Haydn is a really good composer. He made over 100 symphonies! But, I feel like he is a little underrated. Mozart And Beethoven get a lot of attention. Of course, they are brilliant composers too but, Haydn deserves some attention too.
Haydn is not underrated, at least his Symphonies No. 45 and No. 104 are well known along with the second movement of the 94, as well as his cello concertos, and his famous trumpet concerto, apart from having created what is now the German National Anthem, but some of its symphonies deserve better attention, especially those with names, as well as the symphonic poems of R. Strauss, they are just works that are played regularly.
@@PP1969GR That’s what symphonies were in 1757 when Haydn wrote his first one. Almost without exception they have more in them than any contemporary composer, they are highly professionally composed and very original - a composer could do no more. Haydn’s work was good enough to get him one of the best posts going at the Eszterhazy court in 1761. In short, even the least of his symphonies are better than you suggest, though you’re right, they are ‘small duration’ compared to Mahler and Bruckner et al (but so are those of Mozart and Beethoven). However, the comparison with Mahler or Bruckner is not relevant: a steam locomotive is not as fast as the high-speed trains of today, but they both have their own unique charms.
@@ludhannsebastivanbachthove4987 They are 104, I don't mean to scoff, but you think Mozart wrote over 41 symphonies (he may have done more given his relentless creative hunger, but we don't know for sure).
@@ludhannsebastivanbachthove4987 I think you are correct: but just to clarify for wider readers: Hob. I:1 to 104 are the numbered symphonies with which everyone is familiar; Hob. I:105 is the Sinfonia Concertante; Hob. I:106 is the three-movement sinfonia* (overture) to Le Pescatrici; Hob. I:107 and 108 are two early symphonies added in the 20th century** after the 1 to 104 list was compiled; these two works are now known as Symphonies ‘A’ and ‘B’. There are no spurious symphonies in the list, so Haydn’s grand total is 107 symphonies - including the Le pescatrici sinfonia (Hob. I:106). * For our friends in the US, the Italian word ‘sinfonia’ is pronounced correctly: ‘seen-fon-*ee*-ah’ (Similarly, forget Disney, it’s correctly ‘Fan-ta-*szee*-ah’). ** The Hoboken catalogue of Haydn’s works - of which Hob. I is symphonies - followed exactly the first thematic catalogue and numbering of all Haydn’s symphonies compiled by Eusebius Mandyczewski and published in 1907. (Hob. II is string quartets, Hob. XVI piano sonatas, Hob. XXII masses, et cetera).
La primera sinfonía de un genio que logro una gran proeza para la época: componer más de cien sinfonías y con esto logro pasar a la historia como maestro y ser inigualable, gracias Papá Haydn... 🎼
Haydn is the father of the symphony. His music is amazing in harmony, grace and elegance. Viva Haydn a true genius of music that gives us unforgettable moments of pleasure and haunting music. Bravissimo.
Очень нравятся симфонии Гайдна. Они разные по настроению,но оптимистичные и вызывают желание жить и творить. В них чудесная сила добра и любви к людям.
Love from France. From the classical period, I knew mainly Mozart. Haydn was a wonderful discovery for me. The more I listen to him, the more I love him and rejoice in his charming and sometimes wonderfully naive ideas. What a beautiful period, culturally speaking, was this period that the French Revolution put an end to. Certainly it was its peak, and so it had to disappear.
It’s not so much the naivety of some of Haydn’s ideas, it is all about what he does with them - this is the principal characteristic that makes Beethoven Haydn’s true successor. Mozart’s music is about a profusion of contrast in a feminine and cantabile style; Haydn is masculine and instrumental in conception with intense working-out, often from bar 1 (once again = Beethoven).
What you say is obviously perfectly true, I will now listen to Haydn in this sense. What an era, the end of the 18th century, particularly Germanic, which saw Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven practically meeting in the street, and soon followed by Schubert! Beethoven, I believe, did not appreciate the music of Mozart, whom he had met, and before whom he had played. The lack of filiation from one to the other surprised me; now, thanks to your comment, everything is clearer! Kind regards, from France, forgive any English mistakes if there are any in this comment.@@elaineblackhurst1509
@@bertrandcarel9511 One or two points for clarification. Haydn knew both Mozart and Beethoven well. Mozart knew Haydn well and considered him his best friend, but he never met Beethoven. Beethoven knew Haydn, but whilst never meeting Mozart, he probably heard him play during his brief but aborted visit to Vienna in 1787. Beethoven arrived in Vienna in November 1792 (ie too late to meet Mozart) and immediately began counterpoint lessons with Haydn which lasted until the latter left for his second trip to England in January 1794; Mozart had died in 1791, almost a year before Beethoven arrived in Vienna. Beethoven probably rated Mozart above all other composers. Whilst the rise of instrumental music was inexorable over the second half of the 18th century, it still had not quite replaced Italian opera, singers, and composers who were to be found in almost every city across Europe, perhaps less so in France than elsewhere (notwithstanding the Querelle or Guerre des Bouffons) but even in that country, Italians like Cherubini held key positions such as Director of the important Conservatoire in Paris from 1822. Hope these points are helpful. Your written English is fine; I appreciate your attempt to use English and you have expressed yourself clearly.
Never really gave Haydn much of a chance other than symphony 104. I'll have to listen to more of his compositions. Edit: Thanks everyone for the great suggestions! Keep em coming!
Isaac W Could I suggest that you need a plan, especially as the ‘plan’ of going through them numerically makes zero sense as the Mandyczewski/Hoboken order of 1-104 is flawed seriously in chronological terms, for example: Symphony 72 was written two years before its sister obbligato 4-horn Symphony 31 Symphony 37 is actually Haydn’s second symphony The sturm und drang Symphony 26 was composed the year after the sturm und drang Symphony 49 The six ‘Paris’ symphonies (82-87) should be 87 85 83 84 86 82 The first six ‘London symphonies (93-98) should be 96 95 93 94 98 97 Et cetera. With a large body of works like the symphonies of Haydn it can be difficult to know where to begin. There are so many different ‘types’ and they span almost forty years from Symphony 1 in 1757 to Symphony 104 in 1795. I would suggest as as starting point the following representative symphonies - there are many more that can be added to each section at your leisure. *1. Early works* Symphonies 1, 3, 6-8 (the Morning/Noon/Evening trilogy), 9, 13, 16, 20, 36, 40. *2. Sonata da chiesa type works* 5, 11, 15, 21, 22, 34, 49 (i). *3. Works with solo horn parts* 72, 31, 51, (there are symphonies with other solo parts eg 24 for flute, or 13 for cello). *4a. ‘Sturm und drang’ (c.1765-1773) minor key works* 26, 39, 44, 45, 49, 52. *4b. ‘Sturm und drang’ major key works* 35, 38, 41, 42, 43, 46, 47, 48, 65. *5. Theatrical symphonies - works compiled from incidental stage music, or having some other theatrical connection* 12, 50, 59, 60, 63, 65? *6. Eszterhaza in the 1770’s* 53, 54, 55, 57, 60, 66, 67, 68, 70, 75. *7. Symphonies intended for publication across Europe in the 1780’s* 73, 74, 75, 76-78, 79-81. *8. ‘Name’ symphonies* 22, 53, 63, 88, 92.* *9. The six ‘Paris’ symphonies* 82-87 (ii). *10. The twelve ‘London’ symphonies* 93-98 (iii), and 99-104. Note: the numbering of Haydn’s symphonies is *not* exactly chronological. The numbering is that of Mandyczewski, an Austrian musicologist who compiled a complete edition of the symphonies in 1907; his numbering was adopted unchanged in the universal Hoboken catalogue of Haydn’s works. There are some serious chronological errors in Mandyczewski/Hoboken which reflected Haydn scholarship at the time: Symphony 37 for example is almost certainly Haydn’s second symphony, and this also explains why 36 and 40 appear in the Early Symphonies section. Thus, I have deliberately placed Symphony 72 (1763) before Symphony 31 (1765) as the former was in effect a practice run for the latter which was composed two years later. It is possible to add further categories to those I have listed above: for example, there are twenty C major symphonies which, except for perhaps Symphonies 30 and 63, are generally of a very particular grand and ceremonial character - often with additional trumpets and drums - typified by works such as Symphony 20, 48 or 82. Most of the symphonies I have not listed specifically can be added at pleasure and will fit roughly the categories outlined above - or in between - and occasionally, in more than one group. Final point: I am not convinced trying to listen to the symphonies numerically from 1 to 104 is a particularly good or sensible idea. Following my guide and adding in other works as and when, will give you a much better understanding of the development not only of the composer himself, but of the eighteenth century symphony. The final point I would mention is that just one recording of each work is not really sufficient to make a proper judgement; I would suggest for most symphonies you need as a minimum, to compare a large and small- scale performance; a period group and a modern group; and a performance with and without a harpsichord continuo, et cetera. Hope you, or anyone else interested, finds the above useful. (i) Church sonata type symphonies that open with a whole slow movement, and were originally intended for performance at particular times in the religious calendar such as Passiontide, Holy Week, or Easter. (ii) I recommend strongly that you listen to these six ‘Paris’ symphonies in the chronological and musically coherent order Haydn - in vain - instructed his Viennese publisher Artaria to issue them: *87, 85, 83, 84, 86, 82.* (The familiar Hoboken order - following Artaria’s arbitrary 82 - 87 - makes no sense at all). (iii) Likewise, the first set of ‘London’ symphonies are better heard in their order of composition: *96, 95, 93, 94, 98,* (then the Sinfonia Concertante), *97*
" Nous Nous Souviendrons Longtemps, petit Papa Musicien".! Symphonie Numéro Une De Joseph Haydn, Hommage et Reconnaissance De Wolgang Amadeus Mozart.!!!!!
