I rate Haydn extremely highly. That his music is much less popular in recent decades than Mozart and Beethoven speaks far more to the Zeitgeist than it does to the music's quality.

 

I hate Haydn extremely highly. That his music is much less popular in recent decades than Mozart and Beethoven speaks far more to the Zeitgeist than it does to the music's quality.

I'm hoping this is a typo; how could you hate Haydn?

 

Something like top 25 for me. He'd be higher, but I go through periods where his music doesn't do much for me and where I don't listen to him at all, and then periods where he's all I want to listen to. He's unquestionably a very, very good composer.

 

When I was younger I didn't like Haydn all that much, but I've come to deeply appreciate his more intellectual (as opposed to Mozart's sensual) compositional style. I know somebody's going to pipe up and tell me that Mozart is also intellectual, and he is, but I'm just trying to describe a somewhat subjective/objective difference in their music. Haydn's style is more sinuous, muscular and less influenced by the Italianate styles developed by JC Bach and internalized by a young Mozart.

That said, when I listen to some of Haydn's Baryton trios, I think there couldn't be a more boring composer on. the. planet. That said, when I hear these trios performed on other instruments, they come to life. I could be something about the Baryton that just bores the hell out of me?

 

Oh, to answer your question: a Genius. Not on the level of Mozart (but Mozart was God's gift to music). But when you compare Haydn to his contemporaries he is, like Mozart, a giant striding among mere mortals, far ahead and in a musical world of his own.

 

5th ............

 

He's just a little bit under Mozart in my estimation. I prefer Mozart for chamber music (except for string quartets) and this alone is enough to elevate him, but I would take Haydn's two lovely cello concerti over all of Mozart's piano concerti. Conversely I would probably (very reluctantly) take Mozart's last three symphonies over Haydn's entire symphonic ouevre. For piano and choral music I find their contributions about equal. But ceasing the comparison, any composer who could write such "serious" masterpieces as The Creation and Nelson Mass while effortlessly churning out such delightful, pleasurable, life-enhancing music as the Paris and London Symphonies deserves estimation in my book.

 

He's just a little bit under Mozart in my estimation. I prefer Mozart for chamber music and this alone is enough to elevate him, but I would take Haydn's two lovely cello concerti over all of Mozart's piano concerti. Conversely I would probably (very reluctantly) take Mozart's last three symphonies over Haydn's entire symphonic ouevre. For piano and choral music I find their contributions about equal. But ceasing the comparison, any composer who could write such "serious" masterpieces as The Creation and Nelson Mass while effortlessly churning out such delightful, pleasurable, life-enhancing music as the Paris and London Symphonies deserves estimation in my book.

Mozart's late piano concertos and clarinet concerto are better even than Haydn's C Major Cello Concerto, my favorite cello concerto.

 

Haydn is one of those composers who grew on me as I heard more music ands as I matured as a listener. I remember reading Gould's Book on the top 50 composers. Gould rated Haydn 5th, and at the time, I wondered why so high. I always enjoyed Haydn, but I just didn't think he was on the same level as Mendelssohn, Tchaikovsky, Mahler, Schubert, and others whose music I adored. Over time I heard more symphonies, quartets, trios, cello concertos, and his wonderful choral music. The more I heard, the greater esteem Haydn gained. Eventually I felt he is certainly in the same league, for me, as those others I mentioned.

I would not place him quite as high as Gould does, but he is solidly in the group just below the 5-6 or so I hold in the highest esteem. I don't really know why he has grown on me, or rather I don't know why I did not love him at first as much as I do now. The only other composer who has grown in that way is Wagner who is in that group of 5-6 supreme composers.

 

30th.


So far my basic assessment to his works has been from 'decent' to 'like,' but rarely love. I need to listen to him more though.

 

Not very highly. I rarely, ever put anything of Haydn in the CD player. I don't even own much: the complete symphonies, The Creation - that's enough. It's just not to my taste - too early, but then I don't care for Mozart either. BUT - as a performer I enjoy playing some of the later (London) symphonies - Haydn wrote great bassoon parts. But I did pay tribute to him in Austria. The church where his tomb is and the tomb:

 

Not very highly. I rarely, ever put anything of Haydn in the CD player. I don't even own much: the complete symphonies, The Creation - that's enough. It's just not to my taste - too early, but then I don't care for Mozart either. BUT - as a performer I enjoy playing some of the later (London) symphonies - Haydn wrote great bassoon parts. But I did pay tribute to him in Austria. The church where his tomb is and the tomb:
View attachment 144261 View attachment 144262

IMO, the cello concertos and the op 76 and 77 quartets are must-haves.

