Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 31 to 42 of 42

Thread: Haydn’s true place in music history – once lost, now regained

  1. #31
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Location
    The greater Chicago metro
    Posts
    117
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ramako View Post
    a 35 page document which simply lists some of the things written about Beethoven's Eroica symphony. Haydn just doesn't have that attention. I'm not sure all the things written about Haydn's music adds up to the amount written about the Eroica, although the late works garner a lot more attention than earlier ones.
    "a 35 page document which simply lists some of the things written about Beethoven's Eroica"

    Amazing, isn't it? And, you're correct; just *some* of the writings. Everything written - a ton of it in German - along with French, Russian, etc., etc., would fill a tome.

    "Haydn just doesn't have that attention"

    Nobody does. Nobody. The next runners up might be Mozart and Mahler. Classical "rock" stars. After that, everyone else - trailing behind.

    Don't feel badly. As popular as Tchaik is, his 3rd sym and 2nd piano con - favs of mine - are hardly even noticed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Funny View Post
    completely steamrolled (and no, not by a Mannheim steamroller)

    Haydn's "games" or "tricks" that he was so known for are often gags explicitly based on listener expectations...in the many moment-to-moment times he turns 180 degrees from the direction you expect the phrase to go - all these are acknowledgments that he knows what you (based on the cliches that he has to work with) are going to expect and that he has subverted them. It becomes a kind of conversation between him and you, the listener

    The 19th-century aesthetic inaugurated by Beethoven had no room for this, because Romanticism was focused inwardly, on the uniquely brilliant psyche of the individual composer, set on a pedestal for the mass public to admire from afar..
    "completely steamrolled (and no, not by a Mannheim steamroller) "

    The Mannheim Orchestra was one of the crucibles of the classical era symphonic style - perhaps the most important - since it provided Haydn himself the foundation on which he built his art.

    "moment-to-moment times he turns 180 degrees from the direction you expect "

    Excellent point. Thanks.

    "Romanticism was focused inwardly"

    Do you buy that? It's exactly what's been written about Romantic era poetry, prose, painting, and of course music. Especially music. At least for music, that's pretty much the judgement passed on the century since at some early point in the 20th cent [would you happen to know exactly when? My guess would be after WWI, since before that, composers were still more or less part of the 19th cent - even when, like Debussy, Stravinsky, Schoenberg, etc. - they were mightily breaking away from it].

    That little kernel of cliche's in pretty much every history and treatise on Romanticism. Ever question it, tho? Ever try to think "out side the box", as they say these days?

    I don't buy it. I think it's total crap.

    Here's an idea. Far from being focused "inwardly", the 19th cent - in all of the arts - turned it's gaze --- inclusively. It swept up all of the emotions, the thoughts, the experiences, the perceptions of human kind. All of that - *that* - made the music of the 19th cent what it was. It made it more human - because it was closer to the human experience --- of life.

    That's why romantic music continues to dominate music to this very day - from cinema [especially] to rock and roll. Think about it - rock and roll surely isn't in any classical mold - nor the mold of any other period - except the Romantic era.

    So - where does that leave us? The classical era has been called universal; it's music is "universal".

    Really? You know many folks listening to it? It's highly available. Anyone may hear tons of it at any time. Yet, most folks prefer music from Beethoven and forward in time.

    I've done observational studies of my own over many years. Most folks, if played a piece by Haydn or even Mozart and played a piece by Tchaik or even Saint-Saens will show a marked preference for the latter group.

    Think about it: when was the last time you heard a classical film score? Yet, romantic ones are the rule - every other movie has one [Hollywood's other option's rock and roll - a degenerated form of romanticism].

    Several years ago I worked for a real piece of crap company which played music in the office 24 hours/day. The music they chose wasn't some form of rock. Incredibly, it was all 100% classical era stuff. All of the employees hated it. HATED IT. Their perception of it was that it was cheery, squeaky, souless fluff. As my co-worker who sat across from me said, "Irritating, isn't it?".

    Sure, they'd have prefer cowntry or some other awful form of pop/rock - but that's not the point. The point's how they perceived that music. Not as background noise - but as an irritant.

    So much for the universality of the classical era.

    I'm not saying that I dislike the classical era, or that I'm hostile to it. I am, however, saying that both the classical and romantic eras have been seriously misunderstood and mis-characterized, and it's high time we got it right.

    Quote Originally Posted by HaydnBearstheClock View Post
    I've recently read another quote by Schumann though - something along the lines of - in Haydn's lush fruit gardens, there are some trees so heavily laden that they are very difficult to pass by.

    Foolish arrogant Schumann. However, his metaphor is quite humourous, hehe. I do like Schumann's music but I guess the romantics at the time were quite militant in 'rejecting' the structured, classical style - even though their own style came directly out of it.
    You completely misunderstand the early romantic period. Doing so will prevent you from understanding any other subsequent artistic period.

