's seems to be the pinnacle of counterpoint, and this may be why some revere Bach over Handel. It would certainly be my reason, though I consider them both indispensable.
> 
> The Haydn / Mozart thing I've never understood. Haydn is by far the more interesting composer for me.


Haydn is surely known mainly for his symphonies - and being an innovator - Mozart's left a much more diverse treasury in which there is something for everyone.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

premont said:


> This has been discussed since the beginning of time, and indeed it is one of the big questions of life, which can not be answered definitely. It is a matter of belief, and the fact is, that we shall never know.


Thanks for that -most useful.


----------



## Chronochromie (May 17, 2014)

stomanek said:


> Haydn is surely known mainly for his symphonies - and being an innovator - Mozart's left a much more diverse treasury in which there is something for everyone.


And his choral music, string quartets, piano sonatas, trios....


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

stomanek said:


> Haydn is surely known mainly for his symphonies .


Yes, it is astonishing how many people (who say they like classical music) seem so unaware of the diversity and quality of Haydn's music - superb string quartets, magnificent masses, peerless piano sonatas, outstanding oratorios ... a diverse treasury of gems and wonders in which there is something for everyone


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Chronochromie said:


> And his choral music, string quartets, piano sonatas, trios....


Yet his quartets, choral music and sonatas are not as famous as Mozart's. Operas?
I know about the 40 odd piano trios. He was certainly busy.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Headphone Hermit said:


> Yes, it is astonishing how many people (who say they like classical music) seem so unaware of the diversity and quality of Haydn's music - superb string quartets, magnificent masses, peerless piano sonatas, outstanding oratorios ... a diverse treasury of gems and wonders in which there is something for everyone


Yes indeed - strange isn't it. Wonder why?


----------



## Chronochromie (May 17, 2014)

stomanek said:


> Yet his quartets, choral music and sonatas are not as famous as Mozart's.
> 
> His concertos for example - he has one notable trumpet concerto, a couple of violin concertos (not among his best works) and a fairly nice piano concerto.
> The C minor mass and requiem are more well known and listened to that any of the haydn masses.
> As for haydn's operas - no need to comment.


Don't know about sonatas, but I think that his late quartets are as or better known than any of Mozart's; The Creation and the Nelson Mass are also extremely popular.

Anyway, the OP didn't ask who was more popular, it seems clear that Mozart is. The OP asked why is one is more popular and better regarded than the other. Both Mozart and Haydn have big and diverse outputs with a good deal of high quality work.


----------



## DiesIraeCX (Jul 21, 2014)

Headphone Hermit said:


> Yes, it is astonishing how many people (who say they like classical music) seem so unaware of the diversity and quality of Haydn's music - superb string quartets, magnificent masses, peerless piano sonatas, outstanding oratorios ... a diverse treasury of gems and wonders in which there is something for everyone





stomanek said:


> Yes indeed - strange isn't it. Wonder why?


Also this:



stomanek said:


> Haydn is surely known mainly for his symphonies - and being an innovator - Mozart's left a much more diverse treasury in which there is something for everyone.


stomanek, reread your response to Headphone Hermit, do you notice you diminish Haydn's music when both other posters (Headphone Hermit and Chronochromie) are only speaking in terms of how popular Haydn's work is, and how popular they _should_ be. Nobody has diminished Mozart, why do you keep doing this? Any time anyone else is mentioned in the same breath as Mozart.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Who said Mozart was better than Haydn? Surely not I.

As for Handel. His music was more public; a lot written for the theater-operas and oratorios, ceremony music-as in Water Music and Royal Fireworks Music.

Nothing Handel wrote could match the Bach solo keyboard, solo violin and cello works and masses. Messiah was great, true. So were Jephtha and Solomon.

But Bach took fugue and counterpoint to an elevated status that nobody else did or could, time after time after time. Handel simply "wasn't there".


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Chronochromie said:


> Don't know about sonatas, but I think that his late quartets are as or better known than any of Mozart's; The Creation and the Nelson Mass are also extremely popular.
> 
> Anyway, the OP didn't ask who was more popular, it seems clear that Mozart is. The OP asked why is one is more popular and better regarded than the other. Both Mozart and Haydn have big and diverse outputs with a good deal of high quality work.


And I am trying to answer that question - why is Mozart better regarded than Haydn? I dont know - maybe he was a better composer?
In the case of handle/bach - Bach is better - so what's the problem with saying Mozart is better than Haydn. Haydn certainly had a full lifetime in which to establish himself as a better composer in the view of posterity - but he seems to have fallen short.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

DiesIraeCX said:


> Also this:
> 
> stomanek, reread your response to Headphone Hermit, do you notice you diminish Haydn's music when both other posters (Headphone Hermit and Chronochromie) are only speaking in terms of how popular Haydn's work is, and how popular they _should_ be. Nobody has diminished Mozart, why do you keep doing this? Any time anyone else is mentioned in the same breath as Mozart.


and did you not notice the dig in headphones comment - in parenthesis


----------



## DiesIraeCX (Jul 21, 2014)

stomanek said:


> and did you not notice the dig in headphones comment - in parenthesis


No, I didn't, because there isn't a "dig" there at all. That's a dig to you? I repeat, nobody diminished Mozart.

It's called rhetoric. He used that statement in parenthesis to express his view that Haydn's work should be better known and celebrated! It seems quite clear to me. Headphone Hermit, correct me if I'm wrong.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Chronochromie said:


> To me, Haydn is the equal of Mozart. I've tried to get into Handel, but he puts me sleep most of the time, something about Italian style Baroque opera...Bach is great of course, even though he can be too dry and academical (i.e. The Art of Fugue, A Musical Offering). I find Rameau to be the best and most interesting Baroque composer. A good question might be why is Rameau not considered the equal of (at least) Handel. It may have to do with the general aversion to opera and Baroque music (even on this forum). But I did notice that he is growing in popularity.


Handel also wrote opera, so I doubt that would explain Rameau's relatively small popularity. Just took a look at ArkivMusic:

Handel - 2,500 recording entries.
Rameau - 328 entries.
Bach - 6,500 entries


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

stomanek said:


> and did you not notice the dig in headphones comment - in parenthesis


I am very sorry that you took it as a 'dig'. I categorically did not intend it to be taken as such, and I have no reservation at all in apologising if you took it so.

I intended to agree with you that the great diversity and quality in Haydn's music is overlooked by many classical music listeners. It is, indeed, puzzling that it is so

And I like much of both Haydn's music *and* Mozart's music


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

stomanek said:


> And I am trying to answer that question - why is Mozart better regarded than Haydn? I dont know - maybe he was a better composer?
> In the case of handle/bach - Bach is better - so what's the problem with saying Mozart is better than Haydn. Haydn certainly had a full lifetime in which to establish himself as a better composer in the view of posterity - but he seems to have fallen short.


That's like making one ridiculous claim and then following it up with another one. What's the basis for saying that Haydn fell short?

All I'm getting at is that this is all opinion; there's no basis for any of it.


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

DiesIraeCX said:


> there isn't a "dig" there at all. ......
> 
> He used that statement in parenthesis to express his view that Haydn's work should be better known and celebrated! ...... Headphone Hermit, correct me if I'm wrong.


Absolutely correct! Thank you for your perception and understanding, DiesIraeCX :tiphat:


----------



## Fugue Meister (Jul 5, 2014)

stomanek said:


> Yet his quartets, choral music and sonatas are not as famous as Mozart's. Operas?
> I know about the 40 odd piano trios. He was certainly busy.


They are to true connoisseurs of music they will all say Haydn was just as good as your beloved and even bests him in some respects including the string quartets and sonatas you claim are not as famous (which shows your unsubstantiated pronouncements for what they are, your opinion). Please find some reasoning if you want to continue down this path.


