Mozart may have come and gone in a blaze (he only lived for 35 years), but his best buddy lived on for him. Haydn's life story is truly inspirational; from village peasant to choirboy to freelance composer to the "Father of the Symphony", I see him as a symbol of the quiet victories in life.
Haydn is a great many things as you say, but he is categorically *not* the ‘Father of the Symphony’. (You need to ignore the double paternity nonsense in the first paragraph of the description). A father by definition must be involved at the conception - Haydn was nowhere to be seen. The symphony originated around 1740 in places like: Milan (Sammartini, Brioschi) Mannheim (Johann Stamitz,* Richter, Holzbauer, Fils) Vienna (Wagenseil, Monn). Whilst the first genuine early-Classical symphonies were being written, Haydn was an 8 year-old choirboy singing treble in the St Stephen’s Cathedral choir in Vienna - he was fathering nothing. Haydn’s role in the development of the early symphony however was entirely a different matter, and even including Mozart, he was the composer who made the single greatest contribution to moving the genre from a 10 minute piece of background entertainment music, to the world of Beethoven. * In 1757 - the year of Haydn’s first symphony - Johann Stamitz died with about 60 modern Classical symphonies to his name, many in four movements, and some with clarinets.
@@elaineblackhurst1509it’s not meant to be taking that literal lmao. It means to say that he “fathered” the symphony, as in nurtured it and was pivotal in its development which Haydn most definitely was, same as the string quartet which despite others doing it before him, it would not be where it is as a genre today if Haydn had not fathered it.
In 1761 Mr Haydn became deputy director of the Esterházy-court. This is one of his first compositions for the count and his orchestra. Fine work, tasteful, rich in inventions. Thank you very much!
My understanding is that Symphony 3 pre-dates Haydn’s appointment to the Eszterhazy court. Symphony 3 is almost certainly a work written for his previous employer Count Morzin by whom Haydn was employed from probably 1757 until 1761 when as you say, he was appointed Vice-Kapellmeister to the Eszterhazys. You are quite right however that this is a remarkably fine symphony, in spite of being such an early work.
@@elaineblackhurst1509 I saw some scores by H's predecessor Werner at Eisenstadt court and they are very strange and irregular, I recognise features of this in H's early symphonies. I wonder if the downward and upward bowstroke indications for the strings in this particular symphony are original. H omitted this in his later works .
@@christianwouters6764 That’s completely new information to me - thank you. I suspect that if the Prince’s orchestra were used to reading Werner’s scores in his preserve of church music, then Haydn at least in the early stages at Eisenstadt probably found it useful to continue the old practices in his areas of instrumental and vocal music. The orchestra very rapidly became Haydn’s own, prompting some jealousy from Werner who had been appointed as far back as 1728, and who saw the primacy of church music being supplanted by the new instrumental music of his deputy. (Both Haydn’s first two Princes had an interest in the new music - Prince Paul Anton to 1762 (Symphonies 6-8), and then Prince Nicholas to 1790). In October 1765 Werner sent a very long letter of complaint to the Prince about Haydn, very possibly because Haydn was also abandoning the old ways and doing his own thing, though it has to be said that Werner’s church music was very old-fashioned, and time was passing him by; it was this as much as any particular antipathy to Haydn whom he called a mere ‘songwriter’, and ‘fashion-follower’ that probably caused the letter, along with possibly some valid complaints relating to the disordered choir loft and negligent musicians.
Lebhafte und wunderschöne Interpretation dieser fein komponierten Sinfonie mit seidigen Tönen aller Streicher, milden Tönen aller Holzbläser und brillanten Tönen aller Blechbläser. Der zweite Satz klingt besonders schön und echt tröstend. Im Kontrast klingt der letzte Satz echt lebhaft und auch begeisternd. Der intelligente und geniale Dirigent leitet das ausgezeichnete Kammerorchester in verschiedenen Tempi und mit perfekt kontrollierter Dynamik, als wäre es ein Teil seines Körpers. Wunderbar vom Anfang bis zum Ende!
What I find puzzling is that the viola mostly doubles the bass one octave higher and so comes in or over the sound of the violins but we don't perceive that in this way.
