Thread: Mozart Symphonies or Haydn Symphonies?

Which do you prefer?

Not much in it for me.

Listened to Mozart's 1st Symphony yesterday. Not bad for a child who was probably nine years old when he wrote it. :-)

Haydn's 52nd is waaaay better than Mozart's 25th. I don't think Mozart does Sturm und Drang very well. Haydn is much better (but still nowhere near as good as CPE Bach!) although I do believe that Mozart's 41st is musically one of the most amazing symphonies written in the period.

This was a tough call, but I ended up voting for Haydn.

Originally Posted by Moira

Not much in it for me.

Listened to Mozart's 1st Symphony yesterday. Not bad for a child who was probably nine years old when he wrote it. :-)

Listen to no. 7

As bodies of work, I hardly think there is much of a contest - Haydn for me.

Can't decide since I've listened to only around 1/10 of Haydn's symphonies but with what I've listened to I'm leaning towards Mozart but my tendency towards privileging quality over quantity is more extreme than most. From the 35th symphony onward I'd take any Mozart over Haydn for for 40 and 41 it's not even close. The last movement of the Jupiter is one of my favorite movements in any symphony, period.

Originally Posted by jalex

As bodies of work, I hardly think there is much of a contest - Haydn for me.

Which ones would you say are Haydn's best apart from the London ones? And what are your favorite movements in the London symphonies?


My biggest problem with Haydn's symphonies is that sometimes they're incredibly repetitive and there's an incredible amount of "filler" - I often get the sense that they're really longer than Mahler's.

Take Symphony 103 for example, first movement. What was the point of the first three minutes apart from the sweep of the drums at the very beginning? The main melody that is introduced at the three minute mark dominates the rest of the movement, and in no way was this a set up for some "climax" a la the first movement of Mahler's 9th.

It's just not something I return to very often.

Have been listening to the boxed set of Haydn Complete Symphonies with Antal Dorati and the Philharmonia Hungarica. Bliss! Hands down, Haydn all the way for me. Same with the string quartets, and piano sonatas, Haydn and Haydn.

This thread is not turning out how I expected it would turn out.

Edit: Nvm just saw the poll.

The 'Paris' Symphonies, (written for a large, virtuose orchestra) No.s 82-87 are fantastic - along with the 'Londons', but I have listened to all 104 of them now, and though I didn't keep a journal, I remember being knocked out with the evidence of his genius in No. 1 in G. As far as repetitiveness, - he did like and practiced monothematicism in his Sonata Allegro expositions a lot (45, 84, 94, 103 and 104 to mention just a few), but it is his reinvention of the same material that has been marveled over forever. He also often used the consequent phrase of the 'A' theme as the material for his 'new thematic' group in the new key in his first movements, so there is tremendous cohesiveness. But, hey, Mozart is, well, Mozart, and I can't nor would nay say someone who responded more deeply to M than H. I'm going to listen to No. 103 and see if I can pick up on what you were getting at in your post. Cheers.

and, btw: Mozart's No.s 38, 39, 40 and 41 are brilliant works.

Originally Posted by brianwalker

Can't decide since I've listened to only around 1/10 of Haydn's symphonies but with what I've listened to I'm leaning towards Mozart but my tendency towards privileging quality over quantity is more extreme than most. From the 35th symphony onward I'd take any Mozart over Haydn for for 40 and 41 it's not even close. The last movement of the Jupiter is one of my favorite movements in any symphony, period.



Which ones would you say are Haydn's best apart from the London ones? And what are your favorite movements in the London symphonies?


My biggest problem with Haydn's symphonies is that sometimes they're incredibly repetitive and there's an incredible amount of "filler" - I often get the sense that they're really longer than Mahler's.

Take Symphony 103 for example, first movement. What was the point of the first three minutes apart from the sweep of the drums at the very beginning? The main melody that is introduced at the three minute mark dominates the rest of the movement, and in no way was this a set up for some "climax" a la the first movement of Mahler's 9th.

It's just not something I return to very often.

Despite half of Haydn symphonies don't look special and interesting, still Haydn has better symphonies in numbers. Sorry Mozart, I only like your 25th, 36th, 40th and 41th symphonies. Hayden's English symphonies are enough to beat Mozart.

The marking for the Haydn Symphony No. 103 in Eb is 1. Adagio--Allegro con spirito. The 'three minute mark' of Sym No. 103 is the beginning of the EXPOSITION (Allegro con spirito) - the foregoing three minutes are the slow introduction (Adagio), which are evident in some symphonies of Mozart (No. 39 is a good example) and of Beethoven (No. 7 has a fantastic and long slow intro). The material of these slow intros is a nod to Corelli* who added a slow movement to the beginning of his sonatas that were to be played in church (Sonatas da chiesa) as a mark of seriousness. In the Classic era, this 'Corelli' slow movement was shortened and attached to the beginning of 'some' symphony first movements. The slow intro in all such works serves to set up the emphatic first thematic group of the Exposition. On the other hand many Classical symphonies start directly with the Expo, consider Mozart No. 40, or Beethoven No. 5.

* re Corelli - perhaps conjectural, but many theorists support the view

Originally Posted by brianwalker

Take Symphony 103 for example, first movement. What was the point of the first three minutes apart from the sweep of the drums at the very beginning? The main melody that is introduced at the three minute mark dominates the rest of the movement, and in no way was this a set up for some "climax" a la the first movement of Mahler's 9th.

It's just not something I return to very often.