----------



## Stirling (Nov 18, 2015)

Beethoven thoughts at the end was Handel.


----------



## Chronochromie (May 17, 2014)

Bulldog said:


> Handel also wrote opera, so I doubt that would explain Rameau's relatively small popularity. Just took a look at ArkivMusic:
> 
> Handel - 2,500 recording entries.
> Rameau - 328 entries.
> Bach - 6,500 entries


I know that of course. But he also wrote a ton of other music, oratorios, concerti, keyboard works, orchestral works, chamber music, etc. 
Rameau has mainly opera, some little known choral music, a small amount of chamber music, and keyboards works, which more so than Bach's or Scarlatti's, sound "off" on the piano. I think that Handel's great popularity in the UK also helped his popularity worldwide quite a bit.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

No matter how you slice it, Rameau's popularity is much lower than Handel's and rather minimal compared to Bach. Of course, this has nothing to do with the quality of music. I'm a Bach man, you're for Rameau - it's all good.


----------



## Chronochromie (May 17, 2014)

Bulldog said:


> No matter how you slice it, Rameau's popularity is much lower than Handel's and rather minimal compared to Bach. Of course, this has nothing to do with the quality of music. I'm a Bach man, you're for Rameau - it's all good.


I know, that's what I said......


----------



## Winterreisender (Jul 13, 2013)

Ask most people how many Haydn melodies they can recall off the top of their head; they will probably come back with three or four. Ask them for Mozart melodies and they will come back with considerably more. People just prefer catchier music.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Fugue Meister said:


> They are to *true connoisseurs of music* they will all say Haydn was just as good as your beloved and even bests him in some respects including the string quartets and sonatas you claim are not as famous (which shows your unsubstantiated pronouncements for what they are, your opinion). Please find some reasoning if you want to continue down this path.


What do you mean by this exactly? 
Perhaps you mean listeners who prefer haydn to mozart? is that your one defining characteristic of a true connoisseur? Then anyone who holds a different view is what? a false connoisseur?
the rest of your post is just as unsubstantiated as you imagine my opinions are.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Winterreisender said:


> Ask most people how many Haydn melodies they can recall off the top of their head; they will probably come back with three or five. Ask them for Mozart melodies and they will come back with considerably more. People just prefer catchier music.


ah - but then they're not true connoisseurs if they simply go for catchy tunes.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Bulldog said:


> That's like making one ridiculous claim and then following it up with another one. What's the basis for saying that Haydn fell short?
> 
> All I'm getting at is that this is all opinion; there's no basis for any of it.


really - the basis of my statement is that in the main Mozart is regarded as a greater composer - few on this board claim that Haydn ranks ahead of Mozart in the great composer polls etc (see the bach/mozart/beethoven trinity thread - only 1 person said where's haydn)


----------



## Fugue Meister (Jul 5, 2014)

I mean you cannot be a true connoisseur of music if you maintain the opinions about Haydn you have posted here. Perhaps one day you'll see what I mean, however I think you'll continue to worship solely at the alter of Mozart and spout your random meanderings about composers whom you know little about.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Fugue Meister said:


> I mean you cannot be a true connoisseur of music if you maintain the opinions about Haydn you have posted here. Perhaps one day you'll see what I mean, however I think you'll continue to worship solely at the alter of Mozart and spout your random meanderings about composers whom you know little about.


The only opinion I have expressed on this thread is I don't think Haydn's works, on the whole, match up to those of Mozart. I have listened to maybe 20 of haydn's symphonies, a dozen quartets, piano trios, divertimenti, some masses, various concertos and some of his opera - enough to make an informed and valid judgement. It's not hard to find people with this view.

But anyway it's a shame you didn't answer my question and clearly have no idea what you mean when you say true musical connoisseur. It is at any rate - a phrase loaded with superior elitist snobbery.


----------



## DiesIraeCX (Jul 21, 2014)

stomanek said:


> *ah - but then they're not true connoisseurs if they simply go for catchy tunes.*





stomanek said:


> But anyway it's a shame you didn't answer my question and clearly have no idea what you mean when you say true musical connoisseur. *It is at any rate - a phrase loaded with superior elitist snobbery.*


:lol: :lol: 
...............


----------



## Chi_townPhilly (Apr 21, 2007)

GreenMamba said:


> Handel put a lot of his eggs in the opera basket, and that hasn't paid off for him.


And yet, you could make a case that *no* opera-composer's works have had more favorable critical re-appraisal of late than Handel's. One big obstacle that mitigates again MY full embrace of them my queasiness over that whole 'castrato-countertenor' thing-- but that's _certainly NOT_ the fault of Handel.


GreenMamba said:


> On the other hand, Mozart's operas are surely one of the main reasons he's more popular today than Haydn.


And that's a good point, too. Mozart's operas seem more immediately "winning" that Haydn's oratorios... which is more of a comment concerning modern valuations of operas vs. oratorios than it is any manner of objective superiority between the two titans.

Glad I can enjoy BOTH!


----------



## Fugue Meister (Jul 5, 2014)

stomanek said:


> really - the basis of my statement is that in the main Mozart is regarded as a greater composer - few on this board claim that Haydn ranks ahead of Mozart in the great composer polls etc (see the bach/mozart/beethoven trinity thread - only 1 person said where's haydn)


This is a selective reading issue, many people here at TC are tremendous champions of Haydn's music. The example you give is preposterous as if that one person saying "where's Haydn" constitutes proof that Mozart is greater. Nonsense, it may be that certain people just don't even bother with such ridiculous threads and polls pitting great composers against each other... it might have to do with the fact many of such threads are too populated with non-thinking individuals who's opinions are staunch and in direct opposition to others and who take every opportunity to post there opinions ad nauseam.. or it may just be that you are just remembering those posters who agree with your line of reasoning which is flawed.


----------



## Fugue Meister (Jul 5, 2014)

stomanek said:


> The only opinion I have expressed on this thread is I don't think Haydn's works, on the whole, match up to those of Mozart. I have listened to maybe 20 of haydn's symphonies, a dozen quartets, piano trios, divertimenti, some masses, various concertos and some of his opera - enough to make an informed and valid judgement. It's not hard to find people with this view.
> 
> But anyway it's a shame you didn't answer my question and clearly have no idea what you mean when you say true musical connoisseur. It is at any rate - a phrase loaded with superior elitist snobbery.


Then let me answer your question:

A true musical connoisseur is someone who takes the time to listen to many different composers and notes where their particular strengths and weaknesses are. Composers are human and humans are flawed and no composer is devoid of weakness, to suggest any composer is greater in all respects cannot have a well rounded opinion of music. You must be able to recognize some composers are better than others at certain things, you seem unable or unwilling to make room for this idea.


----------



## jdec (Mar 23, 2013)

Fugue Meister said:


> ..they will all say Haydn was just as good as your beloved and even bests him in some respects including the string quartets and sonatas you claim are not as famous


Well, even Haydn himself knew Mozart was the greater of the two.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Chronochromie said:


> And his choral music, string quartets, piano sonatas, trios....


Yes, Haydn is very interesting because I think how well he is known actually varied a lot during his own life by genre. Many of his symphonies were for private performances only and it was his Paris and London ones that made him famous internationally. He is one of my favorite composers of all time.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

ArtMusic said:


> Yes, Haydn is very interesting because I think how well he is known actually varied a lot during his own life by genre. Many of his symphonies were for private performances only and it was his Paris and London ones that made him famous internationally. He is one of my favourite composers of all time.


Amen to this :tiphat:


----------



## Fugue Meister (Jul 5, 2014)

jdec said:


> Well, even Haydn himself knew Mozart was the greater of the two.


I know what your referring to but that doesn't make it a fact. It again was another opinion, not to mention the fact I never said Haydn was better, I only make room for the idea that in some genres he was superior to Mozart, which is not an idea I maintain alone.