@@anthonypuccetti8779 The chances of Mozart knowing Haydn’s Symphony 3 are next to zero - he therefore could not have been influenced by it. Mozart knew Haydn very well post his move to Vienna; Haydn was really the only contemporary composer able to challenge and stimulate him - most obviously evident in his labouring over the six quartets dedicated to Haydn, but is also clear in some developments in Mozart’s later compositional style. The *do-re-fa-mi* motif which is evidenced as ‘influence’ by the UA-cam scholars you mention is an old, commonplace idea used frequently by 18th century composers because it offered fantastic opportunities for contrapuntal development. It was used for example by: *Mozart* Symphony 1 (K16) - slow movement Symphony (K Ahn 214 (45b)) Symphony 33 (K319) - first movement Symphony 41 (K551) - Finale Mass (K192). *Haydn* Symphony 3 - Finale Symphony 11 - second movement Symphony 13 - Finale Symphony 25 - third movement You will see from these two lists that any suggestion of ‘influence’ in relation to the little four-note motif is simply an absurdity; the word itself by the way is as ludicrously over-used as it is randomly mis-used - composers of this stature were rarely ‘influenced’ by anybody, though they did often assimilate techniques, and ideas of other composers into their own skills-set and therefore their own music. Hope that’s helpful.
@@elaineblackhurst1509 "The chances of Mozart knowing Haydn’s Symphony 3 are next to zero" No, Haydn's early symphonies and other unpublished works were distributed in manuscript copies by musicians throughout Austria. And Haydn's younger brother Michael who was a composer worked in the Salzburg cathedral with Mozart and probably had unpublished symphonies of Joseph. "Haydn was really the only contemporary composer able to challenge and stimulate him" No, he was challenged and stimulated also by Italian opera composers, J.C. Bach, Schobert, Michael Haydn, Gluck, Viotti, and others. "The do-re-fa-mi motif which is evidenced as ‘influence’ by the UA-cam scholars you mention is an old, commonplace idea used frequently by 18th century composers" I didn't mention that motif and Haydn didn't use it in this symphony. The motif he used in the last movement is G-A-F#-G. The motif of the first movement is the major key equivalent of the motif of the 1st movement of Mozart's symphony 25 in G minor. And the canonic minuet in Mozart's symphony 12 in G suggests that he knew this symphony or Haydn's symphony 23 in G, or both.
@@anthonypuccetti8779 As per our earlier discussion, I think it extremely unlikely that Mozart would ever have known Haydn’s Symphony 3, but rather that the well-known cantus firmus *do-re-fa-mi* (or slight variants) was common 18th century musical property; Mozart had first used it as early as in his own Symphony 1.
@@elaineblackhurst1509 Why do you keep bring up that motif? The Haydn symphony doesn't use that motif. I said that Mozart probably knew the Haydn symphony because of the similarity of the opening themes of the first movements, and Haydn's early symphonies were disseminated in manuscript copies throughout Austria, and Haydn's younger brother worked in the Salzburg cathedral with Mozart. Mozart scholars say that Mozart knew some of Haydn's unpublished symphonies when he was living in Salzburg.
@@anthonypuccetti8779 Because quite clearly, it is as a response to people keep making the same mistaken point about the motif - or the slight variants, and also because of the absurdly exaggerated mis-use of the words ‘inspired by…’ or ‘influenced by…’. I would be genuinely interested to know the sources for your point about Joseph Haydn’s symphonies being known in Salzburg.* My understanding is that Mozart came across most of the music of Joseph Haydn that he knew on trips to Vienna, such as the one in 1773 where he clearly heard/saw symphonies, string quartets, and piano sonatas at the very least as he himself wrote symphonies, string quartets and piano sonatas at the time where the evidence for this is quite clear (or even extant as in the case of Mozart’s annotation of copies of Haydn’s Opus 17 string quartets). * I think it likely however that some of Joseph Haydn’s sacred works *were* known in Salzburg; probably the Stabat Mater of 1767 for example which was known across Europe and was the only setting to rival that of Pergolesi in terms of popularity. The Missa brevis Sancti Johannis de Deo (‘Little Organ Mass’) was definitely known as Michael Haydn made an excellent job of untangling the telescoped text of the Gloria and Credo for performances in Salzburg as the jumble of SATB all singing different parts of the text simultaneously was not appreciated. (The lovely mass is excellent for liturgical use, but the younger bother’s revised version is far preferable to the older brother’s original).