    Schumann, in addition to being a composer [and one of the greatest], was also a music critic and music writer. His writings that I've read show enormous insight into music - and have helped to shape my own views.

    "militant in 'rejecting' the structured, classical style"

    So, you're suggesting that time should've gone backwards. 50 years after Haydn's death, music and the arts should've stopped its direction, and gone backwards --- straight into the classical period?

    Let me ask you something. Did Haydn dive straight back into the Baroque?

    What the early romantics were doing was discovering a new mode expression in music. Every era does that - in almost every style - even in rock and roll [as primitive as it is]. Even the so-called neo-classicism of the early to mid 20th century is still a move forward. No one would ever mistake Stravinsky's Oedipus Rex or even Prokofiev's Sym 1 for a Haydn piece.

    Schumann was hardly "foolish arrogant" [sic]. He was, in actuality, a creative genius and an insightful arbiter on musical issues. Our role - yours and mine - is to gather enough IQ to try to understand and appreciate what he wrote - in prose as well as in music.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sid James View Post
    Another thing I’d add is Brahms was another one of those early types of neo-classicists. Mendelssohn was similar in the first part of the 19th century. Brahms’quote about Bach’s chaconne for solo violin bears this out. He wrote to Clara Schumann “On a system for a small instrument, a man writes a whohle world of the deepest thoughts and the most tremendous emotions. If I could imagine that I could have accomplished such a thing, could have conceived it within myself, I know surely that the excitement and the shock would have driven me insane.”

    Notice how Brahms focuses on the emotional qualities of Bach, whilst people like Stravinsky looked at the Baroque and Classical eras as more or less objective, a move away from the emotional qualities inherent in Romanticism. I am kind of conflating that inquiry back to the Baroque and Classical eras because it kind of happened at once, althogh Haydn had to wait longer than Bach to be given his full due as one of the great composers.
    "Another thing I’d add is Brahms was another one of those early types of neo-classicists."

    Incorrect. You're not the first person to say that about Brahms. Many have said that before. Each one made the mistake of overlaying 20th century [in your case, 21st century in time - but 20th century in origin] perceptions and thinking on a 19th century artist and man.

    The two time periods are very, very different.

    Just because Brahms has an interest in, and was influenced by, the classical era, doesn't automatically make him a neo anything. Despite all of Brahm's alleged conservatism [and really, it's probably due to his stubborn style of orchestration more than anything else], he was a romantic artist. All you need to do to prove that is to play a Haydn piece and then play a Brahms piece. The massive romantic emotion in Brahms jumps out right away. While it may have all kinds of influences - which actually enrich his music, rather than making it merely unoriginal or derivative - the sheer romantic emotional wallop hits your ear like a pile of bricks.

    Neo-classicism, as we know it, is something else entirely. Its sound, feeling, expression, and objectives are extremely different from anything Brahms wrote. If you need clarity on that, spend some time listening to Milhaud, Stravinsky, or Elliot Carter. Actually, neo-classicism spawned an army of now long forgotten neo-classicists who squandered their lives pouring out endless piles of crap that's long forgotten [in many cases - perhaps most - never even published]. Many of them were academics - so that's how they made their living [no need to mourn them as suffering composers - they didn't starve]. If you really want to dive into it, the CRI and Louisville record label recorded a lot of mid 20th century neo-classicists. I have some of those records - do I'm very familiar with the style and its objectives.

    "Notice how Brahms focuses on the emotional qualities of Bach"

    Exactly my point. Correct.

    "I am kind of conflating that inquiry back to the Baroque and Classical eras because it kind of happened at once"

    The Baroque and the classical period did not happen at once, kind of or in any other way. As a clue, Rococo or Style Gallant came between the two.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sid James View Post
    I think that Haydn was a composer who got a raw deal as regards to his position and importance in the history of music. Well, until fairly recently, that is.

    .
    I understand your objectives and I appreciate your efforts toward expressing them. In a minor way I find 2 small but significant problems with your post. Firstly, you tend to overlay present-day thinking and perception on very different periods of time, very different cultures and countries, all living in economically and politically extremely different circumstances.

    Consider that most of the time periods and societies on which you're passing judgement weren't even democracies, and had little if any such thing as 'human rights', or social or techlogical structures such as motorized vehicles and cell phones.

    In fact, European society was highly stratified in every way; both formally and [especially] informally. The closest equivalent we may have of the latter today might be the experience [for many] of high school and its popularity hierarchy.

    I think many of the judgments you pass and conclusions you reach are incorrect to a degree - not way off, but just enough to be skewed away from accuracy - due to the trap of imposing present day mentality on a very different time.

