On This Day

[Uniqor]

hi king, you miss understood me a little there

mozart gives me untopia when i listen to him - his classical style is the last boring thing on my mind. but hayden, when i don't get the true musical satisfaction through my ears, i need to feel something else instead no? and guess what i feel - the boring classical form

i don't even want to think about how bach composed his five part fugi... let me rephrase: bach's baroque style was relatively PRIMITIVE than the later ones

[Peter]

Originally posted by 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

I have already agreed that who you like is your own business! However I don't think you can say the reason you don't like a particular world renowned composer is because he wasn't talented enough - the mere fact that Haydn's music has lasted shows he had enough talent for you to question that assumption - maybe it is you who are not hearing something? The proper conclusion should be that your personality and intellect are not stimulated by Haydn's music at this stage in your life - Beethoven recognised his genius (though as individuals they didn't get on) and was delighted to be presented with a picture of Haydn's birthplace and he remarked "just see the little house, and such a great man was born it".

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

[Uniqor]

I'm hearing everything peter, the good and the bad altogether. You constantly miss my main arguement: Hayden's music is less talented than that of Mozart and Beethoven. Where is my ground to say that? Well, talented or not is solely dependent upon the majority's preferrence, and that tells me that Hayden falls behind the other two.

I've been here to try to explore why exactly that is the case. So much of my posts is about that - you missed it because your mind refuses to admitte the simple fact - are you a nihilist?

[Amalie]

I think Beethoven's attitude to Haydn muscially and emotionally was complex.
The more I have pondered it, I don't think it was Beethoven explicitly rejecting Haydn, it was more as Peter said, a young man full of genius and energy, a force of nature expressing himself musically in ways that old Papa Haydn found disconcerting, even disturbing in ways that he did not find Mozart a genius of similar calibre.
Haydn was a genius without a doubt, and I numerous recordings of brilliant string quartets that he wrote, and indeed it was a genre that he invented. Beethoven's slight difficulty was his musical arrogance , which was also his great glory, and he found it very difficult to acknowledge the genius of others, though he did praise Haydn and I think of quite a few cases where he was influenced by him.
Haydn was I think, far more sophisticated politically than Beethoven and he knew precisely where the French Revolution was headed, also when Haydn looked at Beethoven he saw the new age, and the end of the Ancien Regime, and that probably made him very sad.



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

~ Courage, so it be righteous, will gain all things ~

[Uniqor]

Hi Amalie:

There really isn't that much difference between "explictly rejecting" and "full of genius and energy" - difference is difference, to act differently is to reject. If Beethoven could've said it he would've: I've nothing more to learn from you father.
Piano Sonata No.1 delicated to Hayden? don't you just love the man's ironical sense of humor.

The simple historical fact is that the genius is always out of touch with the main stream, before his style actually becomes the main stream, in his life time or not. And the genius is always arogant, but can you really blame them for that? Beethoven clearly thought highly of Mozart from his youth. He also ackownledged one of the Bach Juniors as "not a river (bach), but a sea." Imagine what would he think about J.S.Bach.

Inventing the string quartet is talented enough, but still not genius, certainly not some new "genre". No intention to get mata-physical here, but in order to distinguish Hayden from the order of Beethoven, here we go: "talent hits a target no one else can hit; genius hits a target no one else can see" - Schopenhauer. I don't doubt for a moment that hayden had no influence on Beethove, I just believe that Hayden's music evolked much the genius that was inside of Beethoven - he gave the genius his departure not by inspiration but provolkation.

Hayden had the great eye to spot geniuses, whose order himsels did not a belong. He adored Mozart while everyone else ditched him; he took Beethoven as his prime pupil graciously. When he heard what Beethoven accoplished, he delighted within his heart: my pupil is great! He saw a new era coming with Beethoven without a doubt, and that his own music fell under the genius' influence is a matter of fact. The reason that the teacher didn't explicitly praise the groundbreaking achievement of his pupil, could be a one concerning vanity, or to simply recall Schopenhauer: "genius hits a target that nobody else could see."

Hayden was indeed a political man, maybe that's why his music appeared so agreeable and traditional... As far as personality goes, I doubt that Joseph's flattering persona was much to our flat Ludwig's liking.

[Sorrano]

Originally posted by 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

I completely fail to understand your thought of tools being the disgrace of beauty. Bach's menuet could not have been written if the composer did not understand how to put a melody together with the harmonic progressions that enhance it. That melody is nothing without the harmony, in fact the harmony drives the melody. Then, of course, are rhythmic considerations, the symmetry of the phrasing, etc. Those that understand how the tools work create the masterpieces. Even the "simple" ones. Pachelbel's Canon is nothing without counterpoint. So where's the beauty without the tools?