(1758 -1759) E' la sinfonia che Haydn indicò a G. A. Griesinger come la sua prima sinfonia e che Griesinger, nel compilare la biografia di Haydn, collocò in testa all'elenco, assegnandole l'anno di composizione 1759. In ogni caso fu scritta all'inizio della permanenza presso il Conte Morzin. I corni hanno in questa partitura di Haydn ventisettenne una funzione di riempitivo armonico sull'esempio di Leopold Mozart e, in generale, della musica austriaca dell'epoca. Altro influsso salisburghese, l'uso del trillo in fine di frase. Ma il riferimento più evidente che contraddistingue la "prima" è la scuola di Mannheim della quale Haydn utilizza il famoso crescendo. LDC
Some say: " Ohhh, old pa Haydn.... he is boooooooooring!" I do not understand that, ... He was teacher of Mozart, besides a lot of oder grest musicans, he was a Star in HIS time! I love his work!
Not boring, unless you can't appreciate humour, counterpoint, ineresting harmonies and wonderful composition skills. He loved the young Mozart's music.
Harry Linecker One or two pointers: Some people said that about a century ago. With the publication of urtext scores, period aware performances and a revolution in scholarship over about the last 75 years, our knowledge, understanding and appreciation of the composer is higher than it has been probably since his death in 1809 - a wide range of his music from all periods of his life is now performed regularly. Additionally, nobody who understands music uses, or rather, mis-uses the ridiculous ‘Papà’ epithet which today, has lost the sense it had to Mozart where it it was a term of deepest respect, admiration and indeed love. Neither does it carry the same meaning that comes when it is used by a French or Italian boy to his father today. Papà* Haydn is nothing more than an early 19th century caricature with huge pejorative undertones; the term was used as one of affection and respect by a tiny number of people in the 18th century, people who *were* actually entitled to use it. Haydn never taught Mozart. Haydn taught Beethoven counterpoint - a form of musical grammar - for about 14 months from the latter’s arrival in Vienna in November 1792 until the former’s departure for his second trip to England in January 1794. Haydn, even from before his trips to England was probably considered the greatest composer across the whole of Europe; this was without doubt the case after his return from England in 1795 until his death. You love Haydn’s work...excellent taste, it is a flavour that will last a lifetime. * Without the accent, it changes the pronunciation in Italian... and turns the composer into Pope Haydn.
@@elaineblackhurst1509 Haydn didn't formally teach Mozart, but Mozart learned a heck of a lot from him! He would never have written his little C minor symphony if not for Haydn's sturm und drang symphonies. As for calling Haydn "papa", this is how he came to be referred to by the public during his lifetime. Rejecting the term is just snobbishness.
I wouldn't say I'm a big Haydn fan, but you can line up all his symphonies or piano works and be assured of hours and hours of pleasure -- and awe at his non-stop high-quality production
A knowledge and understanding of Haydn will increase both your critical awareness and appreciation of Mozart and Beethoven; apart from being by far the most popular pan-European composer of the age, he received the imprimatur of CPE Bach (in print), Mozart (openly), and Beethoven (grudgingly, and with critics like that, perhaps many people today are still missing something.
I get your point, but this symphony was written 2 years before the death of Handel, 7 before the death of Rameau, and a full 10 before the death of Telemann; you could add a number of other Baroque composers to this list as well. In fact, the late-Baroque and early-Classical ran side by side for about 25 years from about 1740.
Haydn's music has been neglected despite that the fact that he has composed over a hundred symphonies. Largely overshadowed, by Beethoven and Mozart, his music deserves a better listen. Heck, though I'm a huge Beethoven fan, I feel that Haydn surpasses Beethoven in some ways. Also, to the people who consider Haydn's music as boring, listen again, there is a lot to be discovered here.
I've heard people say 'why listen to Haydn? Mozart did it better' I disagree on both sides. They are both amazing composers, but you can't listen to Mozart when in a Haydn mood, just like you can't listen to Bach when you're in a Handel mood.
The classical period was full of invention and style. Many composers of the time reflected that style. Haydn was profoundly original, and if you listen, really listen you will hear Haydn's late work in Beethoven, who studied under this wonderful man.
You’re right, there’s a lot of Haydn in Beethoven’s compositional DNA, and not just late Haydn - Beethoven copied out the whole of Haydn’s string quartet Opus 20 No 1 which was written as early as 1772 ie when Beethoven was 2 years old. Careful with the ‘Beethoven, who studied under [Haydn]’ bit. The contemporary sources show that the lessons were about completing hundreds of dry counterpoint exercises - a form of musical grammar - from the standard 18th century manual by Fux (Gradus ad Parnassum). Haydn’s copy was heavily annotated with his worked examples, and some scholars now believe he lent his copy to Mozart at some point in the 1780’s which Mozart studied as part of his wider investigations into counterpoint at the time included his studies of Bach and Handel (and others). The teacher/pupil relationship between the two composers is often over-stated, and misrepresented; Beethoven himself said that he ‘...learned nothing from Haydn’ - obviously referring specifically and *only* to the counterpoint lessons and exercises based on Fux, most of which were not corrected by Haydn - and he refused to add ‘Pupil of Haydn’ to the dedication of the Opus 2 piano sonatas to his supposed ‘teacher’ two or three years later. One of the most disappointing aspects of both Beethoven and Haydn biographies is the paucity of evidence and detail about what the two composers actually talked about besides Fux, Gradus ad Parnassum, counterpoint, and Beethoven’s exercises. This is especially frustrating during the times when they were together for lengthy periods such as the summer and autumn of 1793 when Beethoven came to Eisenstadt whilst Haydn was busy working on symphonies and the Opus 71/74 set of string quartets for the forthcoming second visit to England. Otherwise - great comment.
@@elaineblackhurst1509 Thankyou for this so eloquently written response. I have just learned so much from you, and I wish to thank you sincerely. I do have a question that you most certainly can answer. Did Beethoven dedicate the 8th symphony to Haydn?
@@garysimkins2179 Thank you for your kind comment, I hope you find my comments useful, helpful and enlightening. Some thoughts - some perhaps new - which you might find of interest. As far as I am aware - unusually - Beethoven’s 8th symphony has no dedication or dedicatee. Recently, a number of scholars have suggested that the 8th is something of a backward glance by Beethoven to Haydn and Mozart; I am not convinced - and I think generally speaking, it remains one of the least understood of all Beethoven’s symphonies*. John Elliot Gardener has in recent times fuelled speculation about a supposed link between Beethoven 8 and Haydn in a talk that is available on RUclips, and whilst there is some real evidence that Beethoven was still thinking about some of the compositional issues raised by Haydn even in his late period, I think Gardener’s point is hypothetical conjecture at best. The three piano sonatas Opus 2 published in 1796 were the only works dedicated to Haydn; an interesting touch by Beethoven who much of the literature tells us was seething about Haydn’s alleged comments about the c minor piano trio** from Opus 1. Beethoven had played all three to Haydn in Vienna after his return from England a few months before, but Haydn luckily did not get the Napoleon treatment (3rd Symphony), and the dedication stood is spite of Beethoven being hurt by whatever Haydn had said to him about the trio. * A big part of the problem is those who see composers development as linear and inexorable; this is not how composers develop, and it ignores special circumstances, experiments, personal life-stories, et cetera. The 8th is clearly a departure from the path of the 5th, 6th, 7th, and 9th, indeed you could argue that all these symphonies rather than being a journey down one path - the linear line of thinking - are in fact journeys of discovery and experimentation down divergent paths, perhaps in search of an known or unknown end; this a very different way of thinking into which the 8th fits much better. ** As I said, the ‘alleged’ advice not to publish it; questions have been raised, and the traditional story challenged by modern scholars about this whole fall-out, as it has been demonstrated that the Opus 1 trios had already been published when Beethoven played them to Haydn in 1795, thus making a nonsense of Haydn’s purported comment. Beethoven was clearly hurt, but this was just one of the several recorded ‘misunderstandings’ between the two composers that occurred almost every time the two were in the same room.