The early symphonies have an appeal of irregularity and unexpectedness that the later ones are somewhat lacking. They are of the same high craftmanship but become to, well, classical.
The later symphonies have plenty of irregularity and unexpected features. What the earlier symphonies have is modesty of proportion and more freshness and a provincial quality, because they were intended only for the Esterhazy court, not an international audience.
@@anthonypuccetti8779 You make a really good point that the symphonies were intended for a private selected audience rather than an international one (that came later); the same is true of Haydn’s operas as well, though in the case of these stage works, it has mitigated against their success today as Prince Nicholas was happy to sit through numbers lasting several minutes with stalled action, where as Paisiello, Cimarosa, or Mozart writing for a ticket-buying audience kept the drama moving and did the same in 3 minutes. The only thing I might quibble about is labelling anything at all about the Eszterhazy musical establishment as ‘provincial’. The Eszterhazy family spent a national income on music which allowed them to: employ international players and singers of the highest standard, perform in a magnificent Hungarian Versailles with beautiful concert halls (the Sala terrena) - with their own fully-fitted opera house, employ a Haydn - whose post was a plum job, gain plaudits from every visitor to Eszterhaza who invariably commented on the quality of the orchestra - the composer Kraus who visited in 1783 as part of a four year European tour wrote: ‘The orchestra is what you would expect of a Haydn - therefore one of the best. It is in fact not larger than 24 men, but makes an outstanding impression’, Et cetera. In addition, the Princes’ themselves in particular, and their visitors too (including the Empress), were highly musical themselves, so Haydn’s audiences were anything but provincial, a description better used perhaps to describe Mozart’s perennial frustrations at Salzburg. The final point is that even during the 1760’s and 1770’s, regardless of the contract making the music the exclusive property of the Prince, Haydn’s publications were leaking out and had got as far as Paris and London; the international fame came long before the ‘Paris’ symphonies of the 1780’s, and trips to England in the 1790’s. Hope that’s useful.
@@elaineblackhurst1509 "The only thing I might quibble about is labelling anything at all about the Eszterhazy musical establishment as ‘provincial’." By saying that the early symphonies have a provincial quality I mean that they frequently evoke the atmosphere of the local countryside and the Esterhazy court and have a cozy, unambitious, local feel rather than a cosmopolitan or international audience feel like in the Paris and London symphonies, or a cosmic feel like in the last symphony, and they make allusions to local things such as Catholic Latin chant, the Passion celebration, a night watchman song, Passion plays, operas and plays that were performed at the Esterhazy theater, the commedia dell' arte, hunting horn calls, local popular songs and dances, French style minuets that were played at the ballroom, Hungarian music. The Haydn scholar H. Robbins Landon points out all these allusions in his set of books about Haydn's symphonies. Its the same with Mozart's divertimentos and symphonies written in Salzburg. They have a local feel and are full of allusions to local things that attentive listeners of the time might have recognized. A lot of baroque and galant music is full of allusions to local things and persons that the composers knew.
@@anthonypuccetti8779 Once again, lots of interesting points which have given me food for thought, and with which I would not argue; thank you for troubling to reply. The only point I would add is that there were some wider (than just ‘provincial’) aspects to the music of both Mozart and Haydn - not always the same ones to the same degree - such as: - developments in orchestras in places like Mannheim; - an all-pervading Italian influence (including opera*); - pan-European treatises** relating to the playing of instruments by composers including: CPE Bach (keyboard) Quantz (flute) Leopold Mozart (violin). Along with the points raised in my previous post, these wider developments - and others - must I think be added to your ‘provincial’ list to give a more balanced picture. * I think much of the perceived ‘humour’ in Haydn’s instrumental works actually derives from Italian opera buffa. ** All three I think are still in print, and I re-read CPE’s Versuch recently.