    Your second problem is that you've adopted a quasi-informal writing style, and in the process you've oversimplified some very complex issues and points in history. With simplification comes inaccuracy.

    So, the 2 items together - contemporary distortion and oversimplification - weaken your argument and render it somewhat off in terms of accuracy.

    "I think that Haydn was a composer who got a raw deal"

    Maybe. But, not recently. In the 20th cent, Haydn was always recorded to some degree, and also performed in concert. Not as much as Beethoven, but hardly neglected. With the appearance of Dorati's cycle - followed up with the punch of the HIPs in the 1980s and 1990s, Haydn's a major player in the classical world.

    “the childlike blissful play…[that] enabled Beethoven to unlock the spiritual depths.”

    True. The romantics mostly [but not all] regarded Haydn [and any other of his colleagues] as good for infants. The century idolized Beethoven. They weren't alone. Beethoven's music continues to move people right down to our EDM/rap/rock/cyber age. Beethoven's never stopped. What we should be doing is using the historic data of how Haydn was viewed in the first half of the 19th cent to help us understand romanticism better, rather than a means to disparage the romantic century.

    "Haydn also greatly downgraded the role of the harpsichord"

    You might want to inform Adam Fisher and the rest of the HIPs. Seems they've completely missed that one.

    "Haydn worked as a freelance in London"

    That's actually an extremely important and complex issue in not only the history of music, but also society in general. What you're touching on is the shift of musicians [especially composers] from servitude to an aristocratic master to what we might now call 'self-employed' musician [also somewhat inaccurately, but good enough for the present discussion] that accompanied the rise of romanticism and potently influenced the direction of music. That process continued until after Schubert's death.

    You may want to consider analysis published since 1949. A good resource is also a Pelican book:

    "The Symphony - Haydn to Dvorak". My edition is from 1973. The editor is the estimable Robert Simpson.

    It comes in 2 volumes. Note that it starts with Haydn, which implies Haydn as the foundation of the symphony. Author and analyst Harold Truscott is particularly inclined to Haydn:

    "Haydn was the first supreme master to make the symphony and sonata the foremost vehicle of his though...No later symphonists have improved upon Haydn's position; no one can do more than equal him; even Beethoven, in some ways, scarcely surpassed him...he is the 'Father of the Symphony'. He first perceived and expressed the heights and depths this kind of music could attain". [p. 49].

    I don't particularly agree with all of that, but Dr. Truscott was way smarter than I.
    Last edited by Krummhorn; May-04-2017 at 07:50. Reason: mpm

  2. Likes Pugg, Xaltotun liked this post
  3. #32
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    14,039
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Re Krummie's "mpm". Somebody? TIA

    http://www.acronymfinder.com/MPM.html

  4. Likes hpowders liked this post
  5. #33
    Senior Member Xaltotun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Helsinki, Finland
    Posts
    1,722
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Haydn is one of my favourite composers, but I also love the Romantics and understand why they felt the way they did. I didn't really like this thread until this guy Neward Thelman came along. Bravo, Sir! Excellent analysis.

    If I may add a tiny bit of my own, it could be this: classicism is the universality of Reason (as in concepts and language - and: conversation!). It is as universal as this Reason is universal. It's like Kant. It's all true and complete on its own playing field but it's not the whole picture. Kant already realized this and left the Ding an sich outside our grasp. Trying to grasp what remains outside concepts and language, romanticism is the universality of human personality or experience, the acceptance of a larger pre-existing and shared whole that comes before Reason. "Sum, ergo cogito." It's the analysis of this elusive sum. It's deine Zauber bindet wieder was die Mode streng geteilt. It's Wagner and Freud.

    So they're equally universal in a way, but one covers more than the other, and thus is more ambitious.
    Wäre das Faktum wahr, – wäre der außerordentliche Fall wirklich eingetreten, daß die politische Gesetzgebung der Vernunft übertragen, der Mensch als Selbstzweck respektiert und behandelt, das Gesetz auf den Thron erhoben, und wahre Freiheit zur Grundlage des Staatsgebäudes gemacht worden, so wollte ich auf ewig von den Musen Abschied nehmen, und dem herrlichsten aller Kunstwerke, der Monarchie der Vernunft, alle meine Thätigkeit widmen.

  6. Likes Neward Thelman, Bettina liked this post
  7. #34
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Location
    The greater Chicago metro
    Posts
    117
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Xaltotun View Post
    So they're equally universal in a way, but one covers more than the other, and thus is more ambitious.
    Clarification. Thanks.

  8. #35
    Senior Member Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    564
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hpowders View Post
    Yeah. That was characteristic of the time. Huge egos. The Romantics lead by Schumann thought their way was better than just about all who came before them.
    Schumann, like Mendelssohn and Brahms f.i., was a huge admirer of Bach.

