Is Haydn the new Beethoven?

[richardfinegold]

Beethoven will always be my favorite Composer. However I have probably heard each of his Symphonies a couple of hundred times now. I am still discovering Haydn's Symphonies and Quartets.
Haydn's Piano Music pales beside Mozart, Beethoven and Schubert, however

[ahinton]

Beethoven will always be my favorite Composer. However I have probably heard each of his Symphonies a couple of hundred times now. I am still discovering Haydn's Symphonies and Quartets.
Haydn's Piano Music pales beside Mozart, Beethoven and Schubert, however

Not for me, it doesn't! Beside Beethoven, yes - but beside the other two - no! (especially his later keyboard works).

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

I have very recently heard Haydn played "beside" Bach (the latter's Second Partita followed by the former's B minor Sonata [#32]) - no "paling" here! (Indeed, the recital, which had been rather staid and dull , came to life quite markedly in the Finale of the Haydn.) Haydn's C major Fantasia was then followed by Beethoven's Tempest Sonata - not once during the Haydn did I find myself wishing it'd finish so that we could get to the Beethoven.

This is splendid Music; wonderfully lithe, touching, and full of exciting melodic, harmonic, and rhythmic delights.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Though I suppose my main wonder was if it was sth in Haydn's nature that permeated the music, that caused him to be less in the spotlight than the others. Less of a desire to be there?

Well, if so, he would have been dreadfully disappointed in his own lifetime when he was, by far (and there is evidence from the annals of concert societies showing that performances of Haydn's work outnumbered his nearest rivals by a factor of up to fourteen*), the most popular composer in Europe.

Richard Barrett is quite right to question the legitimacy of evaluating the success of a composer using just melody as criterion (Beethoven goes way down "the list" when this happens), but I have to say that I find his Music positively overflows with damn good, whistlable tunes - all over the show!

(* = see the chart of the twelve years of the Concerts de Loge in the Cambridge Handbook to the Paris Symphonies, which includes many works written before the works commissioned from Haydn for that series. If for nothing else, the list of "next favourite" composers is a fascinating.)

[Bryn]

Not for me, it doesn't! Beside Beethoven, yes - but beside the other two - no! (especially his later keyboard works).

I concur, especially in relation to Mozart's solo piano music. All four are very different and each has its particular attractions for me, but I find myself far less likely to choose to listen to Mozart's solo piano music than that of the others. There again, Haydn had the advantage of a far longer productive life than the other three, especially in relation to Mozart and Schubert.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

And I wonder, on further reflection, if it wasn't this very "tuneful" nature in his Music that led to the patronizing comments made about it in the period between about 1830 - 1950. Bearing in mind criticisms of Bruckner ("naive") and Mahler ("vulgar"), there does appear that during this period there was a tacit taking-for-granted that clear-cut, folk-Music-inspired melodies were regarded as somehow "beneath" the "serious" concerns of what a "real" Symphony should concern itself with. (Even Bruckner's many adherents during this period felt obliged to defend the "whistlable" bits as demonstrating a philosophical contrast between the Artist and his [of course] cosmic awareness (= "themes") and "ordinary folk" with their rumbustious bucolics (= "tunes").)

[Daniel]

Richard Barrett is quite right to question the legitimacy of evaluating the success of a composer using just melody as criterion

When I said 'partly because his music/melodies don't seem to be headline grabbing', I hoped the 'partly' and 'music' might be picked up on. I wouldn't evaluate the success of any composer using just melody as a criterion.

Well, if so, he would have been dreadfully disappointed in his own lifetime when he was, by far (and there is evidence from the annals of concert societies showing that performances of Haydn's work outnumbered his nearest rivals by a factor of up to fourteen*), the most popular composer in Europe

There may be a number of talented people in the spotlight who wish privately they weren't there. Circumstances rather than desire having conveyed them. But I was posing a query of Haydn, not stating a strong belief.

I find his Music positively overflows with damn good, whistlable tunes - all over the show!

So do I! As I said, 'to my ears his music overflows with melody/wit/rhythm/compassion'. I imagine many here might feel the same. My seemingly-struggling-to-be-recognised point () was that apparently programmers and a broader public don't appear to. It was this phenomenon I was contemplating.

It could be, though, that Haydn's music indeed proposes closer and more precise attention than that of some more "assertive" composers. This to me is one of its more attractive characteristics.

A statement with which I very much agree. Haydn's music asks you to actively enter a dialogue with it, and whilst the others do this too, they also seem to have an element in their music that means it can be enjoyed more passively. Hence its broader appeal. *Part* of that element may be a melodic one, part may be a textural thing, (the very opening of the Moonlight Sonata is not a melody as such, but countless people, including children seem to remember it).

