oh, nothing aggravates me more ( well, not nothing but still) than monotonous one-composer mainly programs, or those based on anniversaries and so on. A combo like this is intelligent and even poignant. then again, when it's something on the nose( shostak.15th with will tell by rossini is an example) then we fall back to cliche territory.
I find the distinction between "eclectic" and "pure" composers fascinating and so spot on. I've been thinking about it for some time but I couldn't quite put it into words. It reminds me of how John Williams (the film composer, whom I consider a genius) gets regularly dissed for being "kitsch" (eclectic) while some repetitive composers that have really done the same thing over and over again have such an inexplicable good reputation.
I am completely in awe and shock after hearing the Haydn excerpt. I didn't even know of its existence. This video is a testament to Haydn's unrivaled genius as the progenitor of symphonic writing. We have to note that he had vastly less to draw from compared to Mahler.And yet, he brought these forms to such a level of maturity that his music inspires centuries later. It looks like Haydn was a titan. A singular genius with a mountanious output. Definitely need to listen and explore a lot more of Haydn.
Thanks Dave for such a compelling, concise talk. In my younger days, if anyone would have told me that there were ANY similarities between Haydn and Mahler I would have believed they'd taken leave of their senses. I seem to remember you mentioning in passing in a previous talk those similarities, and truth be told, you left me scratching my head in disbelief. It's in this particular talk, complete with the two audio examples, that I finally understand. It's a wonderful, satisfying feeling to not just listen to music because you like it, but to know WHY you like it as well. I really appreciate your bring this "WHY" home to me and others. Thank you again for such an enlightening talk.
Dear Mr. Hurwitz, I follow your channel almost from the beginning and it gives me great joy. But this is perhaps the one most illuminating comment you have ever made. The distinction between the "eclectic" and "pure" style composers would merit a more detailed treatment from you - an essay? Please do continue with your videos.
Austro-Czech tradition was always very broad. Mahler was Czech by place of birth, even if he was a subject of the Austrian arch-duke. Haydn absorbed a lot from his Slav and Hungarian colleagues and the multicultural Empire in which he lived. Mahler listened to music through ears conditioned by the music of Moravia from his childhood. The 'Western' tradition needs to be re-assessed from the point of view of its immense debt to the Czechs.
Another great example is the Trio in Haydn's 67th Symphony: it's two violins imitating the sound of bagpipes. It's the same stylistic freedom that Mahler had when he decided to use a mandolin in the 7th for example. Or the ability to think outside the box. Two conductors from the 1950s who were great in both Haydn and Mahler: Rosbaud and Scherchen.
So interesting you mentioned Bernstein as being a great conductor of Haydn and Mahler. Maybe a part of Bernstein's affinity with these composers stems from his own eclectic style of composition?
Well said, Dave. I think that Haydn and Mahler make wonderful concert partners. I was lucky to have seen a concert which consisted of your two examples. Just great!
I was today years old when i learned of this parallel, thank you so much for doing these. I’ve really been digging into Mahler finally as of late - took some building up - but now I’ll need to dig into Hayden more, too (I already had this on my list after your chat about him as the most underrated composer). Huge fan of your insights. Great stuff!
Mahler could have described the whole world in symphony using only iPhone notification beeps… Great talk. It’s not everyday we get to put Haydn and Mahler in the same sentence. Jacques in Montreal.
This is the first time I'm listening to you, Dave, and I'm VERY impressed! You have really wonderful insights. I studied music on the doctoral level, and I wish all my musicology professors were as interesting as you are!
This discussion is absolutely blowing my mind when it comes to my personal tastes in music. It explains why my tastes gravitate towards Handel, Telemann, Haydn, and later on acts like Pink Floyd, Yes, Jethro Tull, and of course, the great FRANK ZAPPA.
Interesting video - and interesting juxtaposition of 'stylistically pure' and 'ecclectic, inclusive' composers. Shostakovich lept to mind as another composer in the latter category - and maybe Bruckner as one in the former?