@@garysimkins2179 The 8th symphony is a curiosity in terms of Beethoven’s symphonic development, and it has attracted as much speculation as it has conjecture - you can research this easily enough; regarding dedications, Beethoven dedicated the Opus 2 piano sonatas to Haydn in 1796 having previously played through them for him, though he declined to add ‘Pupil of Haydn’ at the top as requested by the dedicatee.
@@jorgelopez-pr6dr The Classical period was well underway many years before Haydn wrote his first symphony in 1757; Johann Stamitz for example died in that same year having composed about 60 modern early-Classical symphonies.
I read somewhere that Stravinsky thought that Haydn was a better composer than Mozart, meaning that Haydn could work material in a more inventive, original way than Mozart. Glenn Gould thought that a lot of Mozart pieces were "phoned in" by the master. With Haydn, you can hear the hard work of forming structures.
Haydn was the Chuck Berry of the Romantic Symphony (IMVHO). Mozart and Beethoven show such a direct influence, especially. That's similar to Chuck Berry > The Beach Boys > The Beatles if you want to compare it to rock music. And Symphony 1 is the egg that hatched everything to follow.
+SuperShredder89 I think no one would disagree this is a great masterpiece. But not everyone likes classical music like you do. I like classical music. But not as much as I like to listen to Black Sabbath or Slipknot. It is about wat we prefer to listen to.
I listen to trap and the new songs but I mean its all influence that people listen to the new songs this music was from hundreds of years ago and haydn lived in another country
吳紹謙 Because the two works have absolutely nothing in common. They were written almost thirty years apart; Haydn’s Symphony 1 (c.1757), was not published when Mozart wrote Figaro - first performance 1786 - so he could not have known it. The section you quote is virtually Haydn’s only attempt at a typical, fashionable Mannheim type crescendo, something that was pretty commonplace amongst composers of the time. From the early 1780’s when the two composers developed their very close friendship, they were both discussing, performing and composing music far in advance of this very primitive early work which would have held little interest for either composer. They were interested in Haydn’s Opus 33 quartets, Mozart’s six dedicated to Haydn in response; they were discussing Bach and Handel which they were hearing at the sessions put on by Baron van Swieten which they both attended. They were discussing Mozart’s operas - in a letter to Michael Puchberg - a wealthy Viennese merchant and amateur musician who loaned Mozart significant amounts of money - Mozart wrote, regarding rehearsals for Così fan tutti in 1789 that ‘...I am inviting only you and Haydn’. In short: Mozart and Haydn were discussing ‘modern’ music. A glance through Mozart’s letters, or any biography of Haydn will reveal how both composers were almost unbelievably over-worked on all fronts whilst at the same time, pushing the classical style forward into ever new areas; it is inconceivable that either of them would be referencing back to a work written probably as early as 1757. Additionally, to ‘inspire’ is an inappropriate and exaggerated word to use in English for the very modest little formulaic crescendo that opens Haydn’s Symphony 1. That’s how I know!
It's a small orchestra, more or less of the size Haydn would haven known when he was Kapellmeister at the courts of counts Morzin and Eszterhazy. Probably something like 4 first violins, 3 second violins, 2 viola's, 1 violoncello, 1 double-bass, 2 oboes, 2 horns, bassoon. Or maybe 4-4-2-2-1 for the strings (max).
JanLuka Diebold In the early symphonies, a bassoon was always added playing ‘col basso’ ie with the bass; the same thing happens in Mozart’s early works. In later works, a second obbligato ie an independent bassoon part was added, something that becomes immediately audible if you listen out for it.
@@elaineblackhurst1509 And this performance does not use a harpsichord. Hogwood had decided that Haydn wouldn't have used one. Scholarly opinion differs. I have all of these by AAM/Hog, and wish the record company had not decided to stop the project. Other period orchestras have picked up where the AAM left off.
Xylophilia . ...and of nomenclature; this is clearly not a ‘song’ - it is a symphony. A song is a vocal piece sung by a voice, something with words; Johnny Cash, or the Beatles for example wrote and sang songs, as does Justin Bieber.
Aidan Kwek Haydn’s first symphony was Symphony 1 (Hob. I:1) and it was written in *1757.* Haydn told Georg August Griesinger, one of his earliest biographers, that Symphony 1 was the first one and that it was written in 1759 - unfortunately, he got the date wrong. We know this because there is an extant printed copy of Symphony 37 - very badly misnumbered - which is dated 1758. Some scholars in the past have suggested that Symphony 37 might therefore be in fact the real first symphony - occasionally 18, 2, 4, and 27 have also been nominated besides Symphony 1 - this is no longer a very widespread view; the first symphony was Symphony 1. Beware of old and dated scholarship! When Griesinger visited Haydn after 1800, the old man was struggling with his memory, but Haydn was adamant and clear that Symphony 1 was the first. It was written for Count Morzin by whom Haydn was employed c.1757 - 1761 ie immediately prior to the Eszterhazys. Haydn simply got the date of Symphony 1 wrong by a year or two - right symphony, wrong date. In summary: Symphony 1 was composed in 1757, and was Haydn’s first symphony; Symphony 37 is almost certainly the second symphony (1757/58). The most recent research on this subject for further reference is by Sonja Gerlach - unfortunately not available in English.
The latest research on the chronology of Haydn's symphonies (Sonja Gerlach) does suggest that this is indeed his 1st symphony (1757). However, this is not by far the first symphony ever. Johann Stamitz is the one who formalized its structure and gave it its own status and not just as an introductory piece to operas. Listen to his symphonies Op. 3 for example (composed between 1743 and 1748, and published in 1757)
Kent Isaksson Haydn’s first symphony - Symphony 1 - was written in *1757.* Haydn was 25. The latest research - in particular by the German musicologist Sonja Gerlach* - has established that Symphony 1 is the first symphony by Haydn and that it was composed in 1757, thus making the composer 25 years old. The second symphony is almost certainly the badly misnumbered Symphony 37 of which there is an extant printed copy dated 1758. Haydn himself was adamant that Symphony 1 was his first symphony, so the discovery of the copy of Symphony 37 means that the old possible dating of Symphony 1 being 1759 cannot be correct. * Building on the work of Larsen, Robbins Landon, et al.
@@elaineblackhurst1509 Okay. I was refering to this "While it is reliably known that No. 1 was written in 1759, H. C. Robbins Landon cannot rule out that No. 2,[3]No. 4,[4] or both could have been composed in 1757 or 1758." (Wiki)
Kent Isaksson No prob; as you are interested, hope you find the following useful as Wikipedia’s info is slightly dated and not entirely accurate. As explained, Symphony 1 cannot be dated as 1759 because of the extant printed copy of Symphony 37 dated 1758, and Haydn himself being adamant that Symphony 1 was the first one. Robbins Landon’s ground-breaking - literally - five volume definitive biography was written in the 1970’s and more recent research has meant that some of his datings and conclusions need to be revised; for example, as shown below, it is now thought possible to backdate as many as six symphonies to 1757. Regarding the chronology of the symphonies, the universally accepted current last word on the subject is Sonja Gerlach’s study - building on Larsen, HCRL, et al - which says in summary: Symphony 1 1757 Symphony 37 1757 - 1758 Symphony 18 1757 - 1759 Symphony 2 1757 - 1759 Symphony 4 1757 - 1760 Symphony 27 1757 - 1760 Hope that helps.
Beethoven found four important teachers: *Neefe* - his Bonn teacher up to his move to Vienna in 1792. *Haydn* - his counterpoint teacher from his arrival in Vienna in November 1792 until January 1794. *Albrechtsberger* - who took over the counterpoint lesson when Haydn left for England. *Salieri* - Italian vocal composition.
Rafael Jordi Larrañaga de Bofarull The most useful thing that everyone in this thread could do, would be to do as Mozart and Haydn did themselves - to try to appreciate the *differences* between these two ‘A’ list composers. Any attempt to look for *similarities* will simply leave the fans of the one composer as disappointed - and probably deluded - as those of the other.