  9. #36
    Senior Member Funny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    204
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    As for the OP's "raw deal" for Haydn until recently: Here's a very interesting book I recently finished reading, Reviving Haydn by Bryan Proksch.

    It's very pertinent to this topic, and though I knew the basic outlines of this story - how Haydn's sterling reputation sank down as it became encrusted with the quaint, bewigged "Papa Haydn" cliche - Proksch pulls in many historical sources to show when it hit bottom, what household names were involved, and what factors brought his reputation as an innovative, passionate artist back up to a reasonable level.

    There's an in-depth discussion of how Schumann's (or really, the Schumanns') thinking evolved and a look at the roles played by people like Saint-Saens, D'Indy, Schoenberg and Schenker. In the overall unfolding of events, "fake news" about Haydn's Croatian heritage turned out to be a surprisingly large factor.

    Recommended for any fan of Haydn or of musicological trends in general.

    http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7722/j.ctt155j3qq
    https://www.amazon.com/Reviving-Hayd.../dp/1580465129
    Last edited by Funny; May-09-2017 at 07:10.
    "If trees could scream, would we be so cavalier about cutting them down? We might, if they screamed all the time, for no good reason." - Jack Handey

  10. Likes Bettina, hpowders liked this post
  11. #37
    Senior Member hammeredklavier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    4,234
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Neward Thelman View Post
    "The Symphony - Haydn to Dvorak". My edition is from 1973. The editor is the estimable Robert Simpson.
    It comes in 2 volumes. Note that it starts with Haydn, which implies Haydn as the foundation of the symphony. Author and analyst Harold Truscott is particularly inclined to Haydn:
    "Haydn was the first supreme master to make the symphony and sonata the foremost vehicle of his though...No later symphonists have improved upon Haydn's position; no one can do more than equal him; even Beethoven, in some ways, scarcely surpassed him...he is the 'Father of the Symphony'. He first perceived and expressed the heights and depths this kind of music could attain". [p. 49].
    It's interesting to note though, all the "testimonies" about the supposed "innovation" of Joseph Haydn come from the 20th century as "second-hand" (such as those of Donald Francis Tovey and H. C. Robbins Landon), and NOT from the 18th century, the actual period when the supposed "innovation" was taking place.
    (I'm not saying J. Haydn wasn't innovative; I'm just skeptical about just how much more effective the supposed "innovation" of his was compared to his contemporaries' during the century. Though, I think that in the last decade of the century J. Haydn did some things that anticipate Beethoven).

    I've always been curious; if Joseph Haydn had created such a "sensation" across Europe in the 18th century as those 20th century scholars claimed; how come other major composers of the century never talked about it in their letters?** How come Mozart never copied a work of J. Haydn (K.291, K.444; look whose symphonies Mozart actually copied out. K.551, K.626; look whose works Mozart pays homage to), if J. Haydn really was such a huge source of inspiration for him?

    **some people claimed that Mozart's dedication letter for the "Haydn quartets" was proof that Mozart considered J. Haydn the most important. I think Mozart was just saying in it; "Since you're a good friend of mine, I'll dedicate these six quartets to you. I've been their father, but from now on, you'll be their father." Even here, Mozart doesn't talk of J. Haydn's prowess and greatness as a composer. He just calls J. Haydn a "celebrated man". He could just as well have done the same to Puchberg.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sid James View Post
    Even Mozart’s reputation seems to have fared better during that time, and again Haydn had taught him as well.
    J. Haydn never taught Mozart. This is just another wide-spread (nonsensical) myth surrounding their relationship.

    Quote Originally Posted by hammeredklavier View Post
    there's a valid reason why, in terms of musical linguistics, Mozart derived more from composers other than Joseph Haydn.
    Although it could be argued J. Haydn has a unique style; I find it to be too "alien" from Mozart's.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyfITQXD0u0&t=2m5s
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ekt0hRuOK4&t=7m35s
    Last edited by hammeredklavier; Jun-05-2021 at 17:17.

  12. #38
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    352
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    It is simply a fact that Haydn had become extremely famous and popular already in the 1770s. I doubt that any of his contemporaries has a similar number of inauthentic works that were published/copied under their name because as "Haydn" they were sure to get a boost because he was so popular (e.g. the "op.3" from the mid-1770s or so by R. Hofstetter).