Haydn and Mahler on the outside and musically couldn’t be anymore different but you do make some valid points like how Haydn and Mahler made the symphony the main attraction of historical music and were influenced by many elements outside of classical music (folk songs, military calls) in there music and implemented it in their respective styles. Beethoven took this approach with some of his symphonies as well particularly the 3rd, 5th, 6th, 7th and 👔 9th.
Before I played the video I thought, “How could you possibly compare the two?” But I found the contrast between inclusivity an exclusivity convincing enough to see that there is that similarity. However, it seems to me that Haydn used outside sources much more judiciously, within the parameters of his outline, if you will. On the other hand, Mahler, as you said, “threw everything in but the kitchen sink”. My differentiation may be moot as the two were from different eras. Regardless, I take your points and found your dissertation very interesting and thoughtful, as usual, David.
Great subject. I like this idea of a sort of fundamental dichotomy between composers and, like you, my own tastes tend to favour eclecticism and inclusivity over purity. For brevity might we talk perhaps of the magpies and the nightingales?
I think the comparison here is interesting...If you think of Mahler as the Haydn of a later age, who would be the Mozart and Beethoven of the following age??? Maybe Prokofiev as the urban vocal/melodic composer (Mozart) and Shostakovich as the great summation of them all, with that strong emotional, expressive aesthetic (Beethoven)...I don't know, just reframing my own point of view here, also, I got your great Haydn book for Christmas and I just love it!!! Anyone who doesn't have it should get it
Perhaps you could do a video & do-able sound samples on Brahms and Tchaikovsky, the two symphonic composers, who, as contemporaries, disliked each other's more than perhaps any two great composers in history (except maybe Richard Strauss and Igor Stravinsky). And how one reason might be what they had most in common: a huge influence by Robert Schumann..."Apples" who both fell in opposite directions from the same "tree"? Might be fun.
I enjoyed this talk very much. Thank you. But I personally hate to have to choose between eclecticism and purity, so I won't. I think that history tends to blur these distinctions to a certain degree, anyway. Or maybe we forget the difference because the definition of purity changes over the centuries, while the definition of eclecticism can't.
Interesting! Would it be fruitful to distinguish an "eclectic" style for an "encyclopedic" one? I'm thinking here of the difference between Handel and Bach. You could say that Bach wrote works that "sum up" certain traditions, while Handel composed works that "borrowed" from many traditions, etc. (Bach wrote dictionaries, Handel wrote collages?). This is heavily overstated of course, it's simply to make a point. Would love to get your input. Cheers.
Similarities? Well, Mahler did convert to Catholicism, perhaps out of career necessity in Vienna during the Hapsburg Empire, and Haydn was a cradle Catholic.
Mozart does use found objects. Take the Posthorn Serenade for example. Or the beginning of the Dissonance String Quartet. But your point is well taken that these are exceptions for Mozart. I guess there's an exception to almost every rule.
I also said I was speaking in generalizations. Of course composers quote other things all the time, but there's a difference (as you note) between that and making it a touchstone of a personal style.
I think that another similarity between them is that they both require a more overtly “interventionist” approach in playing. Taking Haydn’s humor as just one aspect of his music, there are constant opportunities for the performers to ham it up. Mozart can be funny too, but the jokes are inherent to the construction. You don’t have to do as much to bring them out. For Mahler, well obviously you’ve got to milk those sonorities and climaxes for all they’re bloody worth. It’s “conductors’ music”. No wonder that Bernstein-one of the ultimate hams in the positive sense-was good at both.
Boy do I disagree with that. The problem with both is that they are often underplayed. If you simply give them what they ask, they work perfectly. The problem is that too many interpreters are afraid to do what's in front of their noses.