Again the point I'm trying to get across is they were both phenomenal composers of the first order, you diminish Haydn to say no one really thinks he's that great. He was just as good as Mozart, better in some areas and less than in others and by no means forgotten or less renowned.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Bach and Handel are often bracketed together but they were really quite different. Bach remained in the German tradition writing for the church while Handel was a cosmopolitan composer who was largely influenced by the Italian tradition. Both wrote astounding masterpieces but Handel was essentially an operatic composer. His oratorios are operas in disguise.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Fugue Meister said:


> Then let me answer your question:
> 
> A true musical connoisseur is someone who takes the time to listen to many different composers and notes where their particular strengths and weaknesses are. *Composers are human and humans are flawed and no composer is devoid of weakness, *to suggest any composer is greater in all respects cannot have a well rounded opinion of music. You must be able to recognize some composers are better than others at certain things, you seem unable or unwilling to make room for this idea.


That is nonsense - Bach had no obvious weaknesses - every genre he turned his attention to he created peerless works. Haydn obviously had weaknesses - he wrote many operas yet not one is in the repertoire. 
Mozart and Beethoven had no weaknesses - and that is my opinion based on 30 years of extensive listening and just because my considered view does not fit into your narrow pompous view of what a true musical connoiseur is - does not make it any less valid.
At the same time I do understand my views will offend Haydn fans' sensibilities and I apologise for that. This is not communism - it is not a level playing field and some are better than others. Rameau fans never complain that their man attracts little attention - and I dont see why Haydn people should go off in a strop when a Haydn/Mozart thread pops up and the obvious is stated.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

jdec said:


> Well, even Haydn himself knew Mozart was the greater of the two.


Robbins Landon is on record (In his book Mozart 1791) as saying he always considered Mozart to be beyond Haydn and Beethoven - obviously not a true musical connoiseur.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Fugue Meister said:


> I know what your referring to but that doesn't make it a fact. It again was another opinion, not to mention the fact I never said Haydn was better, I only make room for the idea that in some genres he was superior to Mozart, *which is not an idea I maintain alone. *
> 
> Again the point I'm trying to get across is they were both phenomenal composers of the first order, you diminish Haydn to say no one really thinks he's that great. He was just as good as Mozart, better in some areas and less than in others and by no means forgotten or less renowned.


it remains an idea/opinion - regradless of how many people say it - exactly what you accuse me and others of - having opinions based on our listening and personal preferences - but what else is this board about if not that? maybe we should confine our comments to composers' biographies - nobody will get offended that way.
I have had a handel worshipper say in my face that mozart's operas are boring and predictable - well big deal - I accept his view as his personal dislike - I just smiled - shrugged my shoulders and said - well to me they are musical perfection itself.

but coming back to haydn - you may suppose he is ahead on piano - I have heard his last 3 sonatas and quite a few of the others - good sonatas - but nothing as striking as k475 (c minor) for example - or the a minor sonata k310 - nothing so deeply personal - to my own taste. or the great fantasy in C minor k457. the fantasy and fugue in c - also k331/332/333 - where are haydn's p/f works to challenge those?


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

stomanek said:


> but coming back to haydn - you may suppose he is ahead on piano - I have heard his last 3 sonatas and quite a few of the others - good sonatas - but nothing as striking as k475 (c minor) for example - or the a minor sonata k310 - nothing so deeply personal - to my own taste. or the great fantasy in C minor k457. the fantasy and fugue in c - also k331/332/333 - where are haydn's p/f works to challenge those?


No. 13 HobXVI/20 and the F minor variations.


----------



## poconoron (Oct 26, 2011)

stomanek said:


> but nothing as striking as k475 (c minor) for example - or the a minor sonata k310 - nothing so deeply personal - to my own taste. or the great fantasy in C minor k457. the fantasy and fugue in c - also k331/332/333 - where are haydn's p/f works to challenge those?


And don't forget Adagio in B minor, a piece that none other than Alfred Brendel once remarked was the greatest piece ever written for solo piano.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Fugue Meister said:


> I know what your referring to but that doesn't make it a fact. It again was another opinion, not to mention the fact I never said Haydn was better, I only make room for the idea that in some genres he was superior to Mozart, which is not an idea I maintain alone.
> 
> Again the point I'm trying to get across is they were both phenomenal composers of the first order, you diminish Haydn to say no one really thinks he's that great. He was just as good as Mozart, better in some areas and less than in others and by no means forgotten or less renowned.


Please prove that Bach had a weakness. I would like to learn/see where that may be.


----------



## jdec (Mar 23, 2013)

poconoron said:


> ...a piece that none other than Alfred Brendel once remarked was the greatest piece ever written for solo piano.


It's also interesting that a piano virtuoso such as Vladimir Horowitz choose Mozart as his "Number 1", and not Chopin, nor Liszt, nor Beethoven, nor Rachmaninov just to mention some of the icons in virtuoso piano repertoire.

Here this part of the interview at minute 19:50 where he states that...


----------



## Chronochromie (May 17, 2014)

jdec said:


> It's also interesting that a piano virtuoso such as Vladimir Horowitz choose Mozart as his "Number 1", and not Chopin, or Liszt, or Beethoven, or Rachmaninov just to mention some of the icons in virtuoso piano repertoire.
> 
> Here this part of the interview at minute 19:50 where he states that...


Maybe because of the piano concertos, and not the solo keyboard works?


----------



## trazom (Apr 13, 2009)

Chronochromie said:


> Maybe because of the piano concertos, and not the solo keyboard works?


That's questionable, Horowitz stated in that interview or elsewhere that he preferred the K.333 sonata he recorded on the same album to the 23rd piano concerto.


----------



## jdec (Mar 23, 2013)

Chronochromie said:


> Maybe because of the piano concertos, and not the solo keyboard works?


He was referring to Mozart's music in general. But anyway he played more solo piano works than concerti, speaking about Mozart's.


----------



## Chromatose (Jan 18, 2016)

ArtMusic said:


> Please prove that Bach had a weakness. I would like to learn/see where that may be.


I don't think that's what he's trying to say maybe you should read his post again (same goes for stomamek, your missing his point)... Even if it was I'm sure you don't listen to exclusively Bach and everything he ever wrote. You probably have a set list of things you prefer to listen too over some of his other works.

I agree with FM that all composers are human and humans are flawed (I think this is what you meant to quote of Fugue Meister) if no humans are perfect which I'm sure you can agree than surely you can embrace the idea that even Bach had a few pieces that are not as good as his top tier works.


----------



## Fugue Meister (Jul 5, 2014)

Chromatose said:


> I don't think that's what he's trying to say maybe you should read his post again (same goes for stomamek, your missing his point)... Even if it was I'm sure you don't listen to exclusively Bach and everything he ever wrote. You probably have a set list of things you prefer to listen too over some of his other works.
> 
> I agree with FM that all composers are human and humans are flawed (I think this is what you meant to quote of Fugue Meister) if no humans are perfect which I'm sure you can agree than surely you can embrace the idea that even Bach had a few pieces that are not as good as his top tier works.


So there are some of you who read the posts I see. Thanks to Chromatose for some defense of my point. As far as ArtMusic's prompting me to produce some weak music of Bach's that would be rather hard to do without it coming down to personal preference. The weakest of Bach will always be greater than most other composers work in this regard he is something of an anomaly but I personally will say I don't care for the Italian concerto, the chromatic fantasy, Keyboard Concerto No. 6, a handful of the French and English suites don't really do it for me either. However I'm sure there are some of you ready and willing to tear down my suggestions here because these are beloved works and masterpieces (to some).