    I also wonder why there are not plenty of both "Paris" and "London" commissions for contemporary composers if Haydn was just one among many. Or how the young Beethoven and his supporters (such as Graf Waldstein) obviously took Mozart and Haydn as the most important composers in the 1790s. For this status of Haydn it is not very important how much of a direct connection/influence there was between Mozart and Haydn. (If anything we should expect a composer of Mozart's stature to be comparably more independent of Haydn as lesser composers.) Or why in the first two decades of the 19th century the "trinity" Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven was formed. For some reason it was never "Stamitz, Gyrowetz, Beethoven". Neither "Michael Haydn, Myslivecek, Hummel"

    According to Rosen Mozart noted down the incipits of three Haydn symphonies 47, 62 and 75 (and it is probable that he had planned to have them in one of his concerts, in any case had some interest in these pieces). The slow movement from 47 is supposedly quoted/alluded to in Mozart's gran partita. Then there is Haydn #78 - KV 491. There are a few other connections. E.g. K 593,i <- op.64,5i (without the "lark"), K 614, i <- op.50,3i, K 614,iv <-op.64,6iv and the slow movement from K 614 also sounds Haydn-like, maybe the variations from symphony 84 or some similar piece. Unlike many others I am always wary of supposed quotations or allusions, partly because the style has so many formulae that similarities don't have to mean much.

    It would be a lot of work to track influences from Haydn among lesser composers. One obvious example is the symphony in C by Friedrich Witt that used to be attributed to Beethoven (as "Jena symphony") which is almost a clone of Haydn's #97. I am pretty sure there are lots more works inspired by Haydn from between ca. 1780 and 1815. I also think that Beethoven's 2nd symphony is indebted both to Mozart's "Prague" and Haydn's #104.

  13. #39
    Senior Member hammeredklavier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    4,234
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Btw (like Donald Francis Tovey**, H. C. Robbins Landon**, etc; I believe one of these even claimed "Mozart said that he learned how to write a string quartet from J. Haydn"), the "Pianist" Charles Rosen** is another of these "critics" whose words I take with a bit of grain of salt when it comes to the Classical-period history, because they** sound like they rely too much on their own "unprofessionally" subjective opinions regarding various topics. (the only part I'm sure he's completely right is his utterances about the 18th century practice of counterpoint, which all scholars agree)

    How can we even rely on him as an "authority" on these topics?
    "I'll only focus on J. Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven in this book because I think all the others were charlatans" is pretty much what he said in "The Classical Style", I believe (I just worded it differently). He blatantly belittles Classical-period liturgical music as "pastiche", ignoring stuff (important in terms of J. Haydn's influence on Beethoven) such as:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtlk6Ed8L7Q&t=4m44s
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5pjklzCKLM&t=18m41s
    (Btw, I didn't say Joseph Haydn wasn't influential, I'm just questioning just how influential he was during the 18th century. I've said it time and time again: I DO NOT question J. Haydn's influence on Beethoven.)

    Among the late 18th century composers, J. Haydn was the one benefited the most from the revival of early music during the 20th-century Neoclassical era. Finding about other, obscure composers (whose music weren't even being recorded back then) took far more personal time/money/effort. It was easy for these critics of the 20th century to make an excuse to justify their "laziness"; not wanting to spend personal time/money/effort to do research about composers they personally didn't care about.
    Yes, Mozart "took ideas" from J. Haydn, (I actually talked about J. Haydn's 78th symphony and Mozart Fantasie K.475 and other examples) just like how he did from Gluck (whose opera reforms affected so many, from Mozart, to Berlioz, Wagner), J.A. Hasse, the Bach brothers, and to a lesser extent, Myslivecek, G. Paisello, L. Gatti etc. Joseph Haydn's way to handle variations is different from Mozart's. J. Haydn keeps repeating the original theme but changes the accompaniment figures (the Surprise symphony, Kaiser quartet). Mozart doesn't do that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kreisler jr View Post
    Or why in the first two decades of the 19th century the "trinity" Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven was formed. For some reason it was never "Stamitz, Gyrowetz, Beethoven". Neither "Michael Haydn, Myslivecek, Hummel"
    You can indulge in the outdated, Joseph-Haydn-centrically limited view of the history all you want.
    The FACT still remains that Mozart's "base" is Michael Haydn. This is a fact we cannot change no matter whether we like it or not. His own letters tell us which Haydn he was more interested in. You can point to some bits to show Mozart is connected with J. Haydn; but those all those examples will be very minor/minuscule compared to the Mozart-Michael Haydn connection, which is far more significant and numerous in terms of quality and quantity of examples. There are similiarities between English and Spanish (the languages), but compared to Portuguese, English is not very similar to Spanish.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3fsq4Uy4u4I (think of Mozart K.543/iv)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wd_tGncMC30&t=2m27s (think of Mozart K.550/i)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8zNG6XKw1A&t=16m45s

    Dittersdorf also wrote 100+ symphonies, but he doesn't share a lingua franca with Mozart.
    "His symphonic and chamber compositions greatly emphasize sensuous Italo-Austrian melody instead of motivic development, which is often entirely lacking in his works." (wiki)