The same trumpet call is used at the beginning of Mendelssohn's wedding march (getting married is like marching into battle?:) Mozart and Bach (like Palestrina, Vivaldi, Brahms, Debussy, Schoenberg and others) were formalists and I liked their music right from the get-go probably because my brain is wired to like that sort of thing. Mozart's wrote his unfinished Great mass after studying Bach's contrapuntal keyboard music. However, a more significant result of those studies is that Mozart's later orchestral and chamber music incorporated contrapuntal textures much more expertly and seamlessly than his earlier music. I find the contrapuntal textures in his Piano Concerto #24 absolutely exhilarating. Haydn never wrote anything like that. Of course, a formalist approach in the hands of a less talented composer can sound dull and academic but in the hands of a genius like Mozart, it sounds amazing. Now, I do like less formal “inclusive” composers like Haydn and Mahler (and others) but for me they were acquired tastes. It took me a while to appreciate them. And again, their inclusive approach to music only works because they are geniuses. That approach in the hands of a lesser composer can sound sloppy and uninteresting.
Gerry Schwarz with the Seattle Symphony once programmed the Haydn Military and the Mahler 5th on the same program. It worked beautifully.
oh, nothing aggravates me more ( well, not nothing but still) than monotonous one-composer mainly programs, or those based on anniversaries and so on. A combo like this is intelligent and even poignant. then again, when it's something on the nose( shostak.15th with will tell by rossini is an example) then we fall back to cliche territory.
I find the distinction between "eclectic" and "pure" composers fascinating and so spot on. I've been thinking about it for some time but I couldn't quite put it into words. It reminds me of how John Williams (the film composer, whom I consider a genius) gets regularly dissed for being "kitsch" (eclectic) while some repetitive composers that have really done the same thing over and over again have such an inexplicable good reputation.
I am completely in awe and shock after hearing the Haydn excerpt. I didn't even know of its existence.
This video is a testament to Haydn's unrivaled genius as the progenitor of symphonic writing. We have to note that he had vastly less to draw from compared to Mahler.And yet, he brought these forms to such a level of maturity that his music inspires centuries later.
It looks like Haydn was a titan. A singular genius with a mountanious output.
Definitely need to listen and explore a lot more of Haydn.
Yay!
An extremely interesting video. It would never have occurred to me to link Haydn and Mahler. This is why I enjoy your videos so much.
You're such a wonderful teacher Dave Hurwitz, bless you!
Fascinating. Would love to hear about Mahler's influence on DSCH.
Thanks Dave for such a compelling, concise talk. In my younger days, if anyone would have told me that there were ANY similarities between Haydn and Mahler I would have believed they'd taken leave of their senses. I seem to remember you mentioning in passing in a previous talk those similarities, and truth be told, you left me scratching my head in disbelief. It's in this particular talk, complete with the two audio examples, that I finally understand. It's a wonderful, satisfying feeling to not just listen to music because you like it, but to know WHY you like it as well. I really appreciate your bring this "WHY" home to me and others. Thank you again for such an enlightening talk.
A revelatory masterclass.
Dear Mr. Hurwitz, I follow your channel almost from the beginning and it gives me great joy. But this is perhaps the one most illuminating comment you have ever made. The distinction between the "eclectic" and "pure" style composers would merit a more detailed treatment from you - an essay? Please do continue with your videos.
Austro-Czech tradition was always very broad. Mahler was Czech by place of birth, even if he was a subject of the Austrian arch-duke. Haydn absorbed a lot from his Slav and Hungarian colleagues and the multicultural Empire in which he lived. Mahler listened to music through ears conditioned by the music of Moravia from his childhood. The 'Western' tradition needs to be re-assessed from the point of view of its immense debt to the Czechs.
Another great example is the Trio in Haydn's 67th Symphony: it's two violins imitating the sound of bagpipes. It's the same stylistic freedom that Mahler had when he decided to use a mandolin in the 7th for example. Or the ability to think outside the box.
Two conductors from the 1950s who were great in both Haydn and Mahler: Rosbaud and Scherchen.