As for some of Stomanek's remarks I grow tired of talking to a brick wall (anyone who claims that some composers are infallible can't be reasoned with) so I shall do my best to ignore your considerably irrational posts and leave you with this: Glad you like Mozart he's a fine composer and I take comfort that even the common man can see the beauty in his works it's just a pity you can't find the glory of Haydn's music as well.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Chromatose said:


> I don't think that's what he's trying to say maybe you should read his post again (same goes for stomamek, your missing his point)... Even if it was I'm sure you don't listen to exclusively Bach and everything he ever wrote. You probably have a set list of things you prefer to listen too over some of his other works.
> 
> I agree with FM that all composers are human and humans are flawed (I think this is what you meant to quote of Fugue Meister) if no humans are perfect which I'm sure you can agree than surely you can embrace the idea that even Bach had a few pieces that are not as good as his top tier works.


I disagree that Bach's compositions have weaknesses, so I ask that a proof be given that the score has weaknesses. I maintain the view that Bach was a genius, and a towering figure of western classical music. If it is an opinion, then that's fine, we all have our rights to express our opinion about this.


----------



## Dim7 (Apr 24, 2009)

Western Art Music and Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart have the same acronym. Therefore Mozart is the best composer of Western Art Music.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

poconoron said:


> And don't forget Adagio in B minor, a piece that none other than Alfred Brendel once remarked was the greatest piece ever written for solo piano.


My list was not exhaustive - but thanks - I forgot about that one.
But I did ask fugue meister what gems Haydn had composed that could compete with the works I mention - no response!

He thinks I hate haydn - which I do not! After discovering Mozart 25 years ago I was thinking - is that it for the era of classical music! One master. Then I discovered Haydn - sy 88 first - which I like a lot - then some of the earlier sturm and drang (pinnock inc the hornsignal) - the great london dozen - the trumpet con is a delight, the cello concertos both superb - some of the sonatas. I drew a blank with the oratorios I'm afraid and the major masses. I dabble from time to time - and I like Michael Haydn too. What can I say - they're great - I just prefer Mr Mozart.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Does bach have weaknesses? Maybe - dare I say it - those cantatas take some ploughing through.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

stomanek said:


> My list was not exhaustive - but thanks - I forgot about that one.
> But I did ask fugue meister what gems Haydn had composed that could compete with the works I mention - no response


Well, I have a response. To me, Haydn's piano sonatas nos. 47/53/56/58/59/60 stand as tall as any of Mozart's best piano sonatas. What I love most about these sonatas are their rhetorical elements that always capture my imagination concerning musical conversation. So I have no problem in considering Haydn's solo piano music on a par with Mozart's. Now piano concertos would be an entirely different matter where Mozart reigns supreme.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Bulldog said:


> Well, I have a response. To me, Haydn's piano sonatas nos. 47/53/56/58/59/60 stand as tall as any of Mozart's best piano sonatas. What I love most about these sonatas are their rhetorical elements that always capture my imagination concerning musical conversation. So I have no problem in considering Haydn's solo piano music on a par with Mozart's. Now piano concertos would be an entirely different matter where Mozart reigns supreme.


OK well I've got McCabe's complete haydn sonatas on LP - so will try to catch up with some of those.
I am cautious though - another poster was raving about clementi piano concertos and declared them equal to any of Mozart's best - I was right to be sceptical but of course Clementi is not in Haydn's league.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Here's an answer that I don't see often when this subject comes up: I think it's because Mozart and Bach wrote more "definitive" masterpieces. By that, I mean works that, were you listing "the greatest concertos" or "choral works" they'd occupy many of the top spots. Haydn and Handel, while they had their share of masterpieces, tended to be consistently excellent across a larger oeuvre, but didn't hit those "pinnacles" quite as often. 

Personally, Mozart is my (likely eternal) #1, but after I made a conscious effort to go through much of Handel and Haydn's music, they sailed right into (roughly) my top 5 as well. Handel may hold the record for the composer whose music I listen to (that I hadn't heard before) and frequently find myself saying "wow, this is great!" He OWNED the oratorio genre, and his operas are, IMO, the absolute pinnacle of the baroque period, with many of them standing up to the best of those that came after. His solo keyboard work and organ music, while not as extensive as Bach's, is similarly rich in what there is. His op. 6 is, IMO, every bit the equal of the Brandenberg's, and one of the genuine orchestral masterpieces of the period. Haydn, otoh, is eternally surprising and delightful; so much so that it's difficult singling out favorites, but I think his string quartets are his greatest final statement; so much so that I actually prefer him to all others in the genre for the sheer diversity and richness. Haydn seemed to have concentrated every ounce of his intellect and creativity into those works. The symphonies, masses, and piano trios aren't far behind in quality either. 

Bach is a composer, though, I'm eternally hit-and-miss with. I find I'm about 50/50 loving/disliking his stuff: Love the Bm Mass, am bored by the Passions; love the WTC, bored by the Goldbergs; love the organ music, bored by the cantatas, etc. While I understand and respect his genius, he's just rarely a composer that engages or moves me as much as the others, and I think Handel was every bit his equal. Handel may be far less intellectually rich, but I find him more humane.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

stomanek said:


> OK well I've got McCabe's complete haydn sonatas on LP - so will try to catch up with some of those.
> I am cautious though - another poster was raving about clementi piano concertos and declared them equal to any of Mozart's best - I was right to be sceptical but of course Clementi is not in Haydn's league.


I've never heard McCabe's Haydn. The very high opinion I hold of Haydn's solo music is courtesy of Brendel, Schiff, Koscis and Ranki. As for Clementi, I find him to be bush-league.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Bach is a composer, though, I'm eternally hit-and-miss with. I find I'm about 50/50 loving/disliking his stuff: Love the Bm Mass, am bored by the Passions; love the WTC, bored by the Goldbergs; love the organ music, bored by the cantatas, etc. While I understand and respect his genius, he's just rarely a composer that engages or moves me as much as the others, and I think Handel was every bit his equal. Handel may be far less intellectually rich, but I find him more humane.


These anti-Bachian sentiments are upsetting me to the point where I had to double my high blood pressure medication. Only kidding. Handel more humane? I don't know of any composer whose humanity in his music approaches Bach's.

That's it from the Bulldog pen where every bone is inscribed with Bach's name.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

The biggest difference to me between Bach/Handel and Mozart/Haydn can be observed in how the different composers use harmony and dissonance. 

Bach and Mozart sound genius in the way they use harmony and dissonance, Handel and Haydn do not. Obviously, Bach's counterpoint is hard to beat. In most other areas all four composers seem very good.

I think it can be argued that Haydn's genius was mostly in form.

Myself, being a listener more of baroque and modern music, sonata form isn't something that is really important for my musical enjoyment. As far as Handel, aside from his Dixit Dominus I've just never felt very convinced by his music, it seems certainly adequate, but not genius.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

tdc said:


> The biggest difference to me between Bach/Handel and Mozart/Haydn can be observed in how the different composers use harmony and dissonance.
> 
> Bach and Mozart sound genius in the way they use harmony and dissonance.


I'd be interested in comments on this idea.


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

Bulldog said:


> I've never heard McCabe's Haydn.


John McCabe was a mighty fine pianist - he died almost exactly a year ago http://www.gramophone.co.uk/classical-music-news/composer-john-mccabe-has-died


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

tdc said:


> The biggest difference to me between Bach/Handel and Mozart/Haydn can be observed in how the different composers use harmony and dissonance.
> 
> Bach and Mozart sound genius in the way they use harmony and dissonance, Handel and Haydn do not. Obviously, Bach's counterpoint is hard to beat. In most other areas all four composers seem very good.
> 
> ...