 

Haydn is perhaps a top five composer to me due to the sheer amount of quality music he produced. However, the composers I always, always listen to are Bach, Beethoven, Brahms, and Dvorak (Dvorak is nowhere near as good as Haydn, but he is a master of melody).

I find Haydn better than Mozart with string quartets and piano sonatas. And an equal with regards to symphonies as Mozart composed most of his symphonies when he was young.

Haydn is underrated, in a way, because he seems to be listened to far less than he ought to be.

 

Like most here, I rate him very highly (especially for his influence on the development of music) but don't listen to him much. (And as I've said before, temperamentally, I am much more in tune with enjoying his later minuet movements than almost anything else.)

 

Weird. I find his minuets the weakest parts of his symphonies.

 

Very high. About five years ago, Haydn was in high rotation in my listening, PI performances of his string quartets, piano trios, symphonies, the baryton works and keyboard sonatas. But I switched gears some point along the way and haven't been listening to Classical period stuff in a while.

I still play one of his SQ now and then, and most recently I began listening to his operas.

 

------------------------

 

I find his liturgical works tiring to listen to over a long period, probably because of the "pomposity" of the comtemporary "Esterhazy style" (I don't know for sure) and his comparative lack of skill and sense in assimilating and manipulating 'stile antico' compared to his brother Michael (ie. Missa sancti nicolai Tolentini & Missa tempore Quadragesimae) and Mozart. The fragmented "Missa sunt bona mixta malis" is nothing remarkable compared to theirs...

I thought I was probably alone in considering Michael's liturgical works to be on a par with Joseph's and in some cases exceeding.

 

My latest top 20 list has him at No. 7. It took me a while to warm to him, as I think my initial impression was that his symphonies all sounded kind of samey and were like lesser Beethoven or Mozart productions, without their melodic strengths. And that may be true, but like the OP, one day it just "clicked" and I was like "these are DELIGHTFUL." There is a lightness, beauty, and order to them that is just really soothing. I've since sought out his chamber stuff, and it's good as well. His sacred stuff is fine, though that's not really my bag.

Anyway, this was the last Top 20 list I collated for another thread. It's still pretty much indicative of my preferences:
1. Beethoven
2. Sibelius
3. Mozart
4. Brahms
5. R. Strauss
6. Tchaikovsky
7. Haydn
8. Bach
9. Schubert
10. Bruckner
11. Mendelssohn
12. Schumann
13. Handel
14. Rossini
15. Wagner
16. Dvorak
17. J Strauss II
18. Copland
19. Williams
20. Holst

 

For me, both Haydn and Mozart are among my top five favorite composers. I particularly enjoy approximately 30 of his 104 symphonies, and a good number of his piano trios, piano sonatas and string quartets.

 

I like Haydn as much as Mozart, which is to say a lot. He is in my top 15 most frequently listened to composers.

 

Haydn's one of my top ten composers - fantastic string quartets, symphonies, sacred choral works, piano sonatas, and the best cello concerto (C major). His music is stability in a world of chaos.

 

So my question is rather comically simple: how much do you like Haydn? Where is he rated in your personal estimation?

Very highly....he's one of my favorite composers.

 

Haydn is my favorite composer, and my opinion of his works keeps rising with time. At first, I felt he didn't truly become great until the op. 76 and the Londons. Now I can pick even a middle period symphony of his at random and be pretty certain I'd rather listen to it than anything by Mozart. It's a frustrating case to make because of the thousand advantages you must yield to the latter at first, just to prove your sanity, but I think it's fair to say Haydn was better at some things, and too different at most things to really be eclipsed or overshadowed at them.