So interesting you mentioned Bernstein as being a great conductor of Haydn and Mahler. Maybe a part of Bernstein's affinity with these composers stems from his own eclectic style of composition?
Well said, Dave. I think that Haydn and Mahler make wonderful concert partners. I was lucky to have seen a concert which consisted of your two examples. Just great!
I was today years old when i learned of this parallel, thank you so much for doing these. I’ve really been digging into Mahler finally as of late - took some building up - but now I’ll need to dig into Hayden more, too (I already had this on my list after your chat about him as the most underrated composer). Huge fan of your insights. Great stuff!
Mahler could have described the whole world in symphony using only iPhone notification beeps… Great talk. It’s not everyday we get to put Haydn and Mahler in the same sentence. Jacques in Montreal.
This is the first time I'm listening to you, Dave, and I'm VERY impressed! You have really wonderful insights. I studied music on the doctoral level, and I wish all my musicology professors were as interesting as you are!
Thank you very much.
We asked......and you delivered! Thanks Dave.
This discussion is absolutely blowing my mind when it comes to my personal tastes in music. It explains why my tastes gravitate towards Handel, Telemann, Haydn, and later on acts like Pink Floyd, Yes, Jethro Tull, and of course, the great FRANK ZAPPA.
Thank you! Very illuminating talk. Some new things for me to listen for in works of these and other composers.
Fascinating. Thanks for responding to your comments section.
Interesting video - and interesting juxtaposition of 'stylistically pure' and 'ecclectic, inclusive' composers. Shostakovich lept to mind as another composer in the latter category - and maybe Bruckner as one in the former?
Haydn and Mahler on the outside and musically couldn’t be anymore different but you do make some valid points like how Haydn and Mahler made the symphony the main attraction of historical music and were influenced by many elements outside of classical music (folk songs, military calls) in there music and implemented it in their respective styles. Beethoven took this approach with some of his symphonies as well particularly the 3rd, 5th, 6th, 7th and 👔 9th.
Before I played the video I thought, “How could you possibly compare the two?” But I found the contrast between inclusivity an exclusivity convincing enough to see that there is that similarity. However, it seems to me that Haydn used outside sources much more judiciously, within the parameters of his outline, if you will. On the other hand, Mahler, as you said, “threw everything in but the kitchen sink”. My differentiation may be moot as the two were from different eras. Regardless, I take your points and found your dissertation very interesting and thoughtful, as usual, David.
I've been making this argument for years. Even Mahler himself, allegedly noticed the similarity and mentioned it to N. Bauer-Lechner.
Great subject. I like this idea of a sort of fundamental dichotomy between composers and, like you, my own tastes tend to favour eclecticism and inclusivity over purity. For brevity might we talk perhaps of the magpies and the nightingales?
If you listen to the end of Hadyn's "London" Symphony there's a very similar passage to the opening of Mahler's 4
Fascinating! Thanks forthis video essay
Brilliant. Very illuminating.
Hey Dave, how about a series of videos about unheralded, maligned or forgotten composers, such as Michael Haydn, Johann Hummel, Max Reger, etc.?
browse the (substantial) archive
Search for "15 composers who deserve a major comeback"
@@horsedoctorman some female composers
@Classical performances don't think DH does identity politics. But there's a video on his favourite living composers, plenty of women there
I think the comparison here is interesting...If you think of Mahler as the Haydn of a later age, who would be the Mozart and Beethoven of the following age??? Maybe Prokofiev as the urban vocal/melodic composer (Mozart) and Shostakovich as the great summation of them all, with that strong emotional, expressive aesthetic (Beethoven)...I don't know, just reframing my own point of view here, also, I got your great Haydn book for Christmas and I just love it!!! Anyone who doesn't have it should get it
Thank you!