Mindblower Haydn is categorically *not* the ‘Father of the Symphony’; so no, there were hundreds of symphonies written before Haydn’s first one (c.1757). What would be true to say however, is that through a long series of innovative masterworks, symphonies of the highest quality, Haydn raised and set the standard of the genre so high that few composers were able to match him* - Mozart with his last six symphonies most obviously, and Beethoven at the start of the next age. Haydn established the symphony as a measure by which all composers from Mozart and himself, then Beethoven, through to the present day, would be judged - the same is true of some other genres, notably the string quartet. Believing in a ‘Father of the Symphony’ is about as rational as believing in ‘Father Christmas’! * A number of composers such as Kraus, Boccherini, Dittersdorf, Vanhal, Michael Haydn, JC Bach, CPE Bach - and many others - wrote some symphonies of the highest quality that are also well worth seeking out.
Mindblower Usually the Italian word ‘Sinfonia’ was used in most parts of Europe, in England, sometimes ‘overture’, but the two words were effectively synonymous. The word sinfonia* came originally from the ‘sinfonia avanti l’opera’ - symphony before the opera ie an overture - hence the English word still being used as late as the mid-1790’s to describe Haydn’s London symphonies. The word overture persisted in England as symphonies - or sometimes part of a symphony - would usually open both the first and second parts of late 18th century concerts; these concerts would include concertos, vocal numbers and other items - in other words, they were the overture to the evening’s entertainment. As I stated, there were many symphonies written across Europe, all in a recognisable form either with or without a minuet written before 1757, the date of composition of Haydn’s first symphony - Symphony 1. You can check out very early symphonies by composers such as GB Sammartini, Johann Stamitz, Monn, Fils, Wagenseil, Beck, Richter, Holzbauer, CPE Bach and a number of other composers - there is no debate that these composers wrote symphonies, recognisable as eighteenth century symphonies - works that were not simply opera overtures - and that they were written before any of those by Haydn. There is even an extant four movement symphony in D major by Monn dating from as early as 1740. Haydn’s main contribution to the development of the symphony was to take the form and move it from largely background entertainment music for aristocrats, to a form with a far greater musical, dramatic and emotional substance, largely intended for a much wider, ticket paying public - symphonies in Haydn’s hands became the powerful and impressive works that are still played and loved today. The structures and forms, such as sonata form were developed out of all recognition in highly original and inventive ways; the symphony was moved by Haydn, and also by Mozart in his last six symphonies - and one or two earlier ones - to a totally different level. It should not be forgotten that there were other important contributions to the development of the symphony, one such example amongst many would be the works coming out of the Mannheim school, Johann Stamitz being a key example of the first generation, his two sons and Cannabich being representatives of the second generation. Haydn’s Symphony 1 is only the first step on his journey, but it really can *not* be called ‘the first ever symphony in the history of mankind’. It would be true to say however, that his contribution to the development of the form was so significant and important that it was he primarily, who transformed the symphony from being light background entertainment music, to a vehicle in which all future composers - starting with himself and Mozart, then Beethoven - poured some of their most profound, beautiful, and memorable thoughts. Hope you find that explanation helpful. * For our friends in the US, the Italian word ‘Sinfonia’ is pronounced correctly: ‘Seen-fon-*ee*-ah’.
@@elaineblackhurst1509 Dear Elaine, your response is brilliant. I was about to reply to Mindblower and explain that the form of the symphony we know today was indeed formalized by Haydn but was a "natural" evolution of the sinfonia avanti opera you mentioned. If any title of "Father of the symphony" should be given to any composer, I believe that Jan Vaclav Stamic (Johann Stamitz Sr.) is a serious contender. Although he never brought the symphony to the level it reached with Haydn, he was one of the first composers to give the symphony its own status instead of the simple function of drawing the attention of the public to the opera they were about to enjoy. Thank you for your nice and concise explanation. Friedrich
ComposersbyNumbers Thank you for your kind comment. I agree entirely with what you say about Johann Stamitz; I mentioned him twice in my original post, simply because I believe he played such an important role in establishing the symphony as something completely new in every respect - form, structure, orchestration, dynamics, a different use of the (sometimes new) instruments, the addition of a minuet, and so forth. We should perhaps forget the title ‘father of the symphony’, it is on reflection not particularly helpful and is in fact more misleading than enlightening. It is not an expression I have ever used, though as shown by the original comment to which I responded, it is quite prevalent - in truth, the symphony has a rather mixed parentage...and nationality! The main contribution of Haydn above anyone else is the extent to which he transformed the symphony which took it from the world of Stamitz in the 1740’s and 1750’s, to the threshold of Beethoven. This coupled to his status as the best known, most published composer of the age, meant he was very influential - also, the key role Mozart played too with later symphonies he wrote in Vienna after he met Haydn, 35. 36, 38, and 39 - 41 showed that Haydn’s developments had taken deep roots. Whether this qualifies Haydn for the title of ‘father’ I agree is debatable though I think the notion is absurd (maybe foster-parent, or step-father at a stretch). In a sort of biological sense, Stamitz certainly does have a better claim to the title, but overall - as no such person really exists - it would be better not to use the title at all.
Yes but in the year when this work was written (1759) Mozart was three years young, and the man who had created this new symphonic style, Johann Stamitz, was dead since only two years back.
Also Johann Stamitz, the other pioneer of the new style, died very young. Monn and Stamitz worked on the same project at the same time, one in Vienna, the other in Mannheim.
I simply love Haydn. Never tire of listening, and always find something new.
Haydn is a really good composer. He made over 100 symphonies! But, I feel like he is a little underrated. Mozart And Beethoven get a lot of attention. Of course, they are brilliant composers too but, Haydn deserves some attention too.
Small duration symphonies. Not all of them great.
Haydn is not underrated, at least his Symphonies No. 45 and No. 104 are well known along with the second movement of the 94, as well as his cello concertos, and his famous trumpet concerto, apart from having created what is now the German National Anthem, but some of its symphonies deserve better attention, especially those with names, as well as the symphonic poems of R. Strauss, they are just works that are played regularly.
@@PP1969GR
That’s what symphonies were in 1757 when Haydn wrote his first one.
Almost without exception they have more in them than any contemporary composer, they are highly professionally composed and very original - a composer could do no more.
Haydn’s work was good enough to get him one of the best posts going at the Eszterhazy court in 1761.
In short, even the least of his symphonies are better than you suggest, though you’re right, they are ‘small duration’ compared to Mahler and Bruckner et al (but so are those of Mozart and Beethoven).
However, the comparison with Mahler or Bruckner is not relevant: a steam locomotive is not as fast as the high-speed trains of today, but they both have their own unique charms.
@@ludhannsebastivanbachthove4987 They are 104, I don't mean to scoff, but you think Mozart wrote over 41 symphonies (he may have done more given his relentless creative hunger, but we don't know for sure).
@@ludhannsebastivanbachthove4987
I think you are correct: but just to clarify for wider readers:
Hob. I:1 to 104 are the numbered symphonies with which everyone is familiar;
Hob. I:105 is the Sinfonia Concertante;
Hob. I:106 is the three-movement sinfonia* (overture) to Le Pescatrici;
Hob. I:107 and 108 are two early symphonies added in the 20th century** after the 1 to 104 list was compiled; these two works are now known as Symphonies ‘A’ and ‘B’.
There are no spurious symphonies in the list, so Haydn’s grand total is 107 symphonies - including the Le pescatrici sinfonia (Hob. I:106).
* For our friends in the US, the Italian word ‘sinfonia’ is pronounced correctly:
‘seen-fon-*ee*-ah’
(Similarly, forget Disney, it’s correctly ‘Fan-ta-*szee*-ah’).
** The Hoboken catalogue of Haydn’s works - of which Hob. I is symphonies - followed exactly the first thematic catalogue and numbering of all Haydn’s symphonies compiled by Eusebius Mandyczewski and published in 1907.
(Hob. II is string quartets, Hob. XVI piano sonatas, Hob. XXII masses, et cetera).
La primera sinfonía de un genio que logro una gran proeza para la época: componer más de cien sinfonías y con esto logro pasar a la historia como maestro y ser inigualable, gracias Papá Haydn... 🎼
All the way thru my long life Haydn always was my most beloved composer
This is one of THE most beautiful, uplifting, invigorating pieces of all music literature. Thanks for the upload.
Haydn is the father of the symphony. His music is amazing in harmony, grace and elegance. Viva Haydn a true genius of music that gives us unforgettable moments of pleasure and haunting music. Bravissimo.