It’s indeed quite surprising to listen to this music, which is far away from what most of us consider “typical” for Haydn. Including errors like parallel octaves and doubled leading tones. Nonetheless very interesting also to evaluate the evolution of his style . Thanks!!
Haydn said more than once that he was as well qualified as anyone he knew to determine what was right and wrong regarding rules; he was right, and told Beethoven to do the same thing when faced with musical pedantry from lesser men, pedagogues, and critics.
@@anthonypuccetti8779 they formally are but as for the parallel fifths, this “error” is not always bad. On the contrary, it sometimes results in a very good effect. Also Brahms once wrote a list featuring many examples of “errors” and divided them into very good, good, average or poor. In the casa of Haydn it’s just noticeable that he reduced the rate of parallel octaves or leading tones in the late works, but for example he used more often parallel fifths. But to use Brahms’s words… in a very good way!
Wait a minute, why is the orchestra taking the repeats in the Minuet after the Da Capo? Usually, the Minuet Da Capo does not take the repeats, but here, it is taking the repeats. I have never heard that actually being done, although I've heard of it as a possible interpretation of DC al Fine.
![R. Schumann, J. Brahms, A. Dietrich - F-A-E Sonata [With score]](/img/n.gif)
Mozart may have come and gone in a blaze (he only lived for 35 years), but his best buddy lived on for him. Haydn's life story is truly inspirational; from village peasant to choirboy to freelance composer to the "Father of the Symphony", I see him as a symbol of the quiet victories in life.
Haydn is a great many things as you say, but he is categorically *not* the ‘Father of the Symphony’.
(You need to ignore the double paternity nonsense in the first paragraph of the description).
A father by definition must be involved at the conception - Haydn was nowhere to be seen.
The symphony originated around 1740 in places like:
Milan (Sammartini, Brioschi)
Mannheim (Johann Stamitz,* Richter, Holzbauer, Fils)
Vienna (Wagenseil, Monn).
Whilst the first genuine early-Classical symphonies were being written, Haydn was an 8 year-old choirboy singing treble in the St Stephen’s Cathedral choir in Vienna - he was fathering nothing.
Haydn’s role in the development of the early symphony however was entirely a different matter, and even including Mozart, he was the composer who made the single greatest contribution to moving the genre from a 10 minute piece of background entertainment music, to the world of Beethoven.
* In 1757 - the year of Haydn’s first symphony - Johann Stamitz died with about 60 modern Classical symphonies to his name, many in four movements, and some with clarinets.
@@elaineblackhurst1509 I was just about to write the same thing, but then I discovered that the job was already done.
@@olavtryggvason1194
It was; but it needs others to challenge this absolute nonsense as well - thanks for the reply.
Almost as if that moniker wasn't meant to be taken literally. @@elaineblackhurst1509
@@elaineblackhurst1509it’s not meant to be taking that literal lmao. It means to say that he “fathered” the symphony, as in nurtured it and was pivotal in its development which Haydn most definitely was, same as the string quartet which despite others doing it before him, it would not be where it is as a genre today if Haydn had not fathered it.
Haydn is so amazing. Right up there with Bach, Mozart. At times even better.
In 1761 Mr Haydn became deputy director of the Esterházy-court. This is one of his first compositions for the count and his orchestra. Fine work, tasteful, rich in inventions. Thank you very much!
My understanding is that Symphony 3 pre-dates Haydn’s appointment to the Eszterhazy court.
Symphony 3 is almost certainly a work written for his previous employer Count Morzin by whom Haydn was employed from probably 1757 until 1761 when as you say, he was appointed Vice-Kapellmeister to the Eszterhazys.
You are quite right however that this is a remarkably fine symphony, in spite of being such an early work.
@@elaineblackhurst1509 You're possibly right. The 9th symphony is the first which was composed certainly not earlier than 1762. No 3. can be 1761.
@@elaineblackhurst1509 I saw some scores by H's predecessor Werner at Eisenstadt court and they are very strange and irregular, I recognise features of this in H's early symphonies.
I wonder if the downward and upward bowstroke indications for the strings in this particular symphony are original. H omitted this in his later works .
@@christianwouters6764
That’s completely new information to me - thank you.
