“Kraus was the first man of genius I ever knew… The Symphony in C minor, which he wrote here in Vienna especially for me, is a work which will be regarded as a masterpiece for all time…” - Joseph Haydn
K A Nesiah The quotation is very relevant as Haydn probably rated Kraus behind only Mozart - and later Beethoven - as a composer. Note: There is some debate amongst scholars however whether it was this c minor symphony (VB 142), or the D major work (VB 143) that was the one dedicated to and performed at Eszterhaza when Kraus visited Haydn there in 1783; I believe that it was the c minor work.
Cuando empecé a leer está nota, me dio un temblor en el cuerpo, no era yo el único que estaba ambelezado por la audacia y belleza de su creación y veo que eran palabras de Haydn, ya mi admiración por ambos músicos es mayor.
A very original work for that time. Most minor key works only start in the minor, one has the impression the composer can't wait to shake of the minor feel to go as fast as possible to the relative major. In all Haydns' minor key works this is the case.
@@christianwouters6764 Oh dear Christian, it’s very important to be factually disciplined; take a look at Haydn’s Symphony 49 (‘La passione’), or Symphony 44 (‘Trauer’), for example. In 49, the only major key music is the trio of the Minuet; in 44, only the slow movement, and again the trio are in the major. Additionally, in many other works which *do* resolve into the major, such as Symphony 45, or 95 (where the tonal relationship of the movements is almost identical to Beethoven 5), it is a far more complex matter than simply resolving into the relative major - they are always carefully thought-out tonal journeys moving from A to Z via a very interesting route.
I want this played so much more. It's just good! It hits your heart and dances around in there and then does a double back flip out and sincerely says "it's been a pleasure".
The bass drop just after 2:43 is a certified 18th-century headbang moment. This has been one of my favourite symphonies of the era for a long time. The raw power of those hammered ii65 chords at 1:06 after a quiet stile antico opening gives me the chills every time! One thing I've never really paid attention to until now is just how unconventional the form is in the 1st movement: it's almost as if there's a full development section inside the secondary theme zone, while the development section proper seems to be just a short retransition. Add in the fact that Kraus follows the common mid-18th-century strategy of not having a clearly marked end for the development (i.e. lacking a conventional recapitulation with a tonic-key return to the primary theme at the onset) and then the fact that we don't get to the tonic until the primary theme finally returns much later, since the (equally development-like) instance of secondary theme material that begins the "recapitulation" is in the wrong key... we're constantly left wondering whether we are in a development section or not. It's wonderfully enigmatic!
Thanks for putting this video together! I'm the one who uploaded this score to IMSLP, and it makes me super happy to see it used in a RUclips video so that listeners can discover this work more easily :)
John Król You’re right about the sturm und drang feel about this symphony, but written in 1783, it does post-date the c.1765 - 1775 period when this style was in fashion. I think some features of sturm und drang were fundamentally inherent to Kraus’s music, rather like they were in Mozart as well - not all minor key music from this period is sturm und drang. Probably worth remembering too that Haydn knew Kraus, Mozart and Vanhal; his assessment of Kraus was to call him a ‘genius’, and he spoke about him in terms approaching how he spoke of Mozart, he never referred to Vanhal in such a way. In short: whilst Vanhal’s sturm und drang works are very fine, I think there is more in the later works of Kraus whose development in the 1780’s was impressive as opposed to Vanhal who post-sturm und drang music actually generally went backwards. Composers of the late 18th century shared a common musical language, reminisces of one being heard in the music of another is not unusual; don’t read too much into it.
I. Larghetto [00:00] - Allegro [2:20] II. Andante [9:19] III. Allegro assai [14:33] ♫ LIKE and SUBSCRIBE for more score videos! → ruclips.net/user/StefanoPaparozzi
It was also revised: the original had Flutes instead of Oboes, only two Horns, and a Continuo part lately replaced by the Contrabass. Most importantly, the original C# was in four movements (it included a Menuet as third).