Очень нравятся симфонии Гайдна. Они разные по настроению,но оптимистичные и вызывают желание жить и творить. В них чудесная сила добра и любви к людям.
que maravilla escuchar la obra completa de franz j. haydn.
One of my all time favourites! Thank you.
Блин, как классно! И картинка подобрана просто супер!
Love from France. From the classical period, I knew mainly Mozart. Haydn was a wonderful discovery for me. The more I listen to him, the more I love him and rejoice in his charming and sometimes wonderfully naive ideas. What a beautiful period, culturally speaking, was this period that the French Revolution put an end to. Certainly it was its peak, and so it had to disappear.
It’s not so much the naivety of some of Haydn’s ideas, it is all about what he does with them - this is the principal characteristic that makes Beethoven Haydn’s true successor.
Mozart’s music is about a profusion of contrast in a feminine and cantabile style; Haydn is masculine and instrumental in conception with intense working-out, often from bar 1 (once again = Beethoven).
What you say is obviously perfectly true, I will now listen to Haydn in this sense. What an era, the end of the 18th century, particularly Germanic, which saw Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven practically meeting in the street, and soon followed by Schubert! Beethoven, I believe, did not appreciate the music of Mozart, whom he had met, and before whom he had played. The lack of filiation from one to the other surprised me; now, thanks to your comment, everything is clearer! Kind regards, from France, forgive any English mistakes if there are any in this comment.@@elaineblackhurst1509
@@bertrandcarel9511
One or two points for clarification.
Haydn knew both Mozart and Beethoven well.
Mozart knew Haydn well and considered him his best friend, but he never met Beethoven.
Beethoven knew Haydn, but whilst never meeting Mozart, he probably heard him play during his brief but aborted visit to Vienna in 1787.
Beethoven arrived in Vienna in November 1792 (ie too late to meet Mozart) and immediately began counterpoint lessons with Haydn which lasted until the latter left for his second trip to England in January 1794; Mozart had died in 1791, almost a year before Beethoven arrived in Vienna.
Beethoven probably rated Mozart above all other composers.
Whilst the rise of instrumental music was inexorable over the second half of the 18th century, it still had not quite replaced Italian opera, singers, and composers who were to be found in almost every city across Europe, perhaps less so in France than elsewhere (notwithstanding the Querelle or Guerre des Bouffons) but even in that country, Italians like Cherubini held key positions such as Director of the important Conservatoire in Paris from 1822.
Hope these points are helpful.
Your written English is fine; I appreciate your attempt to use English and you have expressed yourself clearly.
Thank you for all this very interesting information.
As for my English, I get a little help from Google !@@elaineblackhurst1509
Haydn is very far from naive, understanding classical era music requires focus.
1st movement
0:01 begins
2nd movement
4:53 begins
3rd movement
11:16 begins
MERCI BEAUCOUP POUR CES OEUVRES COMPLETES DE HAYDN.
0:00 A leyend of symphonies is born
Hurray for Haydn!
Музыка воспринимается легко,полетно.Невероятный оптимизм,жизнерадостность,жизнелюбие.Гениальность в простоте.
Never really gave Haydn much of a chance other than symphony 104. I'll have to listen to more of his compositions.
Edit: Thanks everyone for the great suggestions! Keep em coming!
Good idea. Haydn is marvellous 💕
@@markusgro-bolting3070 I can't believe I said this three months ago and still have not listened to much Haydn😢.
Isaac W
Could I suggest that you need a plan, especially as the ‘plan’ of going through them numerically makes zero sense as the Mandyczewski/Hoboken order of 1-104 is flawed seriously in chronological terms, for example:
Symphony 72 was written two years before its sister obbligato 4-horn Symphony 31
Symphony 37 is actually Haydn’s second symphony
The sturm und drang Symphony 26 was composed the year after the sturm und drang Symphony 49
The six ‘Paris’ symphonies (82-87) should be 87 85 83 84 86 82
The first six ‘London symphonies (93-98) should be 96 95 93 94 98 97
Et cetera.
With a large body of works like the symphonies of Haydn it can be difficult to know where to begin.
There are so many different ‘types’ and they span almost forty years from Symphony 1 in 1757 to Symphony 104 in 1795.
I would suggest as as starting point the following representative symphonies - there are many more that can be added to each section at your leisure.
*1. Early works*
Symphonies 1, 3, 6-8 (the Morning/Noon/Evening trilogy), 9, 13, 16, 20, 36, 40.
*2. Sonata da chiesa type works*
5, 11, 15, 21, 22, 34, 49 (i).
*3. Works with solo horn parts*
72, 31, 51,
(there are symphonies with other solo parts eg 24 for flute, or 13 for cello).
*4a. ‘Sturm und drang’ (c.1765-1773) minor key works*
26, 39, 44, 45, 49, 52.
*4b. ‘Sturm und drang’ major key works*
35, 38, 41, 42, 43, 46, 47, 48, 65.
*5. Theatrical symphonies - works compiled from incidental stage music, or having some other theatrical connection*
12, 50, 59, 60, 63, 65?
*6. Eszterhaza in the 1770’s*
53, 54, 55, 57, 60, 66, 67, 68, 70, 75.
*7. Symphonies intended for publication across Europe in the 1780’s*
73, 74, 75, 76-78, 79-81.
*8. ‘Name’ symphonies*
22, 53, 63, 88, 92.*
*9. The six ‘Paris’ symphonies*
82-87 (ii).
*10. The twelve ‘London’ symphonies*
93-98 (iii), and 99-104.
Note: the numbering of Haydn’s symphonies is *not* exactly chronological.
The numbering is that of Mandyczewski, an Austrian musicologist who compiled a complete edition of the symphonies in 1907; his numbering was adopted unchanged in the universal Hoboken catalogue of Haydn’s works.
There are some serious chronological errors in Mandyczewski/Hoboken which reflected Haydn scholarship at the time: Symphony 37 for example is almost certainly Haydn’s second symphony, and this also explains why 36 and 40 appear in the Early Symphonies section.
Thus, I have deliberately placed Symphony 72 (1763) before Symphony 31 (1765) as the former was in effect a practice run for the latter which was composed two years later.
It is possible to add further categories to those I have listed above: for example, there are twenty C major symphonies which, except for perhaps Symphonies 30 and 63, are generally of a very particular grand and ceremonial character - often with additional trumpets and drums - typified by works such as Symphony 20, 48 or 82.
Most of the symphonies I have not listed specifically can be added at pleasure and will fit roughly the categories outlined above - or in between - and occasionally, in more than one group.
Final point: I am not convinced trying to listen to the symphonies numerically from 1 to 104 is a particularly good or sensible idea.
Following my guide and adding in other works as and when, will give you a much better understanding of the development not only of the composer himself, but of the eighteenth century symphony.
The final point I would mention is that just one recording of each work is not really sufficient to make a proper judgement; I would suggest for most symphonies you need as a minimum, to compare a large and small- scale performance; a period group and a modern group; and a performance with and without a harpsichord continuo, et cetera.
Hope you, or anyone else interested, finds the above useful.
(i) Church sonata type symphonies that open with a whole slow movement, and were originally intended for performance at particular times in the religious calendar such as Passiontide, Holy Week, or Easter.
(ii) I recommend strongly that you listen to these six ‘Paris’ symphonies in the chronological and musically coherent order Haydn - in vain - instructed his Viennese publisher Artaria to issue them:
*87, 85, 83, 84, 86, 82.*
(The familiar Hoboken order - following Artaria’s arbitrary 82 - 87 - makes no sense at all).
(iii) Likewise, the first set of ‘London’ symphonies are better heard in their order of composition:
*96, 95, 93, 94, 98,* (then the Sinfonia Concertante), *97*
Listen to Haydn's operas, too
For those wanting to know more about Haydn (and his brother), I recommend Alfred Einstein's marvelous biography of Haydn.
" Nous Nous Souviendrons Longtemps, petit Papa Musicien".! Symphonie Numéro Une De Joseph Haydn, Hommage et Reconnaissance De Wolgang Amadeus Mozart.!!!!!
The first of many...
You're really pretty
She's even prettier than Haydn's music.
What music?
What are music retards?
I bet I can guess which comment the lovely Sarah liked the least.
Bellísima interpretación
(1758 -1759) E' la sinfonia che Haydn indicò a G. A. Griesinger come la sua prima sinfonia e che Griesinger, nel compilare la biografia di Haydn, collocò in testa all'elenco, assegnandole l'anno di composizione 1759. In ogni caso fu scritta all'inizio della permanenza presso il Conte Morzin. I corni hanno in questa partitura di Haydn ventisettenne una funzione di riempitivo armonico sull'esempio di Leopold Mozart e, in generale, della musica austriaca dell'epoca. Altro influsso salisburghese, l'uso del trillo in fine di frase. Ma il riferimento più evidente che contraddistingue la "prima" è la scuola di Mannheim della quale Haydn utilizza il famoso crescendo. LDC
Some say: " Ohhh, old pa Haydn.... he is boooooooooring!"