I suspect that if the Prince’s orchestra were used to reading Werner’s scores in his preserve of church music, then Haydn at least in the early stages at Eisenstadt probably found it useful to continue the old practices in his areas of instrumental and vocal music.
The orchestra very rapidly became Haydn’s own, prompting some jealousy from Werner who had been appointed as far back as 1728, and who saw the primacy of church music being supplanted by the new instrumental music of his deputy.
(Both Haydn’s first two Princes had an interest in the new music - Prince Paul Anton to 1762 (Symphonies 6-8), and then Prince Nicholas to 1790).
In October 1765 Werner sent a very long letter of complaint to the Prince about Haydn, very possibly because Haydn was also abandoning the old ways and doing his own thing, though it has to be said that Werner’s church music was very old-fashioned, and time was passing him by; it was this as much as any particular antipathy to Haydn whom he called a mere ‘songwriter’, and ‘fashion-follower’ that probably caused the letter, along with possibly some valid complaints relating to the disordered choir loft and negligent musicians.
Lebhafte und wunderschöne Interpretation dieser fein komponierten Sinfonie mit seidigen Tönen aller Streicher, milden Tönen aller Holzbläser und brillanten Tönen aller Blechbläser. Der zweite Satz klingt besonders schön und echt tröstend. Im Kontrast klingt der letzte Satz echt lebhaft und auch begeisternd. Der intelligente und geniale Dirigent leitet das ausgezeichnete Kammerorchester in verschiedenen Tempi und mit perfekt kontrollierter Dynamik, als wäre es ein Teil seines Körpers. Wunderbar vom Anfang bis zum Ende!
That D#dim 3 at mm68 movement 1 is awesome! Love Haydn! And his subtle humour.
Beautiful work!
What I find puzzling is that the viola mostly doubles the bass one octave higher and so comes in or over the sound of the violins but we don't perceive that in this way.
It is interesting that the main theme of four notes repeats the theme of Mozart's symphony No25 (I - V - VI - VII), but in the major of the same name.
Mozart knew this symphony and was influenced by it.
@@anthonypuccetti8779
He didn’t, and he wasn’t.
@@elaineblackhurst1509 He was, according to Haydn and Mozart scholars.
@@anthonypuccetti8779
The chances of Mozart knowing Haydn’s Symphony 3 are next to zero - he therefore could not have been influenced by it.
Mozart knew Haydn very well post his move to Vienna; Haydn was really the only contemporary composer able to challenge and stimulate him - most obviously evident in his labouring over the six quartets dedicated to Haydn, but is also clear in some developments in Mozart’s later compositional style.
The *do-re-fa-mi* motif which is evidenced as ‘influence’ by the UA-cam scholars you mention is an old, commonplace idea used frequently by 18th century composers because it offered fantastic opportunities for contrapuntal development.
It was used for example by:
*Mozart*
Symphony 1 (K16) - slow movement
Symphony (K Ahn 214 (45b))
Symphony 33 (K319) - first movement
Symphony 41 (K551) - Finale
Mass (K192).
*Haydn*
Symphony 3 - Finale
Symphony 11 - second movement
Symphony 13 - Finale
Symphony 25 - third movement
You will see from these two lists that any suggestion of ‘influence’ in relation to the little four-note motif is simply an absurdity; the word itself by the way is as ludicrously over-used as it is randomly mis-used - composers of this stature were rarely ‘influenced’ by anybody, though they did often assimilate techniques, and ideas of other composers into their own skills-set and therefore their own music.
Hope that’s helpful.
@@elaineblackhurst1509 "The chances of Mozart knowing Haydn’s Symphony 3 are next to zero"
No, Haydn's early symphonies and other unpublished works were distributed in manuscript copies by musicians throughout Austria. And Haydn's younger brother Michael who was a composer worked in the Salzburg cathedral with Mozart and probably had unpublished symphonies of Joseph.
"Haydn was really the only contemporary composer able to challenge and stimulate him"
No, he was challenged and stimulated also by Italian opera composers, J.C. Bach, Schobert, Michael Haydn, Gluck, Viotti, and others.
