BaL 26.04.14 - Haydn Symphony no. 101 "Clock"

[MickyD]

This is a fascinating discussion!

[waldo]

IMHO Mozart is overhyped. 2/3 to 3/4 of his output is not better than that of his contemporaties, including the Haydn brothers.
The "prodigy"-story makes Mozart not only a prodigy clavicinist/pianist, but is automatically applied to the composer.
Before KV 364 hardly anything is outstanding compared with his contemporaries (a quote from HC Robins Landon, btw), and where his output IS phenomenal, we are exlusively talking about the operas (thanks to an excellent libritist whom Haydn and others lacked, what about the non-da-Ponte-or-Schikaneder-operas?) and the piano concertos (written for himself to shine, and succesfully so).
Mozart is often played because the name Mozart is on the score, not because of its more-than-average-quality.
He is simply helped by a not level playing field.

Okay, Roehre. If you think Mozart is over-hyped, I suppose we must have very different tastes (to say the least). There isn't really much more to be said - especially as you bring up such mediocre, tedious works are Haydn's cello and trumpet concertos. Can you really put them in the same bracket as Mozart's piano concertos?

I agree that Mozart doesn't become truly great until we get to around K300 or so. There are many lovely pieces written before then, but they don't generally compare well with the "mature" Mozart. I agree, too, that his juvenile works get a little too much attention, simply because they were written by him.

As to his phenomenal output being restricted to operas and piano concertos, I think you must have missed the string quintets, the mature string quartets, the clarinet chamber music, the Requiem Mass, the C minor Mass, and the mature symphonies. That's an awful lot of great music. I really can't agree that Haydn's 102 or 104 come close to the Jupiter, but that is just taste, again. Or that the later Haydn piano sonatas compare well with Mozart's. Don't get me wrong: they are fine pieces. They just aren't in the same league.

Frankly, I think that if Mozart had only written his last four operas, we could still say he was a much greater composer than Haydn. Nothing in Haydn's work compares to the beauty, lyricism, emotional impact or complexity of these. I think you are pushing your argument a little too far when you try and ascribe the greatness of these works to the librettists. The fact is, Mozart DID write them and they are indisputable masterpieces of the genre. Haydn, for whatever reason, never wrote anything that can compare. The pre-Figaro operas are, clearly, works of his youth - though still very fine.

As I said, I do like Haydn very much. I think he probably is under-rated. But he is not in the same class.

Final note: there is, of course, a limit as to how productive this discussion is likely to be. If we don't agree, we don't agree. I suppose we both know the music well enough to have formed proper judgments by now. I simply wanted to register the fact that at least one person on this forum doesn't agree with the steady accumulation of voices attesting to Haydn's equivalent greatness.

[Roehre]

I agree with everything you say / write, Roehre!
As to the greatness of the symphonies, I'd like to add 97 in C and 98 in Bb, two masterpieces 'to be spoken of in the same breath as Mozart's symphony 41' .

Thanks Tony.
As far as 97 is concerned, that one was the example on which according to prof.Stein Beethoven allegedly modelled his pre-no.1 Symphony in C "Jena" (since 1957 without any doubt a work by Friedrich Witt, thanks to Robins Landon's research).
And IMHO the Jupiter is not Mozart's "greatest", that honour is for the Prague, especially the 1st mvt.

[waldo]

And the Seasons, incidentally, is just dull. It is, in fact, a good example of Haydn at his most boring. It is very skillfully composed, of course, but there is not one spark of interest or inspiration in the whole thing.

[waldo]

And IMHO the Jupiter is not Mozart's "greatest", that honour is for the Prague, especially the 1st mvt.

Yes, the Prague is wonderful - especially the 1st movement, as you say. I am just not sure it has quite the overall perfection of the Jupiter.

[Tony Halstead]

And the Seasons, incidentally, is just dull. It is, in fact, a good example of Haydn at his most boring. It is very skillfully composed, of course, but there is not one spark of interest or inspiration in the whole thing.

I think this discussion has now got to the point where we need to make our respective 'positions' as clear as possible before we get 'modded'. I have one question for 'waldo' and this is it: do you really and truly 'stand by' your posting in message #49, or is that just a deliberate 'wind-up'?

[visualnickmos]

.........And IMHO the Jupiter is not Mozart's "greatest", that honour is for the Prague, especially the 1st mvt.

This is of course, another discussion entirely; Mozart's greatest symphony; there is no one answer...

and in any case, I'm pretty sure it must have graced these boards before, at some point(s)

[Roehre]

This is of course, another discussion entirely; Mozart's greatest symphony; there is no one answer...

and in any case, I'm pretty sure it must have graced these boards before, at some point(s)

Yes, that's of course another discussion, which -indeed- has graced these boards before.

[verismissimo]

Seems to me that I probably love Haydn more than waldo and Mozart more than Roehre. There.

[Roehre]

Seems to me that I probably love Haydn more than waldo and Mozart more than Roehre. There.

[waldo]

I think this discussion has now got to the point where we need to make our respective 'positions' as clear as possible before we get 'modded'. I have one question for 'waldo' and this is it: do you really and truly 'stand by' your posting in message #49, or is that just a deliberate 'wind-up'?

No, I stand by it. I am not joking or being provocative. I have met quite a few "Haydn enthusiasts" over the years who agree. I was actually quite shocked when I heard the Seasons (I had just got the Rene Jacobs version from Leeds HMV, before it shut down). I really did expect something much better. It is a skillful, very sophisticated composition - but dull. As you may know, there is a really awful climax at the end of Winter where "Haydn tries to do the Magic Flute". It is exactly like Mozart with all the magic sucked out.

For me, the greatness of Haydn - which I don't dispute - lies in the string quartets, the piano trios, the piano sonatas, and a good wodge of symphonies (especially the "middle" ones). But I do think he can be boring and the Seasons, for me at least, illustrates this well.

[Beef Oven!]

Great discussion. Really, interesting. Thanks gents, and please do keep it up

And to chuck my tuppence-worth in, I think waldo absolutely nails it in post #56 with this succinct two-sentencer:

"For me, the greatness of Haydn - which I don't dispute - lies in the string quartets, the piano trios, the piano sonatas, and a good wodge of symphonies (especially the "middle" ones). But I do think he can be boring and the Seasons, for me at least, illustrates this well."

[Ariosto]

For me personally Mozart reigns supreme but I also love Hadyn very, very much.

[Beef Oven!]

For me personally Mozart reigns supreme but I also love Hadyn very, very much.

My sentiments too, but I have always listened to more Haydn than Mozart for some reason.

[richardfinegold]

Mozart's creative span was so much shorter than Haydn. imo, Haydn, great though he was, could not match Mozart's very greatest creations. Several of WM's Piano Concertos (9, 21, 24, 27 for sure) top any music by FJH--in any genre. Nor did FJH have an answer for the Clarinet Quintet, Mozart's last two string Quintets,
or the greatest Mozart Piano Sonatas. Mozart's greatest Operas simply exist on a different plain than Haydn's. If W.A.M had lived to Haydn's lifespan, it is staggering to think of the disparity that would have emerged between the two Composers.
Do we need to further appreciation of Haydn by comparing him to WAM? They were both Creative Giants. Vive le difference!