    There was no such thing as the "Trinity" back then (It's only an "illusion" we created in our minds today) — Only the "Viennese Classicists" or the "Viennese School".
    J. Haydn was popular simply because he was working in one of those "musical capitals", writing music for the public. But also, J. Haydn was a good example of composers in history who were popular and sometimes "respected" but NOT really admired by many of their "successors". Berlioz and Schumann were famously critical of J. Haydn and thought that Beethoven was a vast "improvement" on J. Haydn (but Berlioz admired Gluck wholeheartedly). Schubert admired Michael Haydn (and wrote a letter to Schubert's brother that he wept after a visit to Michael's grave), both he (Deutschemesse) and Beethoven (Missa solemnis and late modal stuff) paid homage to Michael. Michael taught Weber and Reicha. I think that Michael's dramatic use of chromaticism, which is more memorable than Joseph's, might have had influence on Weber.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kreisler jr View Post
    The slow movement from 47 is supposedly quoted/alluded to in Mozart's gran partita. Then there is Haydn #78 - KV 491. There are a few other connections. E.g. K 593,i <- op.64,5i (without the "lark"), K 614, i <- op.50,3i, K 614,iv <-op.64,6iv and the slow movement from K 614 also sounds Haydn-like, maybe the variations from symphony 84 or some similar piece.
    By the time J. Haydn gets to stuff like Op.50 (1787), Op.54 (1788), it's more like J. Haydn who is taking stuff from Mozart more. But again, he just "can't sound" like Mozart to the extent his brother does, because of the difference in base language.
    Mozart quotes his Spanish-born colleague, Vicente Martín y Soler's Una Cosa Rara, 1786 (which was more popular than Le nozze di Figaro back then) in the supper scene of Don Giovanni; so what? Taking some melodic snippets from their popular contemporaries was something everyone was doing back then.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kreisler jr View Post
    It would be a lot of work to track influences from Haydn among lesser composers. One obvious example is the symphony in C by Friedrich Witt that used to be attributed to Beethoven (as "Jena symphony") which is almost a clone of Haydn's #97.
    Yes, J. Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven were popular in those times as "Viennese Classicists". There was NO such thing as the "Trinity" (a "nonsensical myth" created during the 20th century). Publishers in those times often published obscure composers' works under popular composers' names because they thought the scores would sell better that way.

    Btw, why are you now trying to argue there are actually striking similarities between Joseph Haydn and Mozart when you've said in another thread:
    Quote Originally Posted by Kreisler jr View Post
    More than in the case of Joseph, Michael can appear a "lesser Mozart" as it is often a bit closer, less quirky, more melodic.
    Aren't you contradicting yourself? Didn't you agree that Michael was the one more influential to Mozart. (Michael reached his "maturity" earlier than Mozart. "Michael sounds like Mozart" sounds more like a compliment to Michael in this context as well.)
    So when "Joseph sounds like Mozart", he's NOT being a "lesser Mozart", but when "Michael sounds like Mozart", he's being a "lesser Mozart"?
    Last edited by hammeredklavier; Jun-06-2021 at 06:41.

  14. #40
    Senior Member hammeredklavier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    4,234
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kreisler jr View Post
    Then there is Haydn #78 - KV 491.
    I actually find that to be a generic Sturm-und drang expression. Listen to this bit from Mozart's K.345, Incidental music from Thamos (1779): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtJEN3Z2Jpg&t=10m25s

    And when Joseph Haydn does his "Sturm-und-drang arpeggiated figures", he sounds different from Mozart. (also, btw, I want to stress that Joseph Haydn did not invent Sturm-und-drang in music. Gluck and the others had been doing it before Joseph Haydn did)

    These are unmistakably "Joseph Haydn":
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYvjr86_aJY&t=1m29s
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyfITQXD0u0&t=4m3s (the 4th movement "Presto" from this symphony and the concluding movement of the 44th in E minor "Trauer" are "Joseph-Haydnesque", and never "Mozartian").

    These are unmistakably "Mozart":
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2hBAZKFf8Rk&t=2m55s
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtJEN3Z2Jpg&t=22s
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zf7R_g8NnN4&t=2m30s

    Quote Originally Posted by Kreisler jr View Post
    There are a few other connections. E.g. K 593,i <- op.64,5i (without the "lark"), K 614, i <- op.50,3i, K 614,iv <-op.64,6iv and the slow movement from K 614 also sounds Haydn-like, maybe the variations from symphony 84 or some similar piece.
    Sure, they're "Haydn-like", it's just that it's questionable if Joseph is the right "Haydn" in all those cases.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gDxnpn5vb4&t=4m28s (think of Mozart K.551/ii)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibm8Hqvq3Cs&t=7m30s (think of Mozart K.465/ii)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JaAKARuijy8&t=3m
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOP_RKlzSR8&t=6m23s
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GnzHku6aHYE&t=13m30s (think of Mozart K.551/iv, the dissonant false recapitulation)
    Last edited by hammeredklavier; Jun-06-2021 at 13:44.