"The do-re-fa-mi motif which is evidenced as ‘influence’ by the UA-cam scholars you mention is an old, commonplace idea used frequently by 18th century composers"
I didn't mention that motif and Haydn didn't use it in this symphony. The motif he used in the last movement is G-A-F#-G. The motif of the first movement is the major key equivalent of the motif of the 1st movement of Mozart's symphony 25 in G minor. And the canonic minuet in Mozart's symphony 12 in G suggests that he knew this symphony or Haydn's symphony 23 in G, or both.
wonderful Haydn 💙
that symphony reminds me of Mozart's symphony 25 opening chords bu1t in major version
Mozart could have known this symphony in Salzburg and was influenced by it.
@@anthonypuccetti8779
As per our earlier discussion, I think it extremely unlikely that Mozart would ever have known Haydn’s Symphony 3, but rather that the well-known cantus firmus *do-re-fa-mi* (or slight variants) was common 18th century musical property; Mozart had first used it as early as in his own Symphony 1.
@@elaineblackhurst1509 Why do you keep bring up that motif? The Haydn symphony doesn't use that motif. I said that Mozart probably knew the Haydn symphony because of the similarity of the opening themes of the first movements, and Haydn's early symphonies were disseminated in manuscript copies throughout Austria, and Haydn's younger brother worked in the Salzburg cathedral with Mozart. Mozart scholars say that Mozart knew some of Haydn's unpublished symphonies when he was living in Salzburg.
@@anthonypuccetti8779
Because quite clearly, it is as a response to people keep making the same mistaken point about the motif - or the slight variants, and also because of the absurdly exaggerated mis-use of the words ‘inspired by…’ or ‘influenced by…’.
I would be genuinely interested to know the sources for your point about Joseph Haydn’s symphonies being known in Salzburg.*
My understanding is that Mozart came across most of the music of Joseph Haydn that he knew on trips to Vienna, such as the one in 1773 where he clearly heard/saw symphonies, string quartets, and piano sonatas at the very least as he himself wrote symphonies, string quartets and piano sonatas at the time where the evidence for this is quite clear (or even extant as in the case of Mozart’s annotation of copies of Haydn’s Opus 17 string quartets).
* I think it likely however that some of Joseph Haydn’s sacred works *were* known in Salzburg; probably the Stabat Mater of 1767 for example which was known across Europe and was the only setting to rival that of Pergolesi in terms of popularity.
The Missa brevis Sancti Johannis de Deo (‘Little Organ Mass’) was definitely known as Michael Haydn made an excellent job of untangling the telescoped text of the Gloria and Credo for performances in Salzburg as the jumble of SATB all singing different parts of the text simultaneously was not appreciated.
(The lovely mass is excellent for liturgical use, but the younger bother’s revised version is far preferable to the older brother’s original).
The early symphonies have an appeal of irregularity and unexpectedness that the later ones are somewhat lacking. They are of the same high craftmanship but become to, well, classical.
You are right. I am thinking e.g. of the 6-8. Symphonies with solo parts. Very fresh and intriguing compositions
The later symphonies have plenty of irregularity and unexpected features. What the earlier symphonies have is modesty of proportion and more freshness and a provincial quality, because they were intended only for the Esterhazy court, not an international audience.
@@anthonypuccetti8779
You make a really good point that the symphonies were intended for a private selected audience rather than an international one (that came later); the same is true of Haydn’s operas as well, though in the case of these stage works, it has mitigated against their success today as Prince Nicholas was happy to sit through numbers lasting several minutes with stalled action, where as Paisiello, Cimarosa, or Mozart writing for a ticket-buying audience kept the drama moving and did the same in 3 minutes.
The only thing I might quibble about is labelling anything at all about the Eszterhazy musical establishment as ‘provincial’.
The Eszterhazy family spent a national income on music which allowed them to:
employ international players and singers of the highest standard,
perform in a magnificent Hungarian Versailles with beautiful concert halls (the Sala terrena)
- with their own fully-fitted opera house,
employ a Haydn
- whose post was a plum job,
gain plaudits from every visitor to Eszterhaza who invariably commented on the quality of the orchestra
- the composer Kraus who visited in 1783 as part of a four year European tour wrote:
‘The orchestra is what you would expect of a Haydn - therefore one of the best. It is in fact not larger than 24 men, but makes an outstanding impression’,
Et cetera.