Questa sinfonia ci insegna che attorno ai compositori noti (e stranoti) ci sono infiniti orizzonti di eccellenza ancora da riscoprire. Sempre e ancora grazie per questo impegno culturale. (PS. sarei curioso di scoprire le motivazioni di quei due "pollici versi")
gradwhan Just a reply to the ‘Typical Sturm und Drang Symphony’ part of your comment which is I think debatable. Haydn’s Symphony 44 (c.1770/71) is a typical ‘sturm und drang’ symphony containing many of the easily identifiable and specific features of the style. This symphony by Kraus was written much later (1783) and is not really sturm und drang; such works are largely limited to Vienna between the years c.1765 - 1775; ergo, this work is far too late to be considered a sturm und drang work (particularly as it contains very few of the standard features of the style). It is worth saying that not all minor key music from this period - no matter how stormy - is sturm und drang, for example, none of Mozart’s minor key music is sturm und drang apart from the Symphony 25 (K183). However, it is true to say that for Kraus - Mozart as well - that his music has features of sturm und drang that are fundamentally inherent in his style and appear frequently in his works; the point is that they are Kraus, not sturm und drang. If you are looking for ‘influences’ on Kraus, Gluck in particular will provide some helpful pointers, as indeed will Haydn.
@@elaineblackhurst1509 While you are correct, Elaoine, that the Strum und Drang repertoire is narrowly defined by the 1760s and '70s, the style left several important stylistic markers which later composers inherited and used in their minor-key works. These include: tremolandi, "rocket"-like themes (themselves inherited by the Sturm und Drang composers from early Mannheim-steamroller themes), horn and violin suspensions, and much else. So while Kraus is not narrowly a Strum und Drang composer, several of his symphonies (this c minor, the other c minor, the d minor sinfonia, the Funeral Music, the Cantata and the e minor symphony ideed show imprints from te Strum und Drang inheritance.
@@joshsussman9432 I get your point completely; but where perhaps I differ, is that I think both Mozart and Kraus had inherent in their minor key works, some of the features which people identify as ‘sturm und drang’. However, I think these features would have been there even if sturm und drang had never existed. I am thinking of Mozart’s demonic minor key music in Don Giovanni, or the d minor piano concerto No 20 (K466) for example, along with all the fine Kraus works you mention. It is worth mentioning that Mozart made only one single deliberate attempt at a specifically sturm und drang type work, the g minor Symphony 25 (K183), anything else is only incidental and superficially similar.* I think Haydn post-sturm und drang, along with Beethoven went down entirely different paths with their minor key music. Yes, I know the rising arpeggio figure at the start of Beethoven’s f minor piano sonata Opus 2 No 1, or the e minor arpeggio at the start of Haydn’s sonata Hob. XVI: 34, but neither are sturm und drang, though they are rising ‘Rocket’ type figures. As such, it’s easy to think they must somehow be sturm und drang, as the opening of each of these two works does superficially resemble something which in reality, they are not. In short, not all 18th century music of this type is sturm und drang just because it is in a minor key, and not all minor key music is sturm und drang. Some interesting points; thanks for your contribution. * Possibly some of the Thamos music of 1773 (K345/336a) could also be included as sturm und drang.
Perhaps some touches of Gluck and Haydn assimilated into Kraus’ very unique musical language, but I can hear absolutely nothing from Planet CPE. What is it you hear that ‘sounds like CPE Bach’ ?
“Kraus was the first man of genius I ever knew… The Symphony in C minor, which he wrote here in Vienna especially for me, is a work which will be regarded as a masterpiece for all time…” - Joseph Haydn
K A Nesiah
The quotation is very relevant as Haydn probably rated Kraus behind only Mozart - and later Beethoven - as a composer.
Note: There is some debate amongst scholars however whether it was this c minor symphony (VB 142), or the D major work (VB 143) that was the one dedicated to and performed at Eszterhaza when Kraus visited Haydn there in 1783; I believe that it was the c minor work.
Cuando empecé a leer está nota, me dio un temblor en el cuerpo, no era yo el único que estaba ambelezado por la audacia y belleza de su creación y veo que eran palabras de Haydn, ya mi admiración por ambos músicos es mayor.
Haydn! He took what he found and improved it. And - always the gentleman - gave credit.
A very original work for that time. Most minor key works only start in the minor, one has the impression the composer can't wait to shake of the minor feel to go as fast as possible to the relative major. In all Haydns' minor key works this is the case.