I do not understand that, ... He was teacher of Mozart, besides a lot of oder grest musicans, he was a Star in HIS time!
I love his work!
Haydn taught Beethoven for a time, not Mozart. Mozart was already an accomplished and famous composer when he and Haydn first met.
Not boring, unless you can't appreciate humour, counterpoint, ineresting harmonies and wonderful composition skills. He loved the young Mozart's music.
IMO he's not boring; even his early works are marvellous and compelling.
Harry Linecker
One or two pointers:
Some people said that about a century ago.
With the publication of urtext scores, period aware performances and a revolution in scholarship over about the last 75 years, our knowledge, understanding and appreciation of the composer is higher than it has been probably since his death in 1809 - a wide range of his music from all periods of his life is now performed regularly.
Additionally, nobody who understands music uses, or rather, mis-uses the ridiculous ‘Papà’ epithet which today, has lost the sense it had to Mozart where it it was a term of deepest respect, admiration and indeed love. Neither does it carry the same meaning that comes when it is used by a French or Italian boy to his father today.
Papà* Haydn is nothing more than an early 19th century caricature with huge pejorative undertones; the term was used as one of affection and respect by a tiny number of people in the 18th century, people who *were* actually entitled to use it.
Haydn never taught Mozart.
Haydn taught Beethoven counterpoint - a form of musical grammar - for about 14 months from the latter’s arrival in Vienna in November 1792 until the former’s departure for his second trip to England in January 1794.
Haydn, even from before his trips to England was probably considered the greatest composer across the whole of Europe; this was without doubt the case after his return from England in 1795 until his death.
You love Haydn’s work...excellent taste, it is a flavour that will last a lifetime.
* Without the accent, it changes the pronunciation in Italian... and turns the composer into Pope Haydn.
@@elaineblackhurst1509 Haydn didn't formally teach Mozart, but Mozart learned a heck of a lot from him! He would never have written his little C minor symphony if not for Haydn's sturm und drang symphonies.
As for calling Haydn "papa", this is how he came to be referred to by the public during his lifetime. Rejecting the term is just snobbishness.
Haydn was very excellent.
I wouldn't say I'm a big Haydn fan, but you can line up all his symphonies or piano works and be assured of hours and hours of pleasure -- and awe at his non-stop high-quality production
A knowledge and understanding of Haydn will increase both your critical awareness and appreciation of Mozart and Beethoven; apart from being by far the most popular pan-European composer of the age, he received the imprimatur of CPE Bach (in print), Mozart (openly), and Beethoven (grudgingly, and with critics like that, perhaps many people today are still missing something.
This was composed a few years after the ending of the Baroque period
I get your point, but this symphony was written 2 years before the death of Handel, 7 before the death of Rameau, and a full 10 before the death of Telemann; you could add a number of other Baroque composers to this list as well.
In fact, the late-Baroque and early-Classical ran side by side for about 25 years from about 1740.
@@elaineblackhurst1509 Makes sense, Baroque persisted on for a bit due to the later Baroque composers who were still alive
Here begins a legend!!
Total excellence 🎼 💖
Haydn's music has been neglected despite that the fact that he has composed over a hundred symphonies. Largely overshadowed, by Beethoven and Mozart, his music deserves a better listen. Heck, though I'm a huge Beethoven fan, I feel that Haydn surpasses Beethoven in some ways.
Also, to the people who consider Haydn's music as boring, listen again, there is a lot to be discovered here.
Not a fan of Beethoven : give me Mozart and Haydn any day.
Well said! Majestic music, and tricky, ever-progressive themes.
Haydn is a lot better than the overrated Mozart
I've heard people say 'why listen to Haydn? Mozart did it better'
I disagree on both sides. They are both amazing composers, but you can't listen to Mozart when in a Haydn mood, just like you can't listen to Bach when you're in a Handel mood.
Haydn was bigger than Beethoven and Mozart in his time. Unlike now wherd he has been "forgotten".
ANTES DE LOS GRANDES HUBO UNO MAS GRANDE....GENIO!!!!!!!!....
The classical period was full of invention and style. Many composers of the time reflected that style. Haydn was profoundly original, and if you listen, really listen you will hear Haydn's late work in Beethoven, who studied under this wonderful man.
You’re right, there’s a lot of Haydn in Beethoven’s compositional DNA, and not just late Haydn - Beethoven copied out the whole of Haydn’s string quartet Opus 20 No 1 which was written as early as 1772 ie when Beethoven was 2 years old.
Careful with the ‘Beethoven, who studied under [Haydn]’ bit.
The contemporary sources show that the lessons were about completing hundreds of dry counterpoint exercises - a form of musical grammar - from the standard 18th century manual by Fux (Gradus ad Parnassum).
Haydn’s copy was heavily annotated with his worked examples, and some scholars now believe he lent his copy to Mozart at some point in the 1780’s which Mozart studied as part of his wider investigations into counterpoint at the time included his studies of Bach and Handel (and others).
The teacher/pupil relationship between the two composers is often over-stated, and misrepresented; Beethoven himself said that he ‘...learned nothing from Haydn’ - obviously referring specifically and *only* to the counterpoint lessons and exercises based on Fux, most of which were not corrected by Haydn - and he refused to add ‘Pupil of Haydn’ to the dedication of the Opus 2 piano sonatas to his supposed ‘teacher’ two or three years later.
One of the most disappointing aspects of both Beethoven and Haydn biographies is the paucity of evidence and detail about what the two composers actually talked about besides Fux, Gradus ad Parnassum, counterpoint, and Beethoven’s exercises.
This is especially frustrating during the times when they were together for lengthy periods such as the summer and autumn of 1793 when Beethoven came to Eisenstadt whilst Haydn was busy working on symphonies and the Opus 71/74 set of string quartets for the forthcoming second visit to England.
Otherwise - great comment.
@@elaineblackhurst1509 Thankyou for this so eloquently written response. I have just learned so much from you, and I wish to thank you sincerely. I do have a question that you most certainly can answer. Did Beethoven dedicate the 8th symphony to Haydn?
@@garysimkins2179
Thank you for your kind comment, I hope you find my comments useful, helpful and enlightening.
Some thoughts - some perhaps new - which you might find of interest.
As far as I am aware - unusually - Beethoven’s 8th symphony has no dedication or dedicatee.
Recently, a number of scholars have suggested that the 8th is something of a backward glance by Beethoven to Haydn and Mozart; I am not convinced - and I think generally speaking, it remains one of the least understood of all Beethoven’s symphonies*.
John Elliot Gardener has in recent times fuelled speculation about a supposed link between Beethoven 8 and Haydn in a talk that is available on RUclips, and whilst there is some real evidence that Beethoven was still thinking about some of the compositional issues raised by Haydn even in his late period, I think Gardener’s point is hypothetical conjecture at best.
The three piano sonatas Opus 2 published in 1796 were the only works dedicated to Haydn; an interesting touch by Beethoven who much of the literature tells us was seething about Haydn’s alleged comments about the c minor piano trio** from Opus 1.
Beethoven had played all three to Haydn in Vienna after his return from England a few months before, but Haydn luckily did not get the Napoleon treatment (3rd Symphony), and the dedication stood is spite of Beethoven being hurt by whatever Haydn had said to him about the trio.
* A big part of the problem is those who see composers development as linear and inexorable; this is not how composers develop, and it ignores special circumstances, experiments, personal life-stories, et cetera.
The 8th is clearly a departure from the path of the 5th, 6th, 7th, and 9th, indeed you could argue that all these symphonies rather than being a journey down one path - the linear line of thinking - are in fact journeys of discovery and experimentation down divergent paths, perhaps in search of an known or unknown end; this a very different way of thinking into which the 8th fits much better.
** As I said, the ‘alleged’ advice not to publish it; questions have been raised, and the traditional story challenged by modern scholars about this whole fall-out, as it has been demonstrated that the Opus 1 trios had already been published when Beethoven played them to Haydn in 1795, thus making a nonsense of Haydn’s purported comment.
Beethoven was clearly hurt, but this was just one of the several recorded ‘misunderstandings’ between the two composers that occurred almost every time the two were in the same room.