In addition, the Princes’ themselves in particular, and their visitors too (including the Empress), were highly musical themselves, so Haydn’s audiences were anything but provincial, a description better used perhaps to describe Mozart’s perennial frustrations at Salzburg.
The final point is that even during the 1760’s and 1770’s, regardless of the contract making the music the exclusive property of the Prince, Haydn’s publications were leaking out and had got as far as Paris and London; the international fame came long before the ‘Paris’ symphonies of the 1780’s, and trips to England in the 1790’s.
Hope that’s useful.
@@elaineblackhurst1509 "The only thing I might quibble about is labelling anything at all about the Eszterhazy musical establishment as ‘provincial’."
By saying that the early symphonies have a provincial quality I mean that they frequently evoke the atmosphere of the local countryside and the Esterhazy court and have a cozy, unambitious, local feel rather than a cosmopolitan or international audience feel like in the Paris and London symphonies, or a cosmic feel like in the last symphony, and they make allusions to local things such as Catholic Latin chant, the Passion celebration, a night watchman song, Passion plays, operas and plays that were performed at the Esterhazy theater, the commedia dell' arte, hunting horn calls, local popular songs and dances, French style minuets that were played at the ballroom, Hungarian music. The Haydn scholar H. Robbins Landon points out all these allusions in his set of books about Haydn's symphonies. Its the same with Mozart's divertimentos and symphonies written in Salzburg. They have a local feel and are full of allusions to local things that attentive listeners of the time might have recognized. A lot of baroque and galant music is full of allusions to local things and persons that the composers knew.
@@anthonypuccetti8779
Once again, lots of interesting points which have given me food for thought, and with which I would not argue; thank you for troubling to reply.
The only point I would add is that there were some wider (than just ‘provincial’) aspects to the music of both Mozart and Haydn - not always the same ones to the same degree - such as:
- developments in orchestras in places like Mannheim;
- an all-pervading Italian influence (including opera*);
- pan-European treatises** relating to the playing of instruments by composers including:
CPE Bach (keyboard)
Quantz (flute)
Leopold Mozart (violin).
Along with the points raised in my previous post, these wider developments - and others - must I think be added to your ‘provincial’ list to give a more balanced picture.
* I think much of the perceived ‘humour’ in Haydn’s instrumental works actually derives from Italian opera buffa.
** All three I think are still in print, and I re-read CPE’s Versuch recently.
👍👍👍
It’s indeed quite surprising to listen to this music, which is far away from what most of us consider “typical” for Haydn. Including errors like parallel octaves and doubled leading tones. Nonetheless very interesting also to evaluate the evolution of his style . Thanks!!
Haydn said more than once that he was as well qualified as anyone he knew to determine what was right and wrong regarding rules; he was right, and told Beethoven to do the same thing when faced with musical pedantry from lesser men, pedagogues, and critics.
Its not untypical for his early style. And I doubt the parallel octaves and doubled leading tones are errors.
@@anthonypuccetti8779 they formally are but as for the parallel fifths, this “error” is not always bad. On the contrary, it sometimes results in a very good effect. Also Brahms once wrote a list featuring many examples of “errors” and divided them into very good, good, average or poor. In the casa of Haydn it’s just noticeable that he reduced the rate of parallel octaves or leading tones in the late works, but for example he used more often parallel fifths. But to use Brahms’s words… in a very good way!
@@dialoghi3261 I agree.
MENUETtOOOOOO
The last movement is the theme Mozart used in Leck mich im arsch!
that son old times made 31 march 173 to 31 may 1890 was an austrian composer
Wait a minute, why is the orchestra taking the repeats in the Minuet after the Da Capo? Usually, the Minuet Da Capo does not take the repeats, but here, it is taking the repeats. I have never heard that actually being done, although I've heard of it as a possible interpretation of DC al Fine.
Don't you think the last movement of the Mozart's Jupiter Symphony sounds suspiciously like the last movement of this symphony?
Hayden rote this for 2x speed
Who’s Hayden (sic) ?