[Peter]

Originally posted by Uniqor:
I'm hearing everything peter, the good and the bad altogether. You constantly miss my main arguement: Hayden's music is less talented than that of Mozart and Beethoven. Where is my ground to say that? Well, talented or not is solely dependent upon the majority's preferrence, and that tells me that Hayden falls behind the other two.

I've been here to try to explore why exactly that is the case. So much of my posts is about that - you missed it because your mind refuses to admitte the simple fact - are you a nihilist?

You are the one misunderstanding my friend! I have not denied that Beethoven and Mozart were greater, but this does not mean that Haydn was without talent and lazy as you have stated! Nor was Haydn the vain man you misrepresent him as, he was actually rather modest and recognised Mozart's superiority.

I think if Beethoven could refer to Haydn as 'a great man' perhaps you should question your rather simplistic 'popularity' test, unless of course you think Beethoven was misguided and your own musical judgement is superior? The most popular does not equal the best, but I think we have been here before!

You are also mistaken in one of your other posts - it was the great J.S.Bach (not one of the sons) Beethoven referred to as Sea, Ocean.

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



[This message has been edited by Peter (edited 06-06-2005).]

[Rod]

Originally posted by Peter:
I have already agreed that who you like is your own business! However I don't think you can say the reason you don't like a particular world renowned composer is because he wasn't talented enough - the mere fact that Haydn's music has lasted shows he had enough talent for you to question that assumption - maybe it is you who are not hearing something? The proper conclusion should be that your personality and intellect are not stimulated by Haydn's music at this stage in your life - Beethoven recognised his genius (though as individuals they didn't get on) and was delighted to be presented with a picture of Haydn's birthplace and he remarked "just see the little house, and such a great man was born it".

Beethoven was man enough to acknowledge the greatness in its context (ie the contribution to the art of music overall) even if the output concerned did not quite meet with his own taste. Thus Beethoven could say the things above whilst at an earlier time he often had a 'dig' at Haydn's music.

------------------
"If I were but of noble birth..." - Rod Corkin

[Peter]

Originally posted by Rod:
Beethoven was man enough to acknowledge the greatness in its context (ie the contribution to the art of music overall) even if the output concerned did not quite meet with his own taste. Thus Beethoven could say the things above whilst at an earlier time he often had a 'dig' at Haydn's music.

Yes according to Ries, Beethoven disapproved of some of the word-painting found in the oratorios but according to Wegeler he 'did recognise Haydn's greater achievements, especially the many choral works and certain other things for which he properly lavished praise on Haydn'. After Haydn's death he had nothing but praise for him (unlike several members of this site!).

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

[King Stephen]

Originally posted by Uniqor:
hi king, you miss understood me a little there

mozart gives me untopia when i listen to him - his classical style is the last boring thing on my mind. but hayden, when i don't get the true musical satisfaction through my ears, i need to feel something else instead no? and guess what i feel - the boring classical form

i don't even want to think about how bach composed his five part fugi... let me rephrase: bach's baroque style was relatively PRIMITIVE than the later ones

I can't figure your post or you out. You say you don't like Haydn's music, you consider the classical period boring yet you love Mozart, who is at the hight of the Classical period. You say Bach's music is relatively primitive when compaired to the late ones.
Bach actually died in 1750 at what some consider to be the beginning of the classical period, so how can his music be primitive when in fact the baroque period was on the wane? And by the way, who are the late ones? There are a great number of books that expound on Haydn's greatness and like Peter said you really should read up on Haydn, if only to get a proper perspective of the man and composer.

[Uniqor]

I need to breath a little...

Proper perspective? We don't talk about that too much in art do we? It's all personal isn't it? A mater of taste no? Yes we've been there and you never understood my point. You still simplistically regard that "popular means better" as too simplistic. What is the absolute yardstick that you have in music? What? Until you can come up with an anwser that's better than my "popularity", I'm afraid that you'll have to accept it. Come on Peter, refute me on this, because this is the ground basis behind our arguements.

As far as Hayden goes, for the last time - he was an onion, a big one. He had everything going for him, yet he blew it. He failed to establish himself as one of the everybody-knows geniuses in western musical history. He had the chance to advance out of the cassical domain, but his mediocre mentality and uninspiring inspiration failed him on that. If they were all like Hayden, the classical period would have dominated for much longer. His significance lies in advancing the classical form into the top so that everybody else were forced to explore new ways - I respect him on that account and on that account only - he was the golden step from which our genius went higher. Full stop.

If you failed to understand my posts, then read them for a second time, with a less restrained mind! And of course, don't try to ad hominem me because of my poor spelling.