@@garysimkins2179
The 8th symphony is a curiosity in terms of Beethoven’s symphonic development, and it has attracted as much speculation as it has conjecture - you can research this easily enough; regarding dedications, Beethoven dedicated the Opus 2 piano sonatas to Haydn in 1796 having previously played through them for him, though he declined to add ‘Pupil of Haydn’ at the top as requested by the dedicatee.
Спасибо!
A new age begins in music.
because…
@elaineblackhurst1509 The Viennese Classical Style.
@@jorgelopez-pr6dr
The Classical period was well underway many years before Haydn wrote his first symphony in 1757; Johann Stamitz for example died in that same year having composed about 60 modern early-Classical symphonies.
@elaineblackhurst1509 The Viennese style.
@@jorgelopez-pr6dr
…was begun by composers like Wagenseil, Monn, Gassman and others; Mozart and Haydn came along later and took it to another level.
I read somewhere that Stravinsky thought that Haydn was a better composer than Mozart, meaning that Haydn could work material in a more inventive, original way than Mozart. Glenn Gould thought that a lot of Mozart pieces were "phoned in" by the master. With Haydn, you can hear the hard work of forming structures.
Haydn was the Chuck Berry of the Romantic Symphony (IMVHO). Mozart and Beethoven show such a direct influence, especially. That's similar to Chuck Berry > The Beach Boys > The Beatles if you want to compare it to rock music. And Symphony 1 is the egg that hatched everything to follow.
Haydn was not a Romantic composer. He was a product of the 18-th Century Viennese Classical school. There is a vast difference.
Nothing like hitting the ground running.
And this is his FIRST.
How terribly sad, that of the 7+ billion on this planet, less than 2000 have any taste
well that might be ur taste,everybody consider their taste the best,thats why people are different.
+SuperShredder89 I think no one would disagree this is a great masterpiece. But not everyone likes classical music like you do. I like classical music. But not as much as I like to listen to Black Sabbath or Slipknot. It is about wat we prefer to listen to.
+Ruben Lodewijk my big 4 is Mozart, Vivaldi and Morbid angel with Death from Florida.For me no problem with that.
All these Metal heads digging Haydn, and early Haydn to boot. I love it.
I listen to trap and the new songs but I mean its all influence that people listen to the new songs this music was from hundreds of years ago and haydn lived in another country
What building is that in the painting?
pozdrawiam pana Tomka
I think his belief in a loving caring God who sent christ to die for our sins shows in the music.
Did 0:01-0:09 inspire Mozart to compose the overture to Figaro's Marriage?
吳紹謙 No.
@@elaineblackhurst1509 How could you know?
吳紹謙
Because the two works have absolutely nothing in common.
They were written almost thirty years apart; Haydn’s Symphony 1 (c.1757), was not published when Mozart wrote Figaro - first performance 1786 - so he could not have known it.
The section you quote is virtually Haydn’s only attempt at a typical, fashionable Mannheim type crescendo, something that was pretty commonplace amongst composers of the time.
From the early 1780’s when the two composers developed their very close friendship, they were both discussing, performing and composing music far in advance of this very primitive early work which would have held little interest for either composer.
They were interested in Haydn’s Opus 33 quartets, Mozart’s six dedicated to Haydn in response; they were discussing Bach and Handel which they were hearing at the sessions put on by Baron van Swieten which they both attended.
They were discussing Mozart’s operas - in a letter to Michael Puchberg - a wealthy Viennese merchant and amateur musician who loaned Mozart significant amounts of money - Mozart wrote, regarding rehearsals for Così fan tutti in 1789 that ‘...I am inviting only you and Haydn’.
In short: Mozart and Haydn were discussing ‘modern’ music.
A glance through Mozart’s letters, or any biography of Haydn will reveal how both composers were almost unbelievably over-worked on all fronts whilst at the same time, pushing the classical style forward into ever new areas; it is inconceivable that either of them would be referencing back to a work written probably as early as 1757.
Additionally, to ‘inspire’ is an inappropriate and exaggerated word to use in English for the very modest little formulaic crescendo that opens Haydn’s Symphony 1.
That’s how I know!
@@elaineblackhurst1509 I've learned a lot from your incisive analysis. Thanks so much!
吳紹謙 You are welcome, glad to be of help.
How long will it take me to listen all of his symphonies
You could do once a day and you would still have time for repeats :)
"Like" on 12 November 2016
lubiecie
who is painting ?
Proposed new facade to Eisenstadt palace, never built.
the 4 big towers are the give away, as it looks now.
Dear friends, I am wondering what kind of ensemble plays this. Is it just string quartet plus winds or more of the strings? Thank you.
It's a small orchestra, more or less of the size Haydn would haven known when he was Kapellmeister at the courts of counts Morzin and Eszterhazy. Probably something like 4 first violins, 3 second violins, 2 viola's, 1 violoncello, 1 double-bass, 2 oboes, 2 horns, bassoon. Or maybe 4-4-2-2-1 for the strings (max).
Thank you very much!
@Diederik Verstraete
Yes you're absolutely right!👍
Is the basson playing the same like the celli and bassi?
JanLuka Diebold
In the early symphonies, a bassoon was always added playing ‘col basso’ ie with the bass; the same thing happens in Mozart’s early works.
In later works, a second obbligato ie an independent bassoon part was added, something that becomes immediately audible if you listen out for it.
@@elaineblackhurst1509 And this performance does not use a harpsichord. Hogwood had decided that Haydn wouldn't have used one. Scholarly opinion differs. I have all of these by AAM/Hog, and wish the record company had not decided to stop the project. Other period orchestras have picked up where the AAM left off.
What happened to number 2?
ruclips.net/video/J_baDF-zJkg/видео.html
Did you notice the song was in D flat major?
It might be a question of tuning.
Xylophilia .
...and of nomenclature; this is clearly not a ‘song’ - it is a symphony.
A song is a vocal piece sung by a voice, something with words; Johnny Cash, or the Beatles for example wrote and sang songs, as does Justin Bieber.
@@elaineblackhurst1509 Never mind. :-)
D major. Not D flat. There is a 1/2 tone difference.
Seems like 6 people, who watched this video have broken dynamics
When was this symphony written?
Aidan Kwek
Haydn’s first symphony was Symphony 1 (Hob. I:1) and it was written in *1757.*
Haydn told Georg August Griesinger, one of his earliest biographers, that Symphony 1 was the first one and that it was written in 1759 - unfortunately, he got the date wrong.
We know this because there is an extant printed copy of Symphony 37 - very badly misnumbered - which is dated 1758.
Some scholars in the past have suggested that Symphony 37 might therefore be in fact the real first symphony - occasionally 18, 2, 4, and 27 have also been nominated besides Symphony 1 - this is no longer a very widespread view; the first symphony was Symphony 1.
Beware of old and dated scholarship!
When Griesinger visited Haydn after 1800, the old man was struggling with his memory, but Haydn was adamant and clear that Symphony 1 was the first.
It was written for Count Morzin by whom Haydn was employed c.1757 - 1761 ie immediately prior to the Eszterhazys.
Haydn simply got the date of Symphony 1 wrong by a year or two - right symphony, wrong date.
In summary: Symphony 1 was composed in 1757, and was Haydn’s first symphony; Symphony 37 is almost certainly the second symphony (1757/58).
The most recent research on this subject for further reference is by Sonja Gerlach - unfortunately not available in English.
@@elaineblackhurst1509 Thanks.
@@elaineblackhurst1509 0
Is this the first symphony ever?
The latest research on the chronology of Haydn's symphonies (Sonja Gerlach) does suggest that this is indeed his 1st symphony (1757). However, this is not by far the first symphony ever. Johann Stamitz is the one who formalized its structure and gave it its own status and not just as an introductory piece to operas. Listen to his symphonies Op. 3 for example (composed between 1743 and 1748, and published in 1757)
I'm sad.
I'm sad
@@humberthumbert8148 I'm sad
Written in 1759. Haydn was 27.
Kent Isaksson
Haydn’s first symphony - Symphony 1 - was written in *1757.*
Haydn was 25.
The latest research - in particular by the German musicologist Sonja Gerlach* - has established that Symphony 1 is the first symphony by Haydn and that it was composed in 1757, thus making the composer 25 years old.
The second symphony is almost certainly the badly misnumbered Symphony 37 of which there is an extant printed copy dated 1758.
Haydn himself was adamant that Symphony 1 was his first symphony, so the discovery of the copy of Symphony 37 means that the old possible dating of Symphony 1 being 1759 cannot be correct.
* Building on the work of Larsen, Robbins Landon, et al.