  15. #41
    Senior Member hammeredklavier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    4,234
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kreisler jr View Post
    Or why in the first two decades of the 19th century the "trinity" Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven was formed. For some reason it was never "Stamitz, Gyrowetz, Beethoven". Neither "Michael Haydn, Myslivecek, Hummel"
    Decided by whom?

    "Chopin continued to express, in both words and deeds, his admiration for Hummel. For example, on December 10, 1842, five years after Hummel’s death, Chopin would proclaim that Hummel was one of the “masters we all recognize.” It is noteworthy that the only other names on Chopin’s list were Mozart and Beethoven. Chopin also showed his high regard by using so many of Hummel’s works to teach his students, as his pupil Adolf Gutmann recalled: “Chopin held that Clementi’s Gradus ad Parnassum, Bach’s pianoforte fugues, and Hummel’s compositions were the key to pianoforte-playing, and he considered a training in these composers a fit preparation for his own works. He was particularly fond of Hummel and his style. The two great pianists were also in complete agreement on many aspects of playing the keyboard. One was fingering, a matter of great importance to Chopin, who wrote in his own unfinished piano method “everything is a matter of knowing good fingering. ”Chopin considered Hummel to be the master of this art, writing that one should be able to produce “as many different sounds as there are fingers…. Hummel was the most knowledgeable on the subject.”"

    "The roots of Liszt’s compositional style for the piano – the extensive use of ornamentation and keyboard coloratura, the brilliant passage work written in small notes – can be traced to the piano music of Hummel and his contemporaries. The approach of the two virtuosos to the keyboard may also have been more similar than we think. William Mason, one of Liszt’s American pupils, tells us in his book Touch and Technic (1889) that Liszt considered a “two-finger exercise” by Hummel to be the source of his technique. The exercise consisted of playing a scale with two fingers, alternating accented and unaccented notes and using an elastic touch by pulling the fingers in towards the palm. Liszt’s high opinion of Hummel as an artist and as a man never diminished. It is evident in a letter he wrote to Weimar’s Grand Duke Carl Alexander in 1860, reminding his employer that “he should be proud to create works that resemble [Hummel’s]."

    "Schubert must have been delighted to finally have personal contact with the composer of music he had known and admired for more than a decade. After all, Hummel had lived in Vienna for many years and still enjoyed a huge popularity there as a composer and pianist. One of the works that Schubert knew quite well was Hummel’s Septet in D minor, op. 74, his most popular chamber music composition. Schubert, in fact, used the quintet version of this work as the model for his famous Trout Quintet. The solo piano music that Schubert composed between 1816 and his death in 1828 also reveals the strong influence of Hummel’s brilliant, virtuosic style of piano writing, culminating in the last three piano sonatas (D. 958-60). Schubert intended to dedicate these works to Hummel but died before they were published. When Diabelli finally brought them out in 1838, Schubert and Hummel had both passed away, so he made the practical business decision to dedicate these works to Schumann."

    "the young Schumann, the aspiring virtuoso pianist studying with Friedrich Wieck in Leipzig in 1829, desperately wanted to become Hummel’s student. Despite repeated attempts, he never realized this goal, but Hummel would remain Schumann’s idol through-out his student years. He was also his role model, as we read in Schumann’s letter to his mother of 15 May 1831: “I can have only four goals: Kapellmeister, music teacher, virtuoso and composer. With Hummel, for example, all of these are combined.” Schumann’s diary also tells us that he practiced Hummel’s Clavierschule with a devotion bordering on obsession, once even writing that he planned to play all the exercises in succession. There are over 4,000 in the Clavierschule! Schumann did not realize that goal either, and he eventually moved on to become, well, Robert Schumann. Nevertheless, he maintained a lasting admiration for a select group of Hummel’s works, such as the piano concertos in A minor and B minor, the Septet in D minor, op. 74, and the Piano Sonata in F-sharp minor, op. 81. The F-sharp minor sonata had a particularly significant impact on Schumann’s early piano compositions, as can be seen by the striking similarity of the examples below (Fig. 1). Schumann acknowledged his admiration for Hummel’s F-sharp minor sonata in his Neue Zeitschrift für Musik of April 26, 1839, predicting, "this sonata will alone immortalize his name.""