Perhaps you could do a video & do-able sound samples on Brahms and Tchaikovsky, the two symphonic composers, who, as contemporaries, disliked each other's more than perhaps any two great composers in history (except maybe Richard Strauss and Igor Stravinsky). And how one reason might be what they had most in common: a huge influence by Robert Schumann..."Apples" who both fell in opposite directions from the same "tree"? Might be fun.
I enjoyed this talk very much. Thank you. But I personally hate to have to choose between eclecticism and purity, so I won't. I think that history tends to blur these distinctions to a certain degree, anyway. Or maybe we forget the difference because the definition of purity changes over the centuries, while the definition of eclecticism can't.
Thank your this.
Interesting! Would it be fruitful to distinguish an "eclectic" style for an "encyclopedic" one? I'm thinking here of the difference between Handel and Bach. You could say that Bach wrote works that "sum up" certain traditions, while Handel composed works that "borrowed" from many traditions, etc. (Bach wrote dictionaries, Handel wrote collages?). This is heavily overstated of course, it's simply to make a point. Would love to get your input. Cheers.
Valeu!
Similarities? Well, Mahler did convert to Catholicism, perhaps out of career necessity in Vienna during the Hapsburg Empire, and Haydn was a cradle Catholic.
Mozart does use found objects. Take the Posthorn Serenade for example. Or the beginning of the Dissonance String Quartet. But your point is well taken that these are exceptions for Mozart. I guess there's an exception to almost every rule.
I also said I was speaking in generalizations. Of course composers quote other things all the time, but there's a difference (as you note) between that and making it a touchstone of a personal style.
would Mozart’s Turkish March be a special case of inclusivity?
The Mahler 5th always sounds like the beginning of Red Dwarf to me
You are quite sure, it isn't the other way round: that 'The Red Dwarf' alarmingly sounds like Mahler 5?
@@jensguldalrasmussen6446 I saw Red Dwarf before I heard Mahler’s 5th.
@@Warp75 That might be, but I'm pretty certain Mahler didn't! 😁
@@pawelpap9 British sci-fi comedy series
I think that another similarity between them is that they both require a more overtly “interventionist” approach in playing. Taking Haydn’s humor as just one aspect of his music, there are constant opportunities for the performers to ham it up. Mozart can be funny too, but the jokes are inherent to the construction. You don’t have to do as much to bring them out.
For Mahler, well obviously you’ve got to milk those sonorities and climaxes for all they’re bloody worth. It’s “conductors’ music”. No wonder that Bernstein-one of the ultimate hams in the positive sense-was good at both.
Boy do I disagree with that. The problem with both is that they are often underplayed. If you simply give them what they ask, they work perfectly. The problem is that too many interpreters are afraid to do what's in front of their noses.
Interesting how the Mahler example uses a minor key trumpet call, something not really possible on old natural trumpets.
The same trumpet call is used at the beginning of Mendelssohn's wedding march (getting married is like marching into battle?:)
Mozart and Bach (like Palestrina, Vivaldi, Brahms, Debussy, Schoenberg and others) were formalists and I liked their music right from the get-go probably because my brain is wired to like that sort of thing. Mozart's wrote his unfinished Great mass after studying Bach's contrapuntal keyboard music. However, a more significant result of those studies is that Mozart's later orchestral and chamber music incorporated contrapuntal textures much more expertly and seamlessly than his earlier music. I find the contrapuntal textures in his Piano Concerto #24 absolutely exhilarating. Haydn never wrote anything like that. Of course, a formalist approach in the hands of a less talented composer can sound dull and academic but in the hands of a genius like Mozart, it sounds amazing.
Now, I do like less formal “inclusive” composers like Haydn and Mahler (and others) but for me they were acquired tastes. It took me a while to appreciate them. And again, their inclusive approach to music only works because they are geniuses. That approach in the hands of a lesser composer can sound sloppy and uninteresting.
great video - reminds me why I enjoy composing music - to upset purists and snobs - lol
Excellent as always ‼️