Not quite the same but my wife (an amateur pianist) once said to me she found mozart harder to play than any other composer - due to frequent shifts in tonality.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Bulldog said:


> These anti-Bachian sentiments are upsetting me to the point where I had to double my high blood pressure medication. Only kidding. Handel more humane? I don't know of any composer whose humanity in his music approaches Bach's.
> 
> That's it from the Bulldog pen where every bone is inscribed with Bach's name.


now you know how I feel when people say Mozart's music lacks emotion.
up against the wall with them


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

stomanek said:


> Not quite the same but my wife (an amateur pianist) once said to me she found mozart harder to play than any other composer - due to frequent shifts in tonality.


I have heard a professional pianist remark that he felt Mozart and Ravel were the two most difficult composers to perform. The reasoning was - Mozart because he is so simple, yet so complicated, and Ravel because he is so complicated, yet so simple.


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock (Jul 6, 2013)

sosophisticated said:


> Note that I didn't call this Handel vs Bach or Haydn vs Mozart because I hate the idea of battles, isn't life stressful enough without squabbling about who's into the coolest composer?:lol:
> 
> Anyway like The Beatles vs The Stones debate, it seems that often there are two contemporary composers who wrote in a similar style yet posterity has revealed one to be the clear winner in terms of acclaim and popularity. Of course if you ask people to name the top 3 composers _someone_ has to fit in to just those 3, and 99% of the time it's JS Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart.
> 
> But why is JS Bach "better" than Handel, and why is Mozart "better" than Haydn? I honestly couldn't pick a favourite between those 4. It seems opinions change too, Haydn was immensely regarded in his lifetime, these days he's overshadowed by Mozart. Handel too was much acclaimed but again he's overshadowed today by JS Bach.


I personally prefer Haydn to Mozart, but Mozart is awesome as well. I think it's a matter of preference, these are giants of music and choosing between them is choosing between their different styles of expression. All of these composers have their stronger and weaker areas, they all have completely different approaches to composition. Decisions on who one prefers can only be subjective imo.


----------



## atsizat (Sep 14, 2015)

Abraham Lincoln said:


> JSB > all (personal opinion)


Vivaldi >Bach > Mozart > Handel = Haydn (personal opinion)


----------



## Lyricus (Dec 11, 2015)

atsizat said:


> Vivaldi >Bach > Mozart > Handel = Haydn (personal opinion)


I was about to post wondering how we could have gone six pages without someone proclaiming the obvious superiority of Vivaldi. That said, his style isn't really the same as Bach's or Handel's. Perhaps Telemann instead?

Also, Clementi should be added to the the Mozart/Haydn mix. He might not have the love these days that he had in the past, but he was respected well enough that the Holy Roman Emperor Joseph II declared the competition between Mozart and Clementi a tie. Furthermore, Haydn might be too old to contrast with Mozart, but Clementi was only four years Mozart's senior, making them closer contemporaries.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

atsizat said:


> Vivaldi >Bach > Mozart > Handel = Haydn (personal opinion)


Vivaldi was one of the most original composers n all history. He pioneered the three movement concerto format that we all know. Very popular during his lifetime, which was why he wrote so many, hundreds of them.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Lyricus said:


> I was about to post wondering how we could have gone six pages without someone proclaiming the obvious superiority of Vivaldi. That said, his style isn't really the same as Bach's or Handel's. Perhaps Telemann instead?
> 
> Also, Clementi should be added to the the Mozart/Haydn mix. He might not have the love these days that he had in the past, but he was respected well enough that the Holy Roman Emperor Joseph II declared the competition between Mozart and Clementi a tie. Furthermore, Haydn might be too old to contrast with Mozart, but Clementi was only four years Mozart's senior, making them closer contemporaries.


Clementi was not anywhere near haydn and mozart - so doesnt really belong in the debate.


----------



## Animal the Drummer (Nov 14, 2015)

And wasn't that in any case a contest of piano-playing rather than one of composition and overall musical excellence?


----------



## hreichgott (Dec 31, 2012)

Haydn and Mozart, they have different biographies and we value them differently... one was a talented village boy who became a court composer and great teacher and lived to a ripe old age, the other was a child prodigy who became an impoverished itinerant performer-composer and died young.
We like to think of one of those biographies with an aura of romance. maybe that affects how often that one springs to mind when people think of classical composers?

Anyway, I love them both. As a pianist I really love Haydn. I think the connection in his music between rhythm, harmony and emotion is genius. But I think if I were a singer I might prefer Mozart.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Animal the Drummer said:


> And wasn't that in any case a contest of piano-playing rather than one of composition and overall musical excellence?


it was but in any case 2 of the best pianists in europe - how could one choose and they called it a draw


----------



## jegreenwood (Dec 25, 2015)

It seems silly to try to reduce almost 50 years of musical pleasure into several sentences, but I certainly won't let that stop me.

Haydn for me represents the joy of creating music. His virtually endless exploration of and experimentation with the classic style is astonishing. His musical wit is unmatched by any other composer. (Has anyone ever used rests as well as he does?)

Mozart found a way to take the same classical style and relate it to the human feeling. Being the superior melodist helps in this regard. Ultimately Mozart triggers a broader range of emotions for me.


----------



## atsizat (Sep 14, 2015)

ArtMusic said:


> Vivaldi was one of the most original composers n all history. He pioneered the three movement concerto format that we all know. Very popular during his lifetime, which was why he wrote so many, hundreds of them.


Today, Vivaldi doesn't get the respect he deserves. Bach played Vivaldi's musics back then.


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock (Jul 6, 2013)

ArtMusic said:


> Vivaldi was one of the most original composers n all history. He pioneered the three movement concerto format that we all know. Very popular during his lifetime, which was why he wrote so many, hundreds of them.


Well, didn't Corelli come before Vivaldi?


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock (Jul 6, 2013)

stomanek said:


> Clementi was not anywhere near haydn and mozart - so doesnt really belong in the debate.


Clementi was an excellent sonata composer, but didn't shine in other areas of composition, which means he can't be judged on the same level as Haydn or Mozart. Someone who might come close is Michael Haydn, who did have some great works such as the Requiem in C minor or his Symphony 29 in D minor which I find excellent. But imo it's still not enough to bring to the same level as Mozart or F. J. Haydn.


----------



## Elizabeth de Brito (Feb 10, 2016)

I remember playing Clementi Sonatina's when I was about Grade 1 or 2, ah


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

HaydnBearstheClock said:


> Clementi was an excellent sonata composer, but didn't shine in other areas of composition, which means he can't be judged on the same level as Haydn or Mozart. Someone who might come close is Michael Haydn, who did have some great works such as the Requiem in C minor or his Symphony 29 in D minor which I find excellent. But imo it's still not enough to bring to the same level as Mozart or F. J. Haydn.


I think Clementi is mainly played by students. I dont find his sonatas interesting - they are pretty at first - but lack the spark.


----------



## Guest (Feb 13, 2016)

Weston said:


> I think Handel's music starts edging closer to style galante or ultimately the classic period while Bach's seems to be the pinnacle of counterpoint, and this may be why some revere Bach over Handel. It would certainly be my reason, though I consider them both indispensable.
> 
> The Haydn / Mozart thing I've never understood. Haydn is by far the more interesting composer for me.


For me too, at least as far as his symphonies go...I'm certainly more inclined to listen to Haydn's London set than any of Mozart's. But just to emphasise, it's a personal thing. I disagree with the OP's contention that Mozart is "better" than Haydn, but I'll not contradict the generally held view that M is a 'great' composer.


----------



## leafman (Dec 21, 2014)

atsizat said:


> Today, Vivaldi doesn't get the respect he deserves. Bach played Vivaldi's musics back then.


A big DITTO on that post, good buddy.


----------



## leafman (Dec 21, 2014)

I have tried to like Mozart during the 30 years I have listened to classical music. I do like a few of his passages but, I just can't warm up to it. 

His works seems so much like a Hillary Clinton speech, very contrived and not from the heart. 