@@elaineblackhurst1509 Okay. I was refering to this "While it is reliably known that No. 1 was written in 1759, H. C. Robbins Landon cannot rule out that No. 2,[3]No. 4,[4] or both could have been composed in 1757 or 1758." (Wiki)
Kent Isaksson
No prob; as you are interested, hope you find the following useful as Wikipedia’s info is slightly dated and not entirely accurate.
As explained, Symphony 1 cannot be dated as 1759 because of the extant printed copy of Symphony 37 dated 1758, and Haydn himself being adamant that Symphony 1 was the first one.
Robbins Landon’s ground-breaking - literally - five volume definitive biography was written in the 1970’s and more recent research has meant that some of his datings and conclusions need to be revised; for example, as shown below, it is now thought possible to backdate as many as six symphonies to 1757.
Regarding the chronology of the symphonies, the universally accepted current last word on the subject is Sonja Gerlach’s study - building on Larsen, HCRL, et al - which says in summary:
Symphony 1 1757
Symphony 37 1757 - 1758
Symphony 18 1757 - 1759
Symphony 2 1757 - 1759
Symphony 4 1757 - 1760
Symphony 27 1757 - 1760
Hope that helps.
Danggg
Why couldn't Beethoven find his teacher?
Beethoven found four important teachers:
*Neefe* - his Bonn teacher up to his move to Vienna in 1792.
*Haydn* - his counterpoint teacher from his arrival in Vienna in November 1792 until January 1794.
*Albrechtsberger* - who took over the counterpoint lesson when Haydn left for England.
*Salieri* - Italian vocal composition.
i prefere mozart, but his music is very beutiful!
I prefer Haydn , but all is good
Both have their own kind of music..dont comparise them
I prefer haydn, but if us haydn-preferring people are anything like haydn, we should be preferring mozart
Haydn > Mozart
Rafael Jordi Larrañaga de Bofarull
The most useful thing that everyone in this thread could do, would be to do as Mozart and Haydn did themselves - to try to appreciate the *differences* between these two ‘A’ list composers.
Any attempt to look for *similarities* will simply leave the fans of the one composer as disappointed - and probably deluded - as those of the other.
my name is josue rwima im see how the made in1975 s song
2nd mov. reminds of inky winky spider....I mean incy wincy
Since Haydn is the Father of Symphony, is this the first ever symphony in the history of mankind?
Mindblower
Haydn is categorically *not* the ‘Father of the Symphony’; so no, there were hundreds of symphonies written before Haydn’s first one (c.1757).
What would be true to say however, is that through a long series of innovative masterworks, symphonies of the highest quality, Haydn raised and set the standard of the genre so high that few composers were able to match him* - Mozart with his last six symphonies most obviously, and Beethoven at the start of the next age.
Haydn established the symphony as a measure by which all composers from Mozart and himself, then Beethoven, through to the present day, would be judged - the same is true of some other genres, notably the string quartet.
Believing in a ‘Father of the Symphony’ is about as rational as believing in ‘Father Christmas’!
* A number of composers such as Kraus, Boccherini, Dittersdorf, Vanhal, Michael Haydn, JC Bach, CPE Bach - and many others - wrote some symphonies of the highest quality that are also well worth seeking out.
@@elaineblackhurst1509 But those written before Haydn's 1st are not called 'symphonies' right since there wasn't a standard format?
Mindblower
Usually the Italian word ‘Sinfonia’ was used in most parts of Europe, in England, sometimes ‘overture’, but the two words were effectively synonymous.
The word sinfonia* came originally from the ‘sinfonia avanti l’opera’ - symphony before the opera ie an overture - hence the English word still being used as late as the mid-1790’s to describe Haydn’s London symphonies.
The word overture persisted in England as symphonies - or sometimes part of a symphony - would usually open both the first and second parts of late 18th century concerts; these concerts would include concertos, vocal numbers and other items - in other words, they were the overture to the evening’s entertainment.
As I stated, there were many symphonies written across Europe, all in a recognisable form either with or without a minuet written before 1757, the date of composition of Haydn’s first symphony - Symphony 1.
You can check out very early symphonies by composers such as GB Sammartini, Johann Stamitz, Monn, Fils, Wagenseil, Beck, Richter, Holzbauer, CPE Bach and a number of other composers - there is no debate that these composers wrote symphonies, recognisable as eighteenth century symphonies - works that were not simply opera overtures - and that they were written before any of those by Haydn.
There is even an extant four movement symphony in D major by Monn dating from as early as 1740.
Haydn’s main contribution to the development of the symphony was to take the form and move it from largely background entertainment music for aristocrats, to a form with a far greater musical, dramatic and emotional substance, largely intended for a much wider, ticket paying public - symphonies in Haydn’s hands became the powerful and impressive works that are still played and loved today.
The structures and forms, such as sonata form were developed out of all recognition in highly original and inventive ways; the symphony was moved by Haydn, and also by Mozart in his last six symphonies - and one or two earlier ones - to a totally different level.
It should not be forgotten that there were other important contributions to the development of the symphony, one such example amongst many would be the works coming out of the Mannheim school, Johann Stamitz being a key example of the first generation, his two sons and Cannabich being representatives of the second generation.
Haydn’s Symphony 1 is only the first step on his journey, but it really can *not* be called ‘the first ever symphony in the history of mankind’.
It would be true to say however, that his contribution to the development of the form was so significant and important that it was he primarily, who transformed the symphony from being light background entertainment music, to a vehicle in which all future composers - starting with himself and Mozart, then Beethoven - poured some of their most profound, beautiful, and memorable thoughts.
Hope you find that explanation helpful.
* For our friends in the US, the Italian word ‘Sinfonia’ is pronounced correctly:
‘Seen-fon-*ee*-ah’.
@@elaineblackhurst1509 Dear Elaine, your response is brilliant. I was about to reply to Mindblower and explain that the form of the symphony we know today was indeed formalized by Haydn but was a "natural" evolution of the sinfonia avanti opera you mentioned. If any title of "Father of the symphony" should be given to any composer, I believe that Jan Vaclav Stamic (Johann Stamitz Sr.) is a serious contender. Although he never brought the symphony to the level it reached with Haydn, he was one of the first composers to give the symphony its own status instead of the simple function of drawing the attention of the public to the opera they were about to enjoy. Thank you for your nice and concise explanation. Friedrich
ComposersbyNumbers
Thank you for your kind comment.
I agree entirely with what you say about Johann Stamitz; I mentioned him twice in my original post, simply because I believe he played such an important role in establishing the symphony as something completely new in every respect - form, structure, orchestration, dynamics, a different use of the (sometimes new) instruments, the addition of a minuet, and so forth.
We should perhaps forget the title ‘father of the symphony’, it is on reflection not particularly helpful and is in fact more misleading than enlightening.
It is not an expression I have ever used, though as shown by the original comment to which I responded, it is quite prevalent - in truth, the symphony has a rather mixed parentage...and nationality!
The main contribution of Haydn above anyone else is the extent to which he transformed the symphony which took it from the world of Stamitz in the 1740’s and 1750’s, to the threshold of Beethoven.
This coupled to his status as the best known, most published composer of the age, meant he was very influential - also, the key role Mozart played too with later symphonies he wrote in Vienna after he met Haydn, 35. 36, 38, and 39 - 41 showed that Haydn’s developments had taken deep roots.
Whether this qualifies Haydn for the title of ‘father’ I agree is debatable though I think the notion is absurd (maybe foster-parent, or step-father at a stretch).
In a sort of biological sense, Stamitz certainly does have a better claim to the title, but overall - as no such person really exists - it would be better not to use the title at all.
This sounds like young Mozart
Yes but in the year when this work was written (1759) Mozart was three years young, and the man who had created this new symphonic style, Johann Stamitz, was dead since only two years back.
Mathias Georg Monn was one of the pioneer in this new symphonic style.Sadly he died very young.
Also Johann Stamitz, the other pioneer of the new style, died very young. Monn and Stamitz worked on the same project at the same time, one in Vienna, the other in Mannheim.
Perhaps because Mozart was copying from the best. To bad Mozart didn’t live to reach maturity as Haydn did.
Like Johann Christian Bach!
Beethoven is better than Mozart!
My favorite composer you ask?
Haydn
Haydn > Mozart
The music is interesting but the interpretation by Hogwood is soporiphere
Is what?
Patricia Yeiser Soporific (sleep inducing)?
From the Latin: sopor = sleep, or in this case probably from the Italian - soporifero/a.
@@elaineblackhurst1509 I know the source of the word.But there is no such word as sorporiphere. And this music is not inducing to sleep.
Patricia Yeiser Did you miss my question mark?
I think the original comment may have referred to the performance, rather than the music.