On This Day

[King Stephen]

On this day, 31 May 1809, Franz Joseph Haydn died leaving us a great legacy of classical music.

[Peter]

Yes a wonderful legacy indeed - it was fascinating to visit the humble house in Vienna where he died. I only to have to think of Haydn and it cheers me up!

------------------
'Man know thyself'

[Uniqor]

hayden doesn't exactly cheer me up, if i were to go through his 100 or so classical symphonies, i'd come out totally lacking further taste for the classical... nobody surpassed his teacher most stylishly than our beethoven

did beethoven enjoy hayden's music much? i doubt it. did beethoven enjoy the man's personality too? certainly not. so i wonder beethoven ever actually had any genuein respect for his teacher.

nevertheless we must thank the papa jose, for his conventionality inspired our most groundbreaking genius that was ludwig

[Peter]

Originally posted by Uniqor:
hayden doesn't exactly cheer me up, if i were to go through his 100 or so classical symphonies, i'd come out totally lacking further taste for the classical... nobody surpassed his teacher most stylishly than our beethoven

did beethoven enjoy hayden's music much? i doubt it. did beethoven enjoy the man's personality too? certainly not. so i wonder beethoven ever actually had any genuein respect for his teacher.

nevertheless we must thank the papa jose, for his conventionality inspired our most groundbreaking genius that was ludwig

Haydn's music was anything but conventional - how else do you think Beethoven learnt from him? It certainly wasn't through Haydn's pedagogical skills! There are a huge range of innovations and daring experiments in the symphonies and quartets such as the col legno passage in symphony 67 (an effect not seen again until Bartok), use of odd phrase lengths, harmonic amibguity with sudden adbrupt harmonic plunges, Haydn's novel orchestration that recognised individual qualities of instruments - (Rimsky-Korsakov declared Haydn as the greatest master of orchestration), his playful use of tempo (slowing down a theme - then finishing it off with a rousing conclusion) - all these and more Beethoven assimilated from Haydn. The later quartets abound in originality and amazing effects such as the rhythmic tricks he plays with the opening of Op.76nr6 which fools the listener as to the placing of the main beat.

I could go on for ages pointing out the genius of Haydn, but in order for you to appreciate the originality and subtleties of this great composer I suggest you read Charles Rosen's excellent book the Classical style - you will listen to Haydn with different ears!

------------------
'Man know thyself'

[Sorrano]

Originally posted by Peter:
Haydn's music was anything but conventional - how else do you think Beethoven learnt from him? It certainly wasn't through Haydn's pedagogical skills! There are a huge range of innovations and daring experiments in the symphonies and quartets such as the col legno passage in symphony 67 (an effect not seen again until Bartok), use of odd phrase lengths, harmonic amibguity with sudden adbrupt harmonic plunges, Haydn's novel orchestration that recognised individual qualities of instruments - (Rimsky-Korsakov declared Haydn as the greatest master of orchestration), his playful use of tempo (slowing down a theme - then finishing it off with a rousing conclusion) - all these and more Beethoven assimilated from Haydn. The later quartets abound in originality and amazing effects such as the rhythmic tricks he plays with the opening of Op.76nr6 which fools the listener as to the placing of the main beat.

I could go on for ages pointing out the genius of Haydn, but in order for you to appreciate the originality and subtleties of this great composer I suggest you read Charles Rosen's excellent book the Classical style - you will listen to Haydn with different ears!

Don't forget the col legno from the symphonie fantastique.

I think that both Bartok and Haydn were among the more innovative composers.

[Peter]

Originally posted by Sorrano:
Don't forget the col legno from the symphonie fantastique.

I think that both Bartok and Haydn were among the more innovative composers.

Yes how could I have forgotten the witches sabbath!

------------------
'Man know thyself'

[Uniqor]

thanks for the recommodation of the book peter, but i listen to music mainly with my ears...

i despise what they call orchestrational inventions - it's like dj mix. hayden played within his doll classical domain - merely simple mathematics. the thing that beethoven possessed was nothing less than the complete destruction of the old forms. that's beethoven's starting point no? to be as far away as his teacher as possible; to shake off the chains; to express sound to the limit... hayden merely cultivated in the old form, lazy and lack of genius, so he "invented" symphony and quartet. i can't believe how could he compose so many symphonies without accomplishing anything as groundbreaking as any of beethoven's nine.

correct me if im wrong, but hayden was blown away by eroica and ceased to write any more quartet after his pupil wrote his first. so where is hayden in comparison with beethoven?
mediocre in the stricest sense the man was... with an orchestra exclusively provided for him, that's was all he managed to do. imagine if mozart and beethoven had the same oppurtunities... man! papa jose was a shameful waiste!

nevetheless, i like his serenades, for their proper classical beauty

[King Stephen]

Originally posted by Uniqor:
thanks for the recommodation of the book peter, but i listen to music mainly with my ears...

