Agree, pure and simple Mr violadude
Yes, of course Haydn was one of the greats. Your cursory summary of his career, however, leaves out the fact that he was roundly chastised by his employer, Prince Nikolaus Esterhazy I, for writing music that was too dark, difficult, and uncongenial. This intervention put an end to what some consider to be his best and most interesting run of symphonic music, the so-called Sturm und Drang symphonies of the early 1770s. Who knows what wonderful directions his symphonic thought might have taken if his natural inclinations as a composer had been nurtured and if the philistine demand for more pleasant and accessible music hadn't forced him into writing enormous amounts of light comic opera?
Aah, how can one listen to the first movement of Symphony 44 and think it's ok? Some of the greatest symphonic music in my books - and the way the Finale finishes this symphony off, hard to think of anything more effective and to the point, imo.
I think Haydn excelled no matter what kind of music he wrote - if he had to write lighter music, he would insert his fantastic humour into it and the music would sound fresh. Haydn's 50s symphonies are actually quite good, I had a CD come in recently with 54, 56 and 57, plenty of solid stuff in there, imo. You do have a point in that Haydn's Sturm und Drang period did end up producing some of his best work, but then so did his last creative period, where Haydn's music was much more cheerful - still though, it carried the stamp of his musical ingenuity and craftsmanship, as well as incorporating new influences from folk music, Handel, Mozart, and others.
TBH I did it just to be an anti-conformist.
I sort of agree, but I try to keep my emotions a bit more in check and not make such dramatic statements.