I sat through an extended sampling of Mozart recently and remembered that early in my classical music life I had a dismissive and jocular quip regarding the composer. Mozart is like the Perry Como of his day.


.


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

Bachs music is characterised by concise embellishment and tonal warmth and depth in general musical ideas. I would not say Bachs is perfect but he is definitely a composer of great knowledge and taste, I admire his music. Handel is a bit flamboyant but still in an acceptable measure. Mozart is completely playful and warm, of course in terms of depth is not to be compared to Bach since the different in their religious positions.

I admit prefer Bach the most over the rest, but I still enjoy Handels cantatas, Handels music does not lack brilliance if Bachs is abound with grace and erudition. Haydn and Mozart is not my frequent repertoire but Mozart is also somehow reminiscent of Bachs musical ideas, making me very nostalgic about his music.


----------



## Animal the Drummer (Nov 14, 2015)

If you really think Mozart "in terms of depth is not to be compared with Bach" I feel truly sorry for what you're missing.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

violadude said:


> I think that's one of the main reasons for Handel's lack of popularity among certain groups of classical listeners. I think Mozart's operas tend to be a little more appealing because Baroque virtuoso singing can tend to rub people the wrong way...


I actually really like baroque virtuoso singing, instinctively. It's romantic, high vibrato music that I have always had trouble with. Wagner and Verdi have great orchestral and constructive powers, Verdi even has vocal melodies that shine through the singing I don't like, but it's just not enjoyable.

I always enjoy a Purcell song by someone with a light and round toned voice. Handel is not too much different.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

When I think outside pre 1800s music(the whole repertoire), at this point in the game Handel doesn't always immediately get my attention. But when I cut out the developments post 1800, then Handel seems like one of the brightest stars. It's weird that way. But often thinking of composers without thinking of the pieces you love that they wrote, does not work for me anyways. When I think of "Water Music", get some of it's melodies playing through my head and put it on, it remains one of the most soothing and soul comforting pieces of music I've ever encountered. I wish I could get deeper into Handel exploration.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

atsizat said:


> Today, Vivaldi doesn't get the respect he deserves.


Vivaldi, Handel and Bach are generally considered the big three of the baroque era. Not good enough?


----------



## leafman (Dec 21, 2014)

I like The Great Handel. Water Music is fine. Many of his opera pieces are great too.

Remember, Handel was famous in his day. He was a composer for many wealthy patrons. He was directly linked to the King of England and, in some sense, a part of the royal establishment. He certainly moved among the gilded elite.

As such, he was perhaps not seasoned by the emotional vagaries that other composers developed from. It's bound to affect his music. It is good, though.

He was heavily influenced by the Italians and there is speculation about whether he even met with Antonio Vivaldi during an Italian trip.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

leafman said:


> I like The Great Handel. Water Music is fine. Many of his opera pieces are great too.
> 
> Remember, Handel was famous in his day. He was a composer for many wealthy patrons. He was directly linked to the King of England and, in some sense, a part of the royal establishment. He certainly moved among the gilded elite.
> 
> ...


He was the first Baroque composer, in fact the first classical composer to have never been forgotten by the public since his death. A pure and simple historical fact that says it all.


----------



## EarthBoundRules (Sep 25, 2011)

Very hard to decide, but right now I'm feeling like Handel and Bach.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

Bulldog said:


> Vivaldi, Handel and Bach are generally considered the big three of the baroque era. Not good enough?


This inspires me to make a thread detour type of post.

This is true from a purely high baroque perspective and excluding the potential Vivaldi or Handel high baroque substitutes that readily come to my mind: Rameau, D. Scarlatti, possibly Telemann. But what happens when you consider 1600 to 1750 more broadly? You get some really great composers typically considered "high renaissance" at the peak of their powers or even slightly before that around 1600 producing music into the 1620s-1640s(William Byrd, Claudio Monteverdi, Orlando Gibbons, Giralomo Frescobaldi, Heinrich Schutz, Jan Pieterszoon Sweelinck being among the most famous names I can think of and know the dates of, along with an abundance of other really amazing composers). Monteverdi is even considered a sort of Beethoven of the start of the baroque by many academics, and his Madrigals and Operas certainly represent two different directions, each masterfully done.

The problem is a lot of people don't relate to this music as well either because they haven't heard the salient aspects of the output of each, or because they can't connect with it much at all, or both. Even taking that into account, we have another 70+ years before Vivaldi or Bach and Handel are even born. The start of it seemed to take a while to get going with great name brands of composers, but when we hit Heinrich Ignaz Franz Biber, Henry Purcell, Alessandro Scarlatti, Arcangelo Corelli, Georg Muffat, Dietrich Buxtehude, Jean Baptiste Lully, etc. The average person generally has no trouble at least respecting this music like they do Bach and Handel. It would sound the similar to them. The people who get it also get a lot out of it. There are highly attractive surface layers and depth in their outputs.

No doubt this is all influenced by my personal bias, but I believe I have the bias of a fairly widely listened pre 1800s-around 1550s classical music enthusiast(excluding vocal music, which my knowledge of is fairly weak). If you distrust that, which is reasonable, then check this out:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Baroque_composers

There is a little graph that you can go by. If one doesn't like it 100%(I don't because where is Georg Muffat?), then we have chronological list below. All the names that jump out on the basis of pieces you know and really like, pieces that others might like if they haven't heard them are fair game to be considered great in my opinion.

For all this, I distrust the assertion that these are the three greatest baroque composers. They are great, and Bach probably(certainly?) can take the number one crown, but he does that to the music after him as well. What would a very intelligent and well informed and historically inclined listener/musician think looking from the 1770s, after the last like Telemann had passed away? Maybe they were a monk and not altogether taken with the trends of the time. The uproar of Mozart and other things had yet to take hold of their interest, but they knew Bach, Handel and many composers before them. It's possible that because Bach and Handel have been such focal points for 18th and 19th century composers in different ways(and because Italians like Vivaldi were focal points for them), they get elevated in a way that in unjust to the absolute quality of predecessors and even some contemporaries.


----------



## leafman (Dec 21, 2014)

Clav, that little detour is like getting caught in a traffic round-about.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

Animal the Drummer said:


> If you really think Mozart "in terms of depth is not to be compared with Bach" I feel truly sorry for what you're missing.


So am I :devil:


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

Animal the Drummer said:


> If you really think Mozart "in terms of depth is not to be compared with Bach" I feel truly sorry for what you're missing.


Bachs depth is how he express the text of his cantatas, his absorption of early to late styles in his keyboard music. To say Mozart is comparable to Bach is a bordering insult to Bach. 50 minutes of Well-tempered clavier wil remind a musical mind that Bach is undoubtedly more learned than Mozart.


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

I am also against the idea to say that Bach is the climax of the whole era, JS Bach was so praised because of his choral works fit well to wide taste that were sustaining and developing at the time, conservative or roccoco. Bachs choral works are near perfect compared to his contemporaries, flowing like Lassus, elegant like Schutz, warm like Desmarest. Bachs keyboard publications had been the most prestigious textbooks for later composers, amateurs, but hampered by bias of romantic tastes, people forgot who shaped Bach and the works of whose are also highly expressive of the fine texts. I would conclude that, while many people praise Bach like following other peoples mouths, they really do not understand the greatness of Bach. 

To dwarf another baroque composer with the praise of Bach is a sign of misunderstanding of Bach, the depth of Bachs music comes from his widely learning and absorption of many styles. It is wrong to say that Bach was an avant-guard of experimenting classicism, he only tried to use available musical means as he saw fit, he simply did not compromise to the new trends in all types of his works.


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

Animal the Drummer said:


> If you really think Mozart "in terms of depth is not to be compared with Bach" I feel truly sorry for what you're missing.