I find Haydn immeasurably superior at creating truly driving rhythms. Almost nothing Mozart wrote rollicks like the first movement of Clock, the finale of La Poule, or even the first movement of the piano concerto in D, even though plenty of things Mozart wrote are better. Stuff like the rondo of piano concerto 21, or even the vicious finale of concerto 20, that is supposed to gallop just never does for me. The phrasing remains too graceful and measured to give a galvanized, spontaneously careening effect.

Haydn also has a way of dressing up seeming generic ideas with these awkward but perfectly placed affectations, whether it's repeating part of a melody a few more times than you expect, or inserting a pause in a weird spot, that makes his material feel much more "alive" to me, like it contains the haphazard gestures and flaws of a casual conversation, whereas Mozart always feels premeditated and cleanly cut - in a good way for sure, but not in a way I prefer to listen to. Haydn's material always seems to stretch or trip over itself right when you think it's about to turn sewing machine, both on a micro, individual melody basis and an overall narrative basis. Mozart falls into that trip a little more often for me.

Much like in the Handel/Bach debate, this is an annoying point to push because the advantage is so intangible and stylistic, not concrete counterpoint or melody that you can point right at. I read Schumann's quote about him being "a welcome old friend with nothing new to say," and it pisses me off because it rings true on one hand, but on the other hand it only rings true because raw charismatic force is hard to put into words. It seems more appropriate for someone like Telemann (... or Schumann) who was greatly skilled but did seem to lack a distinctive voice. Schumann, Mendelssohn, Brahms, and Liszt would have had to voltron together to have any hope of writing an exposition with the immediacy of personality and charm in a London symphony. Haydn has that Handel-like Midas touch where the piece is often great first and foremost because of the idiosyncrasies that make it sound like him, deeper elements of craftsmanship notwithstanding, and I think it's in that criteria that people try to cast Haydn as equal to someone like Mozart.

 

Haydn also has a way of dressing up seeming generic ideas with these awkward but perfectly placed affectations, whether it's repeating part of a melody a few more times than you expect, or inserting a pause in a weird spot, that makes his material feel much more "alive" to me, like it contains the haphazard gestures and flaws of a casual conversation, whereas Mozart always feels premeditated and cleanly cut - in a good way for sure, but not in a way I prefer to listen to. Haydn's material always seems to stretch or trip over itself right when you think it's about to turn sewing machine, both on a micro, individual melody basis and an overall narrative basis. Mozart falls into that trip a little more often for me.

This is my feeling too.

I cook a reasonable amount, and many times a recipe might suggest that you incorporate some ingredients and then you blend to a paste, or you sieve to get a flavoured liquid. I like to leave in the lumps. It seems to me that Mozart might make a beautiful black-pepper sauce, but Haydn leaves in the peppercorns, and it's a delight when you bite into one. As well as the rhythmic point that you raise, I find that his orchestration tickles my ears more mischievously than Mozart. However, I've just started ploughing through Mozart's earlier symphonies and piano concertos (with which I am not at all familiar), so I may find more piquancy there compared with his later style.

 

I admit I haven't listened to all his works. I mean who can? lol Too many symphonies...
I only listened to his London Symphonies, The Four Seasons, and The Creation.
Considering he was at one point both Mozart's and Beethoven's teacher/Mentor, I must rank him highly. Purely based on his compositions, he is not a composer I revisit often. So, all in all in top 15.

 

Considering he was at one point both Mozart's and Beethoven's teacher/Mentor,

J. Haydn was never Mozart's teacher, he may have been a mentor to Mozart.

 

Somewhere in the 30-50 range. Always pleasant to listen to, but nothing that I personally find essential. Closest are a couple of his late symphonies and string quartets.

 

When I was a youngster just starting out on my journey into classical music, Haydn was one of my top favourites. I really took to his inventiveness, openness and good humour. A number of other composers have since overtaken him on my personal list and I listen to Haydn's music rather less often now, but I invariably enjoy it when I do. One of the greats without question IMO.

 

I rate Haydn very highly indeed, and I really don't think there is any doubt here that he is "one of the Greats", even if you are someone to whom his music doesn't appeal. I think there is also a little bit of suspicion aimed at any composer who could compose in such volume as he did - the exception to this being Mozart probably - with the subconscious feeling that if he did write so much music, then it can't be of consistently high quality. I think we need our composers to be proper martyrs, inwardly struggling for their Art, head in the clods and living in penury? Haydn was a normal chap, and apparently a nice bloke, that's just not right for a composer.....!

