This f# minor quartet was written in 1787, whilst Haydn’s ‘sturm und drang’ period was c.1765-1773; in other words it’s *not* sturm und drang - Haydn had moved on. Much more interesting is the rhythmic motif at in bars 1 and 2; recognise it in relation to another famous work of 1808 ?
"ha-ha-ha-HA!" Yes, Haydn moved on to works like Symphony No. 95 (1791) whose S & D qualities make those of bona-fide (chronologically) S &D works like the "Trauer" Symphony look tame. As one music historian to another (may I presume?) we should periodize a composer's work with care. I think that serious composers do not "graduate" from one style to another but continually synthesize what is truly durable (as Brahms might say) from earlier work. So we might view works like 95 as instances of Hegel's "Aufhebung,' which Iain McGilchrist (in THE MASTER AND HIS EMISSARY) translates as 'lifting up.' He explains (p.204) that "... it refers to the way in which earlier stages of an organic process, although superseded by those that come after, are not repudiated by them, even though the later stages are incompatible with the earlier ones. In this sense the "earlier stage is 'lifted up' into the subsequent stage both in the sense that it remains present in, but transformed by a ''higher' level of the process. " @@elaineblackhurst1509
@@irabraus9478 I actually agree with almost every word of your interesting reply (apart from the nonsense about the Trauersinfonie being ‘…tame’), in particular that a key part of a great composer’s development is a sustained lifelong assimilation and synthesis of previous experiences, along with the exploration of new ones, evident in a continuous and usually spectacular development in his/her music (exemplified most obviously in Mozart, Haydn, and Beethoven). I still do not think this quartet is sturm und drang; Haydn was acutely aware of his audience, what would sell (sturm und drang wouldn’t sell, and had had its day), but also Haydn was not afraid to challenge his players and listeners with a severe, demanding, almost acerbic work with its harsh sonorities, and a sense of bleakness, ending with a profound fugue which seems to me from a different planet to Mozart’s brilliant minor key music. In short, I think this work a clear sign that Haydn has moved on to a new form of minor key expression, different from Mozart, but I do agree that the earlier sturm und drang has not been repudiated, but rather assimilated into the language of an ever developing composer. I am not a music historian, nor musicologist; but I do know a little about the music of the Classical period.
The primmest "Sturm und Drang" piece I've heard!
This f# minor quartet was written in 1787, whilst Haydn’s ‘sturm und drang’ period was c.1765-1773; in other words it’s *not* sturm und drang - Haydn had moved on.
Much more interesting is the rhythmic motif at in bars 1 and 2; recognise it in relation to another famous work of 1808 ?
"ha-ha-ha-HA!"
Yes, Haydn moved on to works like Symphony No. 95 (1791) whose
S & D qualities make those of bona-fide (chronologically) S &D works like the "Trauer" Symphony look tame. As one music historian to another (may I presume?) we should
periodize a composer's work with care. I think that serious composers do not "graduate" from one style to another but continually synthesize what is truly durable (as Brahms might say) from earlier work.
So we might view works like 95 as instances of Hegel's "Aufhebung,' which Iain McGilchrist (in THE MASTER AND HIS EMISSARY) translates as 'lifting up.' He explains (p.204) that "... it refers to the way in which earlier stages of an organic process, although superseded by those that come after, are not repudiated by them, even though the later stages are incompatible with the earlier ones. In this sense the "earlier stage is 'lifted up' into the subsequent stage both in the sense that it remains present in, but transformed by a ''higher' level of the process. "
@@elaineblackhurst1509
@@irabraus9478
I actually agree with almost every word of your interesting reply (apart from the nonsense about the Trauersinfonie being ‘…tame’), in particular that a key part of a great composer’s development is a sustained lifelong assimilation and synthesis of previous experiences, along with the exploration of new ones, evident in a continuous and usually spectacular development in his/her music (exemplified most obviously in Mozart, Haydn, and Beethoven).
I still do not think this quartet is sturm und drang; Haydn was acutely aware of his audience, what would sell (sturm und drang wouldn’t sell, and had had its day), but also Haydn was not afraid to challenge his players and listeners with a severe, demanding, almost acerbic work with its harsh sonorities, and a sense of bleakness, ending with a profound fugue which seems to me from a different planet to Mozart’s brilliant minor key music.
In short, I think this work a clear sign that Haydn has moved on to a new form of minor key expression, different from Mozart, but I do agree that the earlier sturm und drang has not been repudiated, but rather assimilated into the language of an ever developing composer.
I am not a music historian, nor musicologist; but I do know a little about the music of the Classical period.
Thank you! It really helped me.