@@christianwouters6764
Oh dear Christian, it’s very important to be factually disciplined; take a look at Haydn’s Symphony 49 (‘La passione’), or Symphony 44 (‘Trauer’), for example.
In 49, the only major key music is the trio of the Minuet; in 44, only the slow movement, and again the trio are in the major.
Additionally, in many other works which *do* resolve into the major, such as Symphony 45, or 95 (where the tonal relationship of the movements is almost identical to Beethoven 5), it is a far more complex matter than simply resolving into the relative major - they are always carefully thought-out tonal journeys moving from A to Z via a very interesting route.
I want this played so much more. It's just good! It hits your heart and dances around in there and then does a double back flip out and sincerely says "it's been a pleasure".
Excellent! More united in spirit than many of Mozart and Haydn's works. He follows a single clear line of musical thought. One can hear the hard work.
The bass drop just after 2:43 is a certified 18th-century headbang moment.
This has been one of my favourite symphonies of the era for a long time. The raw power of those hammered ii65 chords at 1:06 after a quiet stile antico opening gives me the chills every time! One thing I've never really paid attention to until now is just how unconventional the form is in the 1st movement: it's almost as if there's a full development section inside the secondary theme zone, while the development section proper seems to be just a short retransition.
Add in the fact that Kraus follows the common mid-18th-century strategy of not having a clearly marked end for the development (i.e. lacking a conventional recapitulation with a tonic-key return to the primary theme at the onset) and then the fact that we don't get to the tonic until the primary theme finally returns much later, since the (equally development-like) instance of secondary theme material that begins the "recapitulation" is in the wrong key... we're constantly left wondering whether we are in a development section or not. It's wonderfully enigmatic!
Very dense collection of ideas. Very novel symphony for it's times. Also several notches higher than many romantic works.
Thanks for putting this video together! I'm the one who uploaded this score to IMSLP, and it makes me super happy to see it used in a RUclips video so that listeners can discover this work more easily :)
Well, then thank you for the upload! :D
This symphony is amazing, just the melody at 5:13 is enough to make me come back to it time and time again
This symphony deserves lavish admiration.
Great work sharing it with the world on your channel~
What a joy to discover this composer....he should be more widely known. Thank you for posting. I can not wait to discover more of his works.
Then listen to his Simphonie Funèbre + Funeral Cantata! ruclips.net/video/iXBL0hYpxZU/видео.html
Once you dive into this music, it really is brilliant; such careful thought went into it.
I love this symphony. Kraus' work here reminds me of Vanhal's Sturm und Drang symphonies, but more daring in harmony and with more variety in motifs.
John Król
You’re right about the sturm und drang feel about this symphony, but written in 1783, it does post-date the c.1765 - 1775 period when this style was in fashion.
I think some features of sturm und drang were fundamentally inherent to Kraus’s music, rather like they were in Mozart as well - not all minor key music from this period is sturm und drang.
Probably worth remembering too that Haydn knew Kraus, Mozart and Vanhal; his assessment of Kraus was to call him a ‘genius’, and he spoke about him in terms approaching how he spoke of Mozart, he never referred to Vanhal in such a way.
In short: whilst Vanhal’s sturm und drang works are very fine, I think there is more in the later works of Kraus whose development in the 1780’s was impressive as opposed to Vanhal who post-sturm und drang music actually generally went backwards.
Composers of the late 18th century shared a common musical language, reminisces of one being heard in the music of another is not unusual; don’t read too much into it.
This symphony has a high density of ideas.
One of the composers I admire the most. I think at the same level with Haydn... great
I. Larghetto [00:00] - Allegro [2:20]
II. Andante [9:19]
III. Allegro assai [14:33]
♫ LIKE and SUBSCRIBE for more score videos! → ruclips.net/user/StefanoPaparozzi
Interesting use of divided violas, and independent basso part too.
this symphony was actually writen in c sharp minor at first. the first symphony in that key. it was later transcribed in an 'easier key' (c minor)
It was also revised: the original had Flutes instead of Oboes, only two Horns, and a Continuo part lately replaced by the Contrabass. Most importantly, the original C# was in four movements (it included a Menuet as third).