I am not dwarfing Mozart, Besides Bachs absorption of many styles, Bachs focus on text expression of course will make him more profound than Mozarts music. Mozart is a highly skillful musician with great taste for melodies, but his music is off the text and goes for vibratos, vibratos, Pavarotti like tenors. At the time of Mozarts popularity, baroque norm was dissolving, namely the adherence to text, counterpoint construction, polychoral technics, cantus firmus, cantatas circles, all made way to bourgeoisie tastes. To admit that Mozart is equal in depth to Bach is equivalent to ignore the huge differences in musical traditions behind the composers. If in terms of musical enjoyments, I will still enjoy Mozart, he has great melodies, warmth, some musical ideas that Bach handed to him as golden scraps. I personally consider Mozart as the last composer of the Baroque Age.


----------



## Hildadam Bingor (May 7, 2016)

Ariasexta said:


> 50 minutes of Well-tempered clavier wil remind a musical mind that Bach is undoubtedly more learned than Mozart.


No it won't, but anyway who cares? This is music, not the SATs.


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

Hildadam Bingor said:


> No it won't, but anyway who cares? This is music, not the SATs.


Your resistence to complexity is the proof that Bach is an erudite composer.


----------



## Hildadam Bingor (May 7, 2016)

sosophisticated said:


> Of course if you ask people to name the top 3 composers _someone_ has to fit in to just those 3, and 99% of the time it's JS Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart.


Part of me feels like it's really Beethoven, Wagner, Stravinsky, and we just stick Bach and Mozart in there because they're safe. On which note:

Beethoven is the Stones to Rossini's Beatles - this time the Stones won.

Stravinsky is either the Stones to Debussy's Beatles or the Beatles to Schoenberg's Stones.

Wagner is simultaneously the Stones to Verdi's Beatles and Brahms' Beatles.


----------



## Hildadam Bingor (May 7, 2016)

Ariasexta said:


> Your resistence to complexity


Who said anything about "resistance to complexity"?



Ariasexta said:


> Yis the proof that Bach is an erudite composer.


Nobody said he isn't. I said, who cares? Yeah, erudition is part of what makes Bach great, but it's not the whole story, or Brahms would be greater than Bach.


----------



## Arsakes (Feb 20, 2012)

Each pair tried their own conspiracies to achieve world domination or at least absolute fame. You don't know how many works Bach, Handel, Haydn and Mozart stole from the composers "who didn't live long" after they met one of these four. They were in league with Lizardfolks and Ancient Aliens. They used devices to spread signals to the aristocracy all around Europe that could brainwash them to acknowledge their works are the best and others are 2nd or 3rd rated. They also tried to grasp political power, but they didn't quite succeed!

End of the story. :lol:


----------



## Hildadam Bingor (May 7, 2016)

Hildadam Bingor said:


> Beethoven is the Stones to Rossini's Beatles - this time the Stones won.
> 
> Stravinsky is either the Stones to Debussy's Beatles or the Beatles to Schoenberg's Stones.
> 
> Wagner is simultaneously the Stones to Verdi's Beatles and Brahms' Beatles.


Or, if we think of the Stones not necessarily as the bad boys, but essentially as the near-contemporary reaction to the leading genius, then Wagner is the Beatles, Brahms is the Stones (Verdi don't care), and Beethoven and Stravinsky don't have any obvious rival in that sense.


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

Hildadam Bingor said:


> Who said anything about "resistance to complexity"?
> 
> Nobody said he isn't. I said, who cares? Yeah, erudition is part of what makes Bach great, but it's not the whole story, or Brahms would be greater than Bach.


Brahms admired Bach, even Frescobaldi and Froberger, he is an interesting personality with stories that even stand out of his musical works. Epoch shapes people, Brahms got his own musical attraction and complexity. Bach also has his own epoch, when personality is overshadowed by their works. Brahms does have some talents, I am sure Mozart and Brahms would be angry at people today comparing them to Bach, attack from the conservative side always raise public phlegm.


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

Arsakes said:


> Each pair tried their own conspiracies to achieve world domination or at least absolute fame. You don't know how many works Bach, Handel, Haydn and Mozart stole from the composers "who didn't live long" after they met one of these four. They were in league with Lizardfolks and Ancient Aliens. They used devices to spread signals to the aristocracy all around Europe that could brainwash them to acknowledge their works are the best and others are 2nd or 3rd rated. They also tried to grasp political power, but they didn't quite succeed!
> 
> End of the story. :lol:


The fame system today is corrupt, Bach and Handel would commit suicide if being chased by paparazzis. Or those old composers would burn their oeuvres if they knew we talk like this today.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Ariasexta said:


> At the time of Mozarts popularity, baroque norm was dissolving, namely the adherence to text, counterpoint construction, polychoral technics, cantus firmus, cantatas circles, all made way to bourgeoisie tastes.


Thankfully, Mozart was aware of many of these and incorporated what he had learned from earlier composers, including Bach. Mozart's music was for this reason considered too complex, too difficult for some bourgeois tastes.



Ariasexta said:


> To admit that Mozart is equal in depth to Bach is equivalent to ignore the huge differences in musical traditions behind the composers. If in terms of musical enjoyments, I will still enjoy Mozart, he has great melodies, warmth, some musical ideas that Bach handed to him as golden scraps. I personally consider Mozart as the last composer of the Baroque Age.


To paint Mozart as a shallower Bach, working from leftover table scraps, is to infantilize him and ignore the true depth of his achievements, and to consider one era as a whole shallower than another is to project one's own preferences onto history.


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

Mahlerian said:


> Thankfully, Mozart was aware of many of these and incorporated what he had learned from earlier composers, including Bach. Mozart's music was for this reason considered too complex, too difficult for some bourgeois tastes.
> 
> To paint Mozart as a shallower Bach, working from leftover table scraps, is to infantilize him and ignore the true depth of his achievements, and to consider one era as a whole shallower than another is to project one's own preferences onto history.


His violin concertos have high quality I admit and I did avoid calling Mozart as a bourgeoisie taste composer, his age was about Everybody buying a piano being a trend of the rising bourgeoisie class. There has always been a standard of learning ancient texts and languages to start with appointed studies in science in the past. It is undeniable that new trends since the rise of bourgeoisie and communism had been opposing to old school of learning. Bach is from the old school of learning, the talk about Bach and Mozart comparision had been put on the wrong track from the start, people are tended to denying the break-off of the old school of learning in the late 1700s, while forcing whatever unrelated or unnecessary values onto the topic. You see, it seems to you that I never praise enough Mozart only if I say Bachs music is more revealing than his.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Ariasexta said:


> His violin concertos have high quality I admit and I did avoid calling Mozart as a bourgeoisie taste composer, his age was about Everybody buying a piano being a trend of the rising bourgeoisie class. There has always been a standard of learning ancient texts and languages to start with appointed studies in science in the past. It is undeniable that new trends since the rise of bourgeoisie and communism had been opposing to old school of learning. Bach is from the old school of learning, the talk about Bach and Mozart comparison had been put on the wrong track from the start, people are tended to denying the break-off of the old school of learning in the late 1700s, while forcing whatever unrelated or unnecessary values onto the topic. You see, it seems to you that I never praise enough Mozart only if I say Bachs music is more revealing than his.


I think that Mozart and Bach, as composers writing in different eras and different styles, cannot be compared directly. The relative absence in Mozart's music of 6-voice fugal textures no more means that it is more shallow than Bach's than the relative absence of complex developmental sonata procedures means that Bach's music is shallower than Mozart's.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

It is impossible, even just personally, to choose between these four. My liking for the underdog pushes me to say "Handel above Bach" but how can that be? How can anyone claim to be greater than the composer of the B minor Mass or the Goldberg Variations? Handel's case rests on this operas and dramatic oratorios and his genius for writing for the human voice (did anyone do it better?). As for Mozart and Haydn, my sense is that Mozart defines the word "genius" and he is more likely than Haydn (or almost anyone) to make me wonder "where did _that_ come from?" and normally that would be enough to tip the scales. But Haydn went on and on creating deeply delightful music. He was almost scientific in him exploration of what happens when you do _x_ and he was by far the greatest "musical craftsman". And then, at the end of his career and once he had obtained the freedom that Mozart enjoyed, he produced a series of towering masterpieces. I don't think even Mozart can claim to have been greater, nor can Bach or Handel ... or Beethoven.