i despise what they call orchestrational inventions - it's like dj mix. hayden played within his doll classical domain - merely simple mathematics. the thing that beethoven possessed was nothing less than the complete destruction of the old forms. that's beethoven's starting point no? to be as far away as his teacher as possible; to shake off the chains; to express sound to the limit... hayden merely cultivated in the old form, lazy and lack of genius, so he "invented" symphony and quartet. i can't believe how could he compose so many symphonies without accomplishing anything as groundbreaking as any of beethoven's nine.

correct me if im wrong, but hayden was blown away by eroica and ceased to write any more quartet after his pupil wrote his first. so where is hayden in comparison with beethoven?
mediocre in the stricest sense the man was... with an orchestra exclusively provided for him, that's was all he managed to do. imagine if mozart and beethoven had the same oppurtunities... man! papa jose was a shameful waiste!

nevetheless, i like his serenades, for their proper classical beauty

Thank the Lord we all don't think the same way. Or to be less polite I am glad I don't adhere to your thoughts on Haydn. But differences do cultivate greatness. As you say Beethoven cast off all that Haydn stood for. But in the end Beethoven did acknowledge Haydn's greatness. I think comparing Haydn and Beethoven is like comparing apples and Oranges. You would also lead me to beleive that Haydn stopped composing operas after hearing one of Mozart's which I would say is ludicrous. What we have is different people at different times, You may not like Haydn but that does not deminish his greatness. Say you don't like his music but don't say he wasn't great, especially when so much of your reasoning is unfounded. As far as Haydn being blown away by the Eroica I would be more inclined to beleive he was in shock....


[This message has been edited by King Stephen (edited 06-04-2005).]

[Peter]

Originally posted by Uniqor:
thanks for the recommodation of the book peter, but i listen to music mainly with my ears...

i despise what they call orchestrational inventions - it's like dj mix. hayden played within his doll classical domain - merely simple mathematics. the thing that beethoven possessed was nothing less than the complete destruction of the old forms. that's beethoven's starting point no? to be as far away as his teacher as possible; to shake off the chains; to express sound to the limit... hayden merely cultivated in the old form, lazy and lack of genius, so he "invented" symphony and quartet. i can't believe how could he compose so many symphonies without accomplishing anything as groundbreaking as any of beethoven's nine.

correct me if im wrong, but hayden was blown away by eroica and ceased to write any more quartet after his pupil wrote his first. so where is hayden in comparison with beethoven?
mediocre in the stricest sense the man was... with an orchestra exclusively provided for him, that's was all he managed to do. imagine if mozart and beethoven had the same oppurtunities... man! papa jose was a shameful waiste!

nevetheless, i like his serenades, for their proper classical beauty

What can I say to such an entrenched position? I think you are being unkind to an incredibly modest and genial man who was anything but lazy - on that account alone you can be proved wrong simply by the prodigious quantity of music Haydn wrote.

By saying you "despise orchestral inventions" you are obviously referring to the col legno effect I mentioned which actually is not a success - Haydn recognised this as he never attempted it again. The point is he was experimental and innovative - his music is full of examples of experimenting rather than "lazily" accepting.

Beethoven did not destroy the old forms - he developed and expanded them to their ultimate limit. His music relies on sonata form and classical tonality and harmonic tension - you will search in vain for a chord in Beethoven that was not known and used by Haydn or Mozart.

When Beethoven produced his first quartets Haydn was an old man at the end of his career who had already surprised everybody by producing his finest music in his 60s when most people in those days were long dead! Of course the Eroica is something revolutionary that unsettled many - Haydn fully recognised Beethoven's genius but was uncomfortable because it represented a new world - many old people are like this, afraid of the new and this is understandable.

Quite frankly to dismiss Haydn in this way is to misunderstand the whole classical period and Beethoven's relation to it. Beethoven built on the great achievements of the past and ultimately surpassed them - this does not in any way diminish those achievements. I still suggest you read the Charles Rosen book - you may not agree but at least you'd be better informed.


------------------
'Man know thyself'

[Uniqor]

do i hate the guy? no. do i write reckless rant? probably - i mean, that's how i learn. thanks for the input guys, i now look at hayden in a more objective way. but still, there is one thing that's left for me to say: the highest genius isn't about how do you pile up chords or okay around with mixing instruments, for me, it's all about the soul (what other word should i use) of the music. that's why although bach's music was relatively simple, it's always been loved by so many. when i hear hayden, i'm just not as drawn to as when i hear bach. i tend to totally forget about the fact that bach's relatively simple music, as i'm totally sucked in by the beauty of its soul. but whenever i listen to hayden, a great deal of repellsion to the classical form is evolked in me - i'm talking from experiences so not imagining or exaggerating

but beethoven, the late contemprory of his teacher, is just totally overwhelming - he is timeless, formless and his music is about nothing but reaching deep into the soul

[Sorrano]