Or maybe Haydn is seen as the least remarkable of the Greats? Part of the furniture? Lots of wonderful music, but what's his greatest hit?

I'll be honest and say I much prefer Haydn to Mozart. Just a preference, but I would struggle to describe him as better than Mozart.......

 

Or maybe Haydn is seen as the least remarkable of the Greats? Part of the furniture? Lots of wonderful music, but what's his greatest hit?

how about the Kayser Lied?

Joseph Haydn seems to have been particularly fond of his creation. During his frail and sickly old age (1802-1809), the composer often would struggle to the piano to play his song, often with great feeling, as a form of consolation; and as his servant Johann Elssler narrated, it was the last music Haydn ever played:

The Kayser Lied was still played three times a day, though, but on 26 May [1809] at half-past midday the Song was played for the last time and that 3 times over, with such expression and taste, well! that our good Papa was astonished about it himself and said he hadn't played the Song like that for a long time and was very pleased about it and felt well altogether till evening at 5 o'clock then our good Papa began to lament that he didn't feel well...

 

In my opinion, Joseph Haydn is one of the greatest. Just played (violin) his "Theresien Messe" and his "Te Deum hob. xxiiic/2", this is really excellent music... I like him more and more...

 

When I first came to classical music as a teenager, and through my young adulthood, I more-or-less avoided the symphonies of Haydn and Mozart, and dismissed it as pretty wall-paper background music. But now I've come to enjoy Mozart just for the wonderful craftsmanship where every note, every choice of instrument, every line, seems to make perfect sense, as if the music is writing itself. Likewise, with Haydn, it's the sense of unbounded joy, fun, and happiness; Haydn's symphonies are somehow always in the moment and always have a forward thrust.

Haydn creates the symphony template. Mozart perfects it; making the symphony seamless, balanced, and beautiful. Then Beethoven pushes the symphony to the limits and beyond. And, in a way, Schubert, Schumann, Mendelssohn, Brahms, Tchaikovsky, Bruckner, Mahler, Nielsen, Sibelius, Shostakovich, Prokofiev, Vaughan Williams, Charles Ives, Walter Piston,Roy Harris, William Schumann, Roger Sessions, and Alan Hovhaness; composed symphonies that are more-or-less after Beethoven; save for Prokofiev's wonderful Classical Symphony which is a tribute to Haydn.

The universal template, though, starts with Haydn who is so much the antithesis of what the symphony has come to represent. Where Schubert, Schumann, and Mendelssohn, are decorative; Haydn is clean and uncluttered. Where Nielsen, and Sibelius are powerful, lush and brassy; Haydn is crisp. Where Mahler, Tchaikovsky, and Shostakovich are brooding and long-winded; Haydn is concise and bouncy. Where Brahms is thick and layered, Haydn is clear as crystal. Where William Schumann and Roger Sessions are knotted and thorny; Haydn is untied and untangled. Where Hovhaness is mysterious and mystic; Haydn is friendly and open.

As they say in Chinese philosophy, Haydn just is.

I've become very fussy in choosing which recordings suite the Haydn symphonies best, as I think it's easy for conductors, even great conductors, and world class orchestras to weigh Haydn down. While Leonard Bernstein was completely into the angst and anxiety of Mahler (hence, Bernstein's own Age of Anxiety symphony!); his Columbia/New York Philharmonic Orchestra recordings bring a sense of swing and complete exuberance to Haydn's symphonic oeuvre; even if it is limited to the Paris and London symphonies.

 

...The universal template, though, starts with Haydn who is so much the antithesis of what the symphony has come to represent. Where Schubert, Schumann, and Mendelssohn, are decorative; Haydn is clean and uncluttered. Where Nielsen, and Sibelius are powerful, lush and brassy; Haydn is crisp. Where Mahler, Tchaikovsky, and Shostakovich are brooding and long-winded; Haydn is concise and bouncy. Where Brahms is thick and layered, Haydn is clear as crystal. Where William Schumann and Roger Sessions are knotted and thorny; Haydn is untied and untangled. Where Hovhaness is mysterious and mystic; Haydn is friendly and open....

Well said... Bravo! 😊