So these four each demonstrates a totally different way of being among the very select few composers who appear to be without equal - a group that for me also includes Beethoven and Brahms.


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

It is like comparing Bernhard Riemann to Isaac Newton or Leonhard Euler, if calling Newton or Euler as greater is mostly a historic perspective not the technical understanding of mathematics which is solving the higher problem. Even nobody will say Riemann is greater because he is solving the greater problem. Music as a cultural product, technical terms are even more unrelevant.

While I say Bachs music is deeper than Mozarts, it is not an absolute denial of Mozarts music in favor of Bach. Mozarts music surely have some unique qualities that Bachs does not have and these qualities are relevant to his own historical background, which I surely do not understand so I am open to opinion on this part: to what historical background that Mozarts music is deeply relevant and revealing about? I do not understand this part therefore, I did not say Bachs is "better" than Mozarts.


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

Mahlerian said:


> *I think that Mozart and Bach, as composers writing in different eras and different styles, cannot be compared directly. * The relative absence in Mozart's music of 6-voice fugal textures no more means that it is more shallow than Bach's than the relative absence of complex developmental sonata procedures means that Bach's music is shallower than Mozart's.


My thought exactly, maybe it was dued to my English skill there was some misunderstanding. Mozarts music in fineness is not lesser than Bachs. So lets not fuel disagreement about the concept of "depth" it involve more historic topics other than music, like literature. It is unnecessary to go deeper into this detail. It is almost going into theist VS science debate, endless phlegming.

And I never see technical complexity as a criterion to judge a composers work.


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

I already voiced that it is not just to put Bach as the climax of the baroque age even though I fervently love Bach, so this opinion also applies to comparison with Mozart, no absolute winning, partly because I consider Mozart as a baroque composer too. I would say Bach and Mozart is absolutely better than.....(Leaving this part, my opinion will not change about on this and will not debate over again.)


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

leafman said:


> Clav, that little detour is like getting caught in a traffic round-about.


It's probably poorly written, that's why.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

Mahlerian said:


> Thankfully, Mozart was aware of many of these and incorporated what he had learned from earlier composers, including Bach. Mozart's music was for this reason considered too complex, too difficult for some bourgeois tastes.
> 
> To paint Mozart as a shallower Bach, working from leftover table scraps, is to infantilize him and ignore the true depth of his achievements, and to consider one era as a whole shallower than another is to project one's own preferences onto history.


I was thinking the other day very keenly about the very unoriginal thought, that if Mozart had lived a mere 15 years longer, music history might REALLY have been altered but not necessarily in the most direct way. He may have "out Bach'd" Bach or rather, continued what Bach started. (and to most appearances, finished.) He was just about the only composer so close in time from Bach who could really have followed up on that, and seemed to be moving in that direction. Late Mozart works could have been less successful in their time, but if he had found a more stable post and been a bit more contented, we could have had another body of work like those of the personal side of Bach, a major force in music improvement still active long after his death.

Interesting to think about.


----------



## GreenMamba (Oct 14, 2012)

Ariasexta said:


> I already voiced that it is not just to put Bach as the climax of the baroque age even though I fervently love Bach, so this opinion also applies to comparison with Mozart, no absolute winning, partly *because I consider Mozart as a baroque composer too. *I would say Bach and Mozart is absolutely better than.....(Leaving this part, my opinion will not change about on this and will not debate over again.)


How so? I'm curious about this.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

GreenMamba said:


> How so? I'm curious about this.


I was curious too, but because I kind of have my own sense about how one could see it that way. There were certainly anachronistic things in Mozart that ironically helped to point a viable way for others like Beethoven and even Haydn. Ever heard this piece?:



 or this: 




There are some other piano pieces like these that lack nothing of the best of the baroque, while still sounding like Mozart. This technique was certainly not confined to these as simply little experiments.


----------



## trazom (Apr 13, 2009)

clavichorder said:


> I was thinking the other day very keenly about the very unoriginal thought, that if Mozart had lived a mere 15 years longer, music history might REALLY have been altered but not necessarily in the most direct way. He may have "out Bach'd" Bach or rather, continued what Bach started. (and to most appearances, finished.) He was just about the only composer so close in time from Bach who could really have followed up on that, and seemed to be moving in that direction. Late Mozart works could have been less successful in their time, but if he had found a more stable post and been a bit more contented, we could have had another body of work like those of the personal side of Bach, a major force in music improvement still active long after his death.
> 
> Interesting to think about.


 That's what I think too. I read somewhere Mozart secured the unpaid position as assistant to Kapellmeister Leopold Hofmann shortly before his death so that, when Hofmann passed away, Mozart would've been the next Kapellmeister at St. Stephen's Cathedral in Vienna. There, he would've had a regular income and the occasion to write more sacred music. Mozart wrote this great stand-alone kyrie(



) at the time he was applying for the position, most likely to show his experience in writing music of that style. Had he succeeded Hofmann, there likely would've been greater, more complete works in that vein. Unfortunately Hofman, who was already elderly and frail, still outlived Mozart by two years so that didn't happen.


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

Ariasexta said:


> I already voiced that it is not just to put Bach as the climax of the baroque age even though I fervently love Bach, so this opinion also applies to comparison with Mozart, no absolute winning, partly because I consider Mozart as a baroque composer too. I would say Bach and Mozart is absolutely better than.....(Leaving this part, my opinion will not change about on this and will not debate over again.)


In fact, I do not look down on many of later composers, just a few of them. I just feel like some people may feel I am condescending Bach to Mozart, and some people will condescend Mozart to Beethoven, and Beethoven to modern ages... endling condescending. I just wanted to prevent such imaginative Bachs fall into condescending by hacking against the whole later eras. My mind was not exactly thinking that way.

To exactly express my view on later eras, condensed to 3 points:

1-My view on later eras are more complicated than to generalize as like or dislike while I do not have complicated, contradicting ideas with the general older arts. I say I like Brahms that does not mean I like his musical era in the way I like baroque era. But I will say it is wrong to say I dislike classicism or romanticism, I am not that superfacial. If I did have said I dislike modernism, it is not purely musical, I had some other matters on my mind when was saying that. I simply

2-Liking some romantic composers is more of the matter of intricate personal tastes. Later music developed more and more into individual styles therefore, they are more and more about personal tastes, and personal tastes today defying all unifying standards. Therefore comparing baroque VS romanticism always goes into a mess. It is the reason why Baroque composers and later composers can NOT be directly compared.

3-I am in no way condescending Bach to Mozart or later composers, this point is so important that I had to border to insulting all later composers as quoted in this reply to myself. When it feels like insulting many innocent composers so I return to explain again. Bach is unique, like many other baroque composers, in terms of his large surviving works, quality, uniqueness, he is invincible, incomparable, and this does not make other composers any less important, and we need to correctly assess other composers importance case by case. Bach overshadowing, at climax of the whole era, such idea is as misleading as saying I dislike the whole later era.

I hope people can understand my points now.


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

GreenMamba said:


> How so? I'm curious about this.


Mozarts music does not depart from the most classical norms, in term of tonality, Mozart is very classical. 
Mozart can be considered as baroque for his religious works, his roles in the whole musical history, he transmitted classical tastes into later periods, making people rediscover Bach and other older composers. Mozart as a baroque composer is very deserved.


----------