Originally posted by Uniqor:
do i hate the guy? no. do i write reckless rant? probably - i mean, that's how i learn. thanks for the input guys, i now look at hayden in a more objective way. but still, there is one thing that's left for me to say: the highest genius isn't about how do you pile up chords or okay around with mixing instruments, for me, it's all about the soul (what other word should i use) of the music. that's why although bach's music was relatively simple, it's always been loved by so many. when i hear hayden, i'm just not as drawn to as when i hear bach. i tend to totally forget about the fact that bach's relatively simple music, as i'm totally sucked in by the beauty of its soul. but whenever i listen to hayden, a great deal of repellsion to the classical form is evolked in me - i'm talking from experiences so not imagining or exaggerating

but beethoven, the late contemprory of his teacher, is just totally overwhelming - he is timeless, formless and his music is about nothing but reaching deep into the soul

In order to make the kind of music that reaches into a person's most inner self one has to be able to use the tools available. Sometimes it is the orchestral combinations that grab me, for example, I was just listening to a fragment from Verdi's MacBeth. The orchestrestration of that fragment was vital to the success of the tone of the piece. It enhanced and darkened the mood, blending well with the vocalist and the melody. While music could be translated to a bunch of mathematical equations, it is obvious that that which moves us is much more than that. But in order to be successful it is more than just helpful to understand the mechanics of what one creates.

[Peter]

Originally posted by Uniqor:
do i hate the guy? no. do i write reckless rant? probably - i mean, that's how i learn. thanks for the input guys, i now look at hayden in a more objective way. but still, there is one thing that's left for me to say: the highest genius isn't about how do you pile up chords or okay around with mixing instruments, for me, it's all about the soul (what other word should i use) of the music. that's why although bach's music was relatively simple, it's always been loved by so many. when i hear hayden, i'm just not as drawn to as when i hear bach. i tend to totally forget about the fact that bach's relatively simple music, as i'm totally sucked in by the beauty of its soul. but whenever i listen to hayden, a great deal of repellsion to the classical form is evolked in me - i'm talking from experiences so not imagining or exaggerating

but beethoven, the late contemprory of his teacher, is just totally overwhelming - he is timeless, formless and his music is about nothing but reaching deep into the soul

Well you make more sense in this post because you are explaining what appeals to you, what grabs you and moves you - that's great. Everyone experiences music in different ways and obviously Haydn is not for you at the moment and possibly may never be. That is a perfectly legitimate position to hold, but your previous criticisms of him were I think coming from a wrong perspective.

Yet again I urge you to read Charles Rosen's book, not to convert you to Haydn but because he gives one of the best appraisals of the classical style that I know of - his observations on Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven, his tracing of the origins and development of this style are fascinating and very revealing - it can only enrich the listening experience.

------------------
'Man know thyself'

[King Stephen]

Originally posted by Uniqor:
do i hate the guy? no. do i write reckless rant? probably - i mean, that's how i learn. thanks for the input guys, i now look at hayden in a more objective way. but still, there is one thing that's left for me to say: the highest genius isn't about how do you pile up chords or okay around with mixing instruments, for me, it's all about the soul (what other word should i use) of the music. that's why although bach's music was relatively simple, it's always been loved by so many. when i hear hayden, i'm just not as drawn to as when i hear bach. i tend to totally forget about the fact that bach's relatively simple music, as i'm totally sucked in by the beauty of its soul. but whenever i listen to hayden, a great deal of repellsion to the classical form is evolked in me - i'm talking from experiences so not imagining or exaggerating

but beethoven, the late contemprory of his teacher, is just totally overwhelming - he is timeless, formless and his music is about nothing but reaching deep into the soul

If you beleive the statement you just wrote, and I quote " a great deal of repulsion to the classical form is evoked in me", than you must dislike Mozart also. If that is the case then you have exterminated two of the greatest composers from any time period from your musical experience. And to say JS Bach is "relatively simple" is a total injustice to Bach. I can think of more than 20 composers from the classical period that have brought me more pleasure than I could have ever imagined.

[Uniqor]

thansk for the infor sorano. i know where you're coming from. but as i said, bach's one little piano menuet is so, so much larger for me than an entire symphony of, say... who? ... hayden?

tools, oh yes... TOOLS ARE THE DISGRACE OF BEAUTY! symbols, suggestions... they make musicians look stupid two year olds who seem to lack the cheapest subtlty and slightest wit. why can't music just be flowing beautifully andeasy to the ears and of course, dive in and shake the sould without having to be filtered through the mind, which is a degenerating process that takes the beauty original away?

tools... tell that to a carpenter

[Uniqor]

peter thanks, but i never said that i dislike the classical style in general. but things do get a little what's the word, cheap, if it's practiced over and over again. but if you say that hayden worked like the revoling mozart in technical terms, then he's ok i surpose. but why do i get the conclusion that his music is flat? maybe the simple anwser is thhat he just wasn't that talented enough...

i'm not argueing to "hold my position on hayden"... i don't need to do that, if one day i'm involved in car accident and walk out with a head injury so that hayden becomes my favourite, and beethoven the least, then so be it - that's my position - who SHOULD you like or who SHOULDN@T as you know, is not my concern

... nevertheless, if nietzsche tells me that wagner is crap, then i take the ring off and never mention the nazi again