Just to be clear, I do not intend to suggest that these are the only elements, simply that they may play a part in explaining the position Haydn appears to occupy in the public consciousness.

[Tetrachord]

Well, if so, he would have been dreadfully disappointed in his own lifetime when he was, by far (and there is evidence from the annals of concert societies showing that performances of Haydn's work outnumbered his nearest rivals by a factor of up to fourteen*), the most popular composer in Europe.

Richard Barrett is quite right to question the legitimacy of evaluating the success of a composer using just melody as criterion (Beethoven goes way down "the list" when this happens), but I have to say that I find his Music positively overflows with damn good, whistlable tunes - all over the show!

(* = see the chart of the twelve years of the Concerts de Loge in the Cambridge Handbook to the Paris Symphonies, which includes many works written before the works commissioned from Haydn for that series. If for nothing else, the list of "next favourite" composers is a fascinating.)

There's a similar discussion, of sorts, going on about Haydn now on Lebrecht's blog, "Slipped Disc". Seems he's being neglected in concert programming:

http://slippedisc.com/2016/05/why-do-orchestra-chiefs-keep-haydn-hidden/

[vinteuil]

Haydn's Piano Music pales beside Mozart, Beethoven and Schubert, however

... I have always found Haydn's piano works much more interesting - both to play and to listen to - than Mozart's.

I don't think you can compare Haydn or Mozart's works here with those of Beethoven or Schubert - the entire zeitgeist, soundworld, aesthetic changes so radically in that time. And unless you subscribe to a Whig view of history it is not a question artistically that things have 'improved' over that time...

[rauschwerk]

It could be, though, that Haydn's music indeed proposes closer and more precise attention than that of some more "assertive" composers. This to me is one of its more attractive characteristics.

Yes indeed, and some slightly inattentive listeners might well miss a lot in the music. Peter Cropper used to say that he loved the way Haydn habitually pulls the rug from under one's feet. To appreciate that, you need to have your feet planted squarely on the rug. Humphrey Maud (dedicatee of Britten's Young Person's Guide) asked Britten if Haydn didn't display greater inventiveness than Mozart. Britten replied that Mozart's greatness often lay in when he actually didn't change key. The abundant nervous energy of Haydn's fast music is perhaps not for everyone.

[Richard Barrett]

Lebrecht's blog, "Slipped Disc"

Not even a discussion of Haydn could persuade me to take an interest in that particular place.

Regarding Haydn and Mozart, it seems to me that Haydn's piano textures in general, and his accompaniment figures in particular, are much less stereotyped than Mozart's.

[aeolium]

Regarding Haydn and Mozart, it seems to me that Haydn's piano textures in general, and his accompaniment figures in particular, are much less stereotyped than Mozart's.

But then most of Mozart's solo piano sonatas were not the product of his mature compositional years, dating from his twenties, whereas most of Haydn's well-known sonatas date from after his 40s. Comparing Haydn's keyboard concertos (mostly relatively early works) with those of Mozart might give a different conclusion.

But what you say does prompt another thought, that imv none of Mozart's solo keyboard works is as impressive - in invention and interplay - as the two piano sonata K448. And generally, where a Mozart work has a keyboard and one or more other instruments - violin sonatas, piano trios, piano quartets, piano+wind quintet, piano concertos - then his invention really comes into play, as if he needs the dialogue with other instruments.

But anyway, enough of Mozart on this thread. At least Haydn and Mozart both knew each other's quality.

[Richard Barrett]

generally, where a Mozart work has a keyboard and one or more other instruments - violin sonatas, piano trios, piano quartets, piano+wind quintet, piano concertos - then his invention really comes into play, as if he needs the dialogue with other instruments.

Very true. (Although I think what I said goes for Haydn's earliest piano sonatas as well as the later ones.)

[richardfinegold]

... I have always found Haydn's piano works much more interesting - both to play and to listen to - than Mozart's.

I don't think you can compare Haydn or Mozart's works here with those of Beethoven or Schubert - the entire zeitgeist, soundworld, aesthetic changes so radically in that time. And unless you subscribe to a Whig view of history it is not a question artistically that things have 'improved' over that time...

I am doing nothing of the sort. Haydn's Piano Music simply bores me, outside of the couple of Sonatas that are featured on recital programs, usually as a warm piece for the Soloist who can then flex his or her muscles on more interesting fare later in the program. To bad that I live on the opposite side of the pond, as I could make someone on this forum a gift of my Brautigan set of the complete Sonatas, which takes up a lot of shelf space and rarely gets played.

[BBMmk2]

I know I going to get some reaction from this, but, imo, Johann Sebastian Bach, is the guvnor!