Questa sinfonia ci insegna che attorno ai compositori noti (e stranoti) ci sono infiniti orizzonti di eccellenza ancora da riscoprire. Sempre e ancora grazie per questo impegno culturale. (PS. sarei curioso di scoprire le motivazioni di quei due "pollici versi")
This is incredible my god
Delightful!
This symphony is as fine as Mozart's and Haydn's worst. Excellent. One of the most overlooked of all composers.
I would say it is as good as Haydns and Mozarts bests.
Is that a compliment lol? I'm confused
What?
there is so much going on at times
Thank you. ❤️🍂🍁
It takes a great master indeed to impress Haydn.
Somehow reminds me of Haydn's 44th Symphony in E minor. Typical Sturm and Drang Symphony
gradwhan
Just a reply to the ‘Typical Sturm und Drang Symphony’ part of your comment which is I think debatable.
Haydn’s Symphony 44 (c.1770/71) is a typical ‘sturm und drang’ symphony containing many of the easily identifiable and specific features of the style.
This symphony by Kraus was written much later (1783) and is not really sturm und drang; such works are largely limited to Vienna between the years c.1765 - 1775; ergo, this work is far too late to be considered a sturm und drang work (particularly as it contains very few of the standard features of the style).
It is worth saying that not all minor key music from this period - no matter how stormy - is sturm und drang, for example, none of Mozart’s minor key music is sturm und drang apart from the Symphony 25 (K183).
However, it is true to say that for Kraus - Mozart as well - that his music has features of sturm und drang that are fundamentally inherent in his style and appear frequently in his works; the point is that they are Kraus, not sturm und drang.
If you are looking for ‘influences’ on Kraus, Gluck in particular will provide some helpful pointers, as indeed will Haydn.
@@elaineblackhurst1509 While you are correct, Elaoine, that the Strum und Drang repertoire is narrowly defined by the 1760s and '70s, the style left several important stylistic markers which later composers inherited and used in their minor-key works. These include: tremolandi, "rocket"-like themes (themselves inherited by the Sturm und Drang composers from early Mannheim-steamroller themes), horn and violin suspensions, and much else.
So while Kraus is not narrowly a Strum und Drang composer, several of his symphonies (this c minor, the other c minor, the d minor sinfonia, the Funeral Music, the Cantata and the e minor symphony ideed show imprints from te Strum und Drang inheritance.
@@joshsussman9432
I get your point completely; but where perhaps I differ, is that I think both Mozart and Kraus had inherent in their minor key works, some of the features which people identify as ‘sturm und drang’.
However, I think these features would have been there even if sturm und drang had never existed.
I am thinking of Mozart’s demonic minor key music in Don Giovanni, or the d minor piano concerto No 20 (K466) for example, along with all the fine Kraus works you mention.
It is worth mentioning that Mozart made only one single deliberate attempt at a specifically sturm und drang type work, the g minor Symphony 25 (K183), anything else is only incidental and superficially similar.*
I think Haydn post-sturm und drang, along with Beethoven went down entirely different paths with their minor key music.
Yes, I know the rising arpeggio figure at the start of Beethoven’s f minor piano sonata Opus 2 No 1, or the e minor arpeggio at the start of Haydn’s sonata Hob. XVI: 34, but neither are sturm und drang, though they are rising ‘Rocket’ type figures.
As such, it’s easy to think they must somehow be sturm und drang, as the opening of each of these two works does superficially resemble something which in reality, they are not.
In short, not all 18th century music of this type is sturm und drang just because it is in a minor key, and not all minor key music is sturm und drang.
Some interesting points; thanks for your contribution.
* Possibly some of the Thamos music of 1773 (K345/336a) could also be included as sturm und drang.
00:14:33
Why do I have to think about Bach while listening to the opening?
Counterpoint.
nice pice!
The Birth dates seem to be wrong
Corrected, thank you!
sounds like cpe bach
Perhaps some touches of Gluck and Haydn assimilated into Kraus’ very unique musical language, but I can hear absolutely nothing from Planet CPE.
What is it you hear that ‘sounds like CPE Bach’ ?