This is what happens here: I write and most of you miss my point that is subtly embodied in my every post, with factual backups. Refute me - line by line!

[Peter]

Originally posted by Uniqor:
I need to breath a little...

Proper perspective? We don't talk about that too much in art do we? It's all personal isn't it? A mater of taste no? Yes we've been there and you never understood my point. You still simplistically regard that "popular means better" as too simplistic. What is the absolute yardstick that you have in music? What? Until you can come up with an anwser that's better than my "popularity", I'm afraid that you'll have to accept it. Come on Peter, refute me on this, because this is the ground basis behind our arguements.

As far as Hayden goes, for the last time - he was an onion, a big one. He had everything going for him, yet he blew it. He failed to establish himself as one of the everybody-knows geniuses in western musical history. He had the chance to advance out of the cassical domain, but his mediocre mentality and uninspiring inspiration failed him on that. If they were all like Hayden, the classical period would have dominated for much longer. His significance lies in advancing the classical form into the top so that everybody else were forced to explore new ways - I respect him on that account and on that account only - he was the golden step from which our genius went higher. Full stop.

If you failed to understand my posts, then read them for a second time, with a less restrained mind! And of course, don't try to ad hominem me because of my poor spelling.

This is what happens here: I write and most of you miss my point that is subtly embodied in my every post, with factual backups. Refute me - line by line!

We have refuted you, but you don't listen. I have given you plenty of reasons based on fact and example as to why I consider he was a great composer which you casually dismiss. I suggest you become more familiar with the later quartets and sonatas and some of the Sturm und drang symphonies from the 1760s as well as The Creation and final symphonies such as Nos 92, 101-104. Also read Rosemary Hughes 'Haydn' from the master musician series and Charles Rosen's 'The classical style' - I think you'll find they both explain things better than I and that they know a lot more about the subject than you.

In the Rosen book he has a chapter called the Popular style and be begins "By 1790, Haydn had created and mastered a deliberately popular style....there have been composers who were as much admired, but none who so completely won at the same time the unquestioned and generous respect of the musical community and the ungrudging acclaim of the public."
Of course he isn't so popular these days which only goes to prove the fallibility of your popularity test. And in our day according to your theory Beethoven is a pigmy besides The Beatles or any other 'POP' band you care to mention - this argument speaks for itself - you refute that!

I accept you don't like his music - have the good grace to respect those who do and stop implying we're all too dim to grasp your subtle posts when in reality it is you who are failing to appreciate the subtleties and achievements of Haydn's music.

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



[This message has been edited by Peter (edited 06-07-2005).]

[Sorrano]

It would help, too, Uniqor, to study the development of Haydn's music from its beginnings to the its end. Haydn gave the sonata-allegro form the vitallity and dominance that it has had both in the classical period and since. Haydn pushed the envelope of what was accepted in his own time. You lose him and you lose most of the elements that make up the classical period, even with Mozart. Mozart and his contemporaries built upon what Haydn had established and developed from the baroque. His place in music is of vital importance in the history of music.

[Uniqor]

What I found here is not the mediocricy of intellect, but the average standard of attitude of mind and scope of view. How do I know that? Well here is a great example from Peter yourself:

"I accept you don't like his music - have the good grace to respect those who do and stop implying we're all too dim to grasp your subtle posts when in reality it is you who are failing to appreciate the subtleties and achievements of Haydn's music."

Posts like this disappoint me for two major reasons:

1. I am assumptiously assumed as disgraceful and superfacial - can't really blame you if that's the way I appeared to be here.

2. You merely repeated your initial position on the issue, which I had already tried to refute - it shows your arogance and the fact that you never understood my arguement.

You so easily dismiss my arguements, for all the reasons that I know only too well. This is what appears clear as your problem in front of my eyes: you walk a rigid straight line that doesn't actually work well in practise; worse still, I believe that the ground behind your reasoning is erronous and very refutable - that's what I've been doing most of the time - trying to refute some of your underlying principles in music.

Hayden is just a case in which I attempt to get close to the main problems. Actually, we have the old problems on the surface yet again, but as usuall, you fall back to your high and dry home ground, without regard to furthering the arguement of the real underlying issues.

...

I'd really like to know that I'm wrong about you on all of the above, but so far from all your posts, I sadly maintain this assertion.

[Peter]

Originally posted by Uniqor:

I'd really like to know that I'm wrong about you on all of the above, but so far from all your posts, I sadly maintain this assertion.

If you really want that, read those books and then if you still disagree take it up with Mr.Rosen. I am listening right now to the Haydn string quartet Op.76 no.5 - wonderful music, especially the slow movement - you should try it!


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



[This message has been edited by Peter (edited 06-08-2005).]