Look at the numbers, not the bars - though I'll be surprised if Haydn prevails as his corpus of symphonies is so huge and Mozart's fame in opera, concerto, string quintet and mass so eclipses Haydn that many will vote Mozart w/o really listening to Haydn's symphonies (or String 4tets) - I hasten to add that I am guilty of this when it comes to the on-going TC Lists of Recommended Works. I sort of feel (and this is silly) that since I've been listening to classical music with unabated passion for 50 years, if I haven't heard of a composer they couldn't possibly be any good. Yeah, it's stupid.

Originally Posted by brianwalker

This thread is not turning out how I expected it would turn out.

Edit: Nvm just saw the poll.

Originally Posted by brianwalker

Which ones would you say are Haydn's best apart from the London ones? And what are your favorite movements in the London symphonies?

I haven't listened to all of them but I've found them to be overall a remarkably consistent body of work. An overview of personal highlights of the pre-London works might consist of #6-8, 22, 44-48, 52, 60 (for the hilarious finale), 88, 91, 92 and the Paris symphonies

My biggest problem with Haydn's symphonies is that sometimes they're incredibly repetitive and there's an incredible amount of "filler" - I often get the sense that they're really longer than Mahler's.

Where is the repetitiveness and the filler?

Take Symphony 103 for example, first movement. What was the point of the first three minutes apart from the sweep of the drums at the very beginning? The main melody that is introduced at the three minute mark dominates the rest of the movement, and in no way was this a set up for some "climax" a la the first movement of Mahler's 9th.

It's a lengthy slow introduction, Classical era composers often used these in his symphonies (one might equally ask what the 'point' of the three minute long introduction to Beethoven's symphony #2 is, for instance, though most listeners agree that it's something of a masterpiece). As far as it's 'point' goes, I find it enough that it's an extremely effective way to begin a symphony - a lengthy period of tenseness dispelled by the gaiety which follows - whatever the historical roots. The return of that theme in the middle of the movement is a stroke of dramatic genius, prefiguring the finale of Beethoven #5 though to obviously different effect. but I can't see any more reason to object to an unrelated slow introduction than, say, to the trio of a minuet and trio, or even the pre-Beethoven symphonic form itself (which after all is almost always a collection of four thematically unrelated movements). The emotional arc is still satisfying.

Originally Posted by NightHawk

Look at the numbers, not the bars - though I'll be surprised if Haydn prevails as his corpus of symphonies is so huge and Mozart's fame in opera, concerto, string quintet and mass so eclipses Haydn that many will vote Mozart w/o really listening to Haydn's symphonies (or String 4tets) - I hasten to add that I am guilty of this when it comes to the on-going TC Lists of Recommended Works. I sort of feel (and this is silly) that since I've been listening to classical music with unabated passion for 50 years, if I haven't heard of a composer they couldn't possibly be any good. Yeah, it's stupid.

I realize this so I was hesitant to vote. Haydn's symphonies aren't so flashy that they invite you in at the first listen and I know I've underrated them in the past.

Originally Posted by jalex

Where is the repetitiveness and the filler?

Repetitiveness is the wrong word; the introduction was just extremely boring... His symphonies in atmosphere are repetitive though. I'm not fond of introductions in general and although has it up to the 39th symphony he makes it more palatable than Haydn in my evaluation.

It's a lengthy slow introduction, Classical era composers often used these in his symphonies (one Hermight equally ask what the 'point' of the three minute long introduction to Beethoven's symphony #2 is, for instance, though most listeners agree that it's something of a masterpiece).

The thing is that Beethoven's 2nd is one of those works that almost fall straight to the bottom in the ranking of Beethoven's symphonies and almost never get packaged on a single disc, etc. You can say "well, that's because Beethoven's other symphonies are so good" but that doesn't mean that it can't be popular relative to the symphonies of other composers.

As far as it's 'point' goes, I find it enough that it's an extremely effective way to begin a symphony - a lengthy period of tenseness dispelled by the gaiety which follows - whatever the historical roots. The return of that theme in the middle of the movement is a stroke of dramatic genius, prefiguring the finale of Beethoven #5 though to obviously different effect. but I can't see any more reason to object to an unrelated slow introduction than, say, to the trio of a minuet and trio, or even the pre-Beethoven symphonic form itself (which after all is almost always a collection of four thematically unrelated movements). The emotional arc is still satisfying.

You don't have any urge for the 103 to be a tad shorter? Returning to the sandwich metaphor, I just think that there isn't enough "meat".

I just don't love any of Haydn's symphonies I guess.

Jalex, if you had to rank, by movement (please, indulge me) the best 12 movements in Mozart's and Haydn's symphonies (in a single column) i.e. as a single body of work, picking however many of either composer you want (not 6/6, could be 4/8, 10/2) how would you do it?

I will re-listen to the London symphonies and listen to the Paris and the ones you've just mentioned to make up my own list.

Originally Posted by NightHawk

Have been listening to the boxed set of Haydn Complete Symphonies with Antal Dorati and the Philharmonia Hungarica. Bliss! Hands down, Haydn all the way for me. Same with the string quartets, and piano sonatas, Haydn and Haydn.

Piano sonatas? Hands down for the piano sonatas?

I've never heard it said that haydn had any symphs that were as brilliant, powerful and enduring as Mozart's final 3. Heck, make that his final 6.

These guys are playing in different divisions. haydn was a great composer and the father of the symphony, but Mozart operated on a whole nother level...