    "Schubert, Schumann, Liszt, and Chopin – these emblematic symbols of the Romantic era are indeed indebted to Hummel. The same can be said for many other 19th-century composers, including César Franck, who graduated as a prize-winning pianist from the Paris Conservatoire by playing Hummel’s music. Some critics have even found similarities between Hummel’s F-sharp minor sonata and the Piano Sonata in F-sharp minor, op. 2, of Brahms. Hummel the Classicist, Hummel the Romantic – both descriptions are correct. His life spanned two eras, and so did his music."

    -Hummel and the Romantics (by Mark roll)

    On what grounds are you suggesting these composers found J. Haydn more inspiring and admirable than Hummel?
    Last edited by hammeredklavier; Jun-06-2021 at 13:54.

  16. #42
    Senior Member hammeredklavier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    4,234
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kreisler jr View Post
    Or how the young Beethoven and his supporters (such as Graf Waldstein) obviously took Mozart and Haydn as the most important composers in the 1790s.
    Beethoven wanted to make Vienna his home, and the first step was to gain expertise as a composer by studying with the Viennese masters. Originally he had hoped to study with Mozart, and allegedly had met Mozart in 1787, but due to his mother's illness, he had to return to Bonn. By the time Beethoven returned to Vienna in 1792, Mozart was dead. So Beethoven reluctantly chose to study with J. Haydn, encouraged by Count Waldstein, who told him to “Receive the spirit of Mozart from Haydn's hands”.

    But it's interesting to note that J. Haydn was never one of Beethoven's "heroes" to the extent Handel, Mozart, Bach were. The "Pianist" Charles Rosen claimed “it would appear as if our modern conception of the great triumvirate had been planned in advance by history”.**—A lot of such bizarre claims have been made by people like D.F. Tovey during the 20th century Neoclassical era to elevate J. Haydn to the status of Mozart, Beethoven.
    Don't get me wrong; I think J. Haydn is good, but the extent people have to resort to history distortions in order to elevate a composer baffles me.

    **: The only part I agree about Rosen's statement is that the "triumvirate" is only a "modern conception"; a conception only created in our minds today, and devoid of any absolute/objective significance.
    I think people in the 19th/20th centuries would have thought like; "So, in the Classical period, we have Mozart and Beethoven. Who else do we have? I guess we should just include another "Viennese master", J. Haydn into the group cause he was super-prolific and popular." <— I think J. Haydn had been "chosen rather arbitrarily" by them in this manner.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kreisler jr View Post
    The slow movement from 47 is supposedly quoted/alluded to in Mozart's gran partita. Then there is Haydn #78 - KV 491. There are a few other connections. E.g. K 593,i <- op.64,5i (without the "lark"), K 614, i <- op.50,3i, K 614,iv <-op.64,6iv and the slow movement from K 614 also sounds Haydn-like, maybe the variations from symphony 84 or some similar piece.
    I just listened to those pieces again, but I still maintain this view:
    Haydn: A Muscular Mozart
    Try, for example:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kw3o9ymn6UU&t=2m27s
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yasNaUJzXQ&t=2m53s
    I can cite literally dozens of cases of similarity between Mozart and Michael just in vocal music alone (even though much of Michael's music still hasn't been recorded); and unlike the ones between Mozart and Joseph, quite a number of them are not just "superficial borrowings of melodic snippets", but rather, mutual sharing of textural, structural language. (Feel free to ask for them).
    The slow movement of K.614 reminds me of Mozart's "Wenn der Freude Tränen fließen" (K.384) more than anything, btw.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sid James View Post
    Brahms groupie Eduard Hanslick said Haydn was nothing much more than a composer who pandered to public tastes and was too frightened to take the bold steps that Beethoven did.
    It's true the Romantic Viennese master Brahms was somewhat interested in J. Haydn, but then he was rather a "peculiar Romantic" for being obsessed with Neoclassicism. In an era where "artist individuality" was upheld more than any other values, Brahms made Neoclassicism the most fundamental aspect of his individuality. And J. Haydn was still relatively "over-popular" compared to his contemporaries (except Mozart) during Brahms' time due to the reasons I described in Posts [ #30, #33 ] in <How do important composers get flatlined?>.
    Last edited by hammeredklavier; Jun-07-2021 at 01:41.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Similar Threads

  1. Strange But True Classical Music Facts...
    By Icarus in forum Classical Music Discussion
    Replies: 119
    Last Post: Jun-14-2017, 05:00
  2. Is it true that Prokofiev didn't orchestrate his own music?
    By KJohnson in forum Classical Music Discussion
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: Mar-24-2016, 08:59
  3. Is this true of vocal music?
    By SixFootScowl in forum Vocal Music
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: Dec-27-2012, 03:02
  4. Lost music in the box
    By beetzart in forum Classical Music Discussion
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: Aug-03-2012, 20:38
  5. Best place to publish music
    By Aramis in forum Community Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Apr-20-2010, 19:36

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •