ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 20 ก.พ. 2019
- Joseph Haydn (1732-1809): Symphony Nr. 67 in F-Major, Hob. I:67 (1774/75)
Kammerorchester Basel | Giovanni Antonini, Conductor
Support Haydn2032 on Patreon.com/haydn2032
A big Thank You to our Patreon Florian Suter who generously supported this video!
In the lead-up to the 300th anniversary of Joseph Haydn's birth in 2032, the Joseph Haydn Foundation in Basel is organising, producing and financing the performance and recording of all 107 of the composer's symphonies by Il Giardino Armonico and Basel Chamber Orchestra under the artistic direction of Giovanni Antonini, one of the most highly-respected specialists in baroque, early classical and classical music, with its project Haydn2032.
Tags: Joseph Haydn, Haydn2032, Symphony No. 67, Kammerorchester Basel, Giovanni Antonini - เพลง
![CAMPปลิ้น | EP.76[1/2] โจโฉเปิดป่าโหดรับโอ๊ต-ป๊อบ รอบนี้พี่เอาจริง!](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/pNg5O7Pf-a0/mqdefault.jpg)
![[Full Episode] MasterChef Junior Thailand มาสเตอร์เชฟ จูเนียร์ ประเทศไทย Season 3 Episode 2](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YpQnHoQvZt4/mqdefault.jpg)
Haydn is a genius in the composition of symphonies, the elegance, grace, originality and beautiful harmony are inimitable. This 67th symphony is of indescribable beauty, giving us immense pleasure to listening to it, touching us deeply the moments of most delight music ever produced.
The orchestra’s direction and interpretation of this masterpiece are superb. Viva Haydn and his sublime and divine music. Thanks for this remarkable recording.
I remember a friend of mine 20 years ago who was infatuated with Haydn's music, and said that whenever he studied his theological books it was always with Haydn's compositions!
I agree.
This is not a symphony, but rather an essence of an opera.
Now upon deeper and more profound reflection, the greatest composer that ever wrote the most beautiful symphonies appear no other than Haydn. The conclusion is almost irresistible listening to his various symphonic compositions. And many thanks to you guys at TH-cam for breathing life into what would otherwise been a lost part of our soul and humanity.
Sir Simon Rattle said of Haydn, "He is a genius hidden in plain view."
I am astounded to listen to Master's enormous originality...without missteps. Shakespearean realizations. I must say, regardless of any detailed explication, here's our classical classical composer primum inter pares. Deepest bows to Haydn2032. I began the week looking for Il Maestro di cappella, Many of the audience is listening through prisms of linearity, missing the joie de vivre expressed with devotion by Antonini et 'band'. Lighten up! This is a gift! Sitting in their seats...this should be in a biergarten so that people sit transfixed when someone says 'listen'! They, this audience knows...wonderful!
Слушаешь такие произведения и понимаешь талант композитора. Он огромен. Но и дирижер заслуживает особого уважения. Такое исполнение прекрасное исполнение оркестром - это его заслуга. Все нюансы исполнения им отработаны с высоким художественным вкусом и тщательно. Понимаешь какая это большая
работа с оркестром. Но результат того стоит. Гайдн звучит прекрасно. Браво, Джовани Антонини ! Привет из
Киева.
This is a really special group making really special music. It's great and the recording and videography are top notch as well.
Breathe new life into these beautiful symphonies... I never took the time to really listen to each one..but this captures my full attention! Thank you very much..
It's absolutely sublime. Best of the best.
Endless variety of melodies in his personality!
Great performance!
Up until now, my favorite Haydn recordings have been Solomon's/L'estro Armonico of some decades ago. The series was never finished if I recall. This one seems so much more thought out and personal to me.
Steve S
Solomons’ very well received recordings from the early 1980’s were indeed a quite startling ‘authentic’ alternative to the Dorati’ ‘modern’ interpretations in his complete cycle.
From the mid-1970’s, Dorati was often the only available version of many of the rarely recorded early, middle and pre-Paris/London symphonies, indeed of most outside about twenty better known and often recorded works.
I too enjoyed many of Solomons’ fine and revelatory recordings, part of a wider movement across Europe towards more period aware performances, something that has today, transformed how we listen to music from probably the 17th to mid-19th century.
This was a movement from which Haydn has benefitted probably more than any single composer outside the Baroque period.
PS: I don’t think Solomons ever intended his recordings to be a complete cycle; it was rather more targeted on certain areas, for example the very early pre-Eszterhazy ‘Morzin’ symphonies, or the ‘sturm und drang’ works.
PPS: When I sold my LP collection many years ago, I held on to the Solomons’ Haydn LP’s and still have them; I rated them very highly too.
A few of the Solomons recordings are I think available on cd, but are quite difficult to track down.
@@elaineblackhurst1509 The Solomons' Haydn CD's can be ordered at the "Haydn House", www.haydnhouse.com (personal, not commercial copies), at $12 per CD, I believe.
Robert Spruijtenburg Thank you; this will be useful for any reader interested in this topic.
I agree with you 100%, this group has brought life back to these symphonies. I had all the Solomons recordings when I was in high school.
My step-father played viola on those sessions with Derek Solomons. I remember him telling me about the horns overloading the microphones in the loud/high bits!
Wonderful how the 1st violinist smiles at the end.
MAESTRO ANTONINI, SUPERBO MERAVIGLIOSO , GRAZIE ,GENIO ! ! !
Gotta love that horn.
One music scholar calls this work "one of the most boldly original symphonies of the period."
…but do *you* agree with Robbins Landon ?
@@elaineblackhurst1509 what did he say?
@@McIntyreBible
HC Robbins Landon on page 314 of Volume 2 (Haydn at Eszterhaza) of his standard five volume biography of the composer described Symphony 67 as:
‘Without any question, this is one of the most boldly original symphonies of this period’.
In other words, I identified and verified your quotation.
HCRL goes on to explain why it’s a great work, and many of the comments in this thread explore these reasons in some depth, including my own beginning with the word ‘Wow!’
My question still stands: I think 67 is a great symphony, one of the best between the end of ‘sturm und drang’ and the set written for Paris; what do you think ?
Wonderful stuff
Enlightening. We know that some Haydn symphonies, were actually incidental and entr'acte music to plays, mostly comedies performed at Esterhazy. These separate pieces were later assembled into symphonies.The best example? Symphony No. 60. This symphony here, numbered 67, comes as a complete surprise, as being incidental music. A fresh way, to hear this well known, and loved piece. Likey!
wzdavi
I’m not sure the case for this music being theatrical incidental music has been proven.
Robbins Landon in his definitive biography simply ends his notes on this symphony by asking ‘ Could it be...?’
Other more recent writers are equally unsure.
I’ll be interested to read the sleeve notes to the cd as the project has some serious musicologists involved, and as in my comments above, I feel that this symphony - unlike number 60 which you correctly mention - has an artistic and musical integrity as a whole, rather than a cobbled together feel.
@@elaineblackhurst1509 The liner notes of the 7th Haydn 2032 album inform us about this symphony being composed as incidental music for the play "La partie de chasse de Henri IV" by Charles Collé. There's not a lot of details on this (hunting horns, discretion in the 2nd movement, etc.) but this makes a lot of sense for someone like me who tried to "guess" the story behind the symphony.
Not sure if you remember me, I'm expecting your feedback regarding the possibility of "empfindsamer stil" symphonies (such as Anton Fils' one) on CPE Bach's sonata video. I wasn't sure it was you again, so double checked your name on google and just realized someone by the same name just passed away in a plane accident. I hope that's not you, please let us know you're safe and sound...
Hervé D.
Thank you for your concern...I am still here.
It’s always troubling when you read about aeroplane accidents wherever they occur as it is something that crosses our minds that it could be us whenever we board a flight.
It is something about which it is easy to feel genuine sympathy for those involved, in spite of knowing how safe it really is.
Likewise regarding Coronavirus, kind regards and best wishes to all readers.
If you look under my main review of this symphony - which in December 2020 had 45 replies - you will find a very lengthy and hopefully interesting discussion about the theatrical origins - or not - of this symphony; the discussion with Robert Spruitenberg in particular will give you lots to think about.
In summary: I think the symphony has a musical and artistic integrity as a symphony in a way that Symphony 60 (Il Distratto) does not.
Il Distratto - a work which is great listening - has much more of a feel of being six movements of incidental music being put together to pragmatically re-cycle some very effective entertainment music which would otherwise have become forgotten; little of this applies to Symphony 67 which is I think a very fine work.
My view about Symphony 67 being a similar pot-pourri of theatrical incidental music like Symphony 60 is: Case Not Proven.
I have forgotten neither you nor your answer about Emanuel Bach’s empfindsamer Stil: it is complete in draft form.
One or two details which I normally would check in a specialist music library, are currently not possible to research as libraries are closed due to the pandemic; I will add it as soon as possible.
@@elaineblackhurst1509 I'm simply glad you're still around. Sorry I only noticed the conversation after posting my own comment. I guess you read the liner notes of the HAYDN 2032 album since too. I get your point about the case of the symphony being incidental not being proven. The way it is phrased is rather confusing (and to be honest, I'm not much familiar with the term incidental either, I had to look for its translation :) ). But since the theater piece was not mentioned, and the liner notes claims it was the main source of inspiration for the symphony, I thought it was important to mention. I wish we had more info about who found this out, and which elements can actually help us confirm this is a source.
Dear Haydn2032...because many find your performances SPLENDID! Could you find a way to subtitle the 'recitative', the audience could better understand the great man's intentions . Thanks
Looks like the answer is, no. Alas.
Terrific music.
Greetings from East Anglia in England.
Great performance of a great piece, but can someone explain the point of the spoken interludes?
Love that he doesn't use a baton. It sometimes deserves one, but not with kind of structure.
8:40, the second movement.
19:59, the third movement.
20:49, 26:08, the two violinists performing quiet interludes!
0:34 begins | 19:59 fancy beginning |
Да, к сожалению , не высказал благодарность оркестру, а точнее его музыкантам, а они этого заслуживают
сполна. Большое спасибо за вашу игру, она достойна великого музыканта. О чем говорил в паузах выступавший, могу только догадываться. Но сочетание этого выступления с музыкой вполне уместно.
Привет из Киева.
Wow!
To start at the end; the very lengthy, enthusiastic applause and genuine appreciation given to a fantastic, gripping performance of this highly original, compelling, innovative, experimental, fascinating, eccentric symphony was well deserved and said more about it than any review ever could.
This symphony, written just after Haydn had emerged from his ‘sturm und drang’ period where he had reached a level no other contemporary composer came close to matching (Charles Rosen), is representative of the new direction his thoughts were moving; a symphony primarily written for entertainment but also a work of the highest artistic integrity.
Unlike Symphony 60, which is clearly theatrical in origin, this work feels like a symphony and work of art in its own right - I find the case for some of the music originating in the theatre unproven (cf H C Robbins Landon Chronicle And Works, Volume 2, Haydn at Eszterhaza), though the very recent research of Christian Moritz-Bauer who is part of the Haydn 2032 project, argues strongly for the theatrical origins of the music.
As this symphony is part of Haydn 2032 and a universal project - a gift to the world - the spoken German dialogue should have been sub-titled in English - in effect, the lingua franca - as a minimum, the failure to do so is uninternational and a mistake.
I am not able to comment meaningfully on the dialogue but suspect that I may question its purpose.
Some thoughts on the performance:
- Antonini and the band have a real understanding of the shape of the music.
- Unlike many Haydn performances, this has clearly been properly prepared and rehearsed, every detail is clear, the musicians are playing the music with passion, love and commitment, not just the notes.
- The single word I would apply to describe the success of this performance is *impact,* indeed that word describes the Haydn 2032 series as a whole.
- A striking point for me is the confidence with which the orchestra is playing this music with such an idiomatic understanding of the composer’s musical language.
- The tempi of all four movements are again very well judged.
- Each movement contains treasures; the contrapuntal imitation, a sort of canon between first and second violins in the first movement development is intellectual, exciting and dramatically powerful, though virtually my only criticism of this wonderful performance is that omitting the second half repeat was a mistake.
- The second movement adagio with muted violins is full of interest: it consists of fragments, silences, intense lyrical beauty all bound up in a sonata form movement of great craftsmanship.
- Interestingly, this adagio is so completely Haydnesque, that not a single note could be mistaken for Mozart who in fact, wrote not one single adagio movement in any of his 41 symphonies - apart from one or two slow introductions.
Perhaps describing this movement as so totally un-Mozartian is the greatest compliment that could be given to Haydn.
- The two solo violins in the trio of the minuet were enchanting; played con sordino, you can clearly see the first violin playing only on her E string with the second playing on the G string tuned down to F playing the hurdy-gurdy drone accompaniment.
- The effect in this trio is searingly beautiful, but again, so totally un-Mozartian, so uniquely Haydnesque.
- The finale with its internal slow movement is highly original and effective; the string trio that opens the slow section play beautifully, and the effect of the whole orchestra picking up the theme is very effective.
In summary: another stunning addition to this on-going series that is for me, time and again, giving us performances of Haydn’s wonderful symphonies that surpass those otherwise available; we are fortunate indeed to be able to watch this series unfold.
Too much a do about nothing. I still stand by my claim. Remember the great fire at Esterhazy palace? These set of works, weren’t published in chronological order. After the fire, Prince Esterhazy, was only interested in plays. Opera. Stop. Music. Yes .
wzdavi You may well be right or not about the theatrical origins of some or all of the music in this symphony; my point was clearly expressed that the case was ‘not proven’, which is an accurate statement regarding the position of current scholarship.
To clarify on a couple of your points:
Very few of these early or middle symphonies were ‘published’ until the twentieth century, though some circulated in manuscript copies; many of these copies were corrupted, edited, had movements removed or added, or were completely spurious, amongst other issues.
Clean, reliable urtext editions of Haydn’s symphonies - and much else - only appeared in the second half of the 20th century.
The current numbering of the symphonies are those adopted by Mandyczewski in 1907 based on knowledge and scholarship at the time; work from the second half of the twentieth century up to the present day has corrected the chronology pretty much accurately - HC Robins Landon, Sonja Gerlach et al - although this symphony is variously attributed anywhere between 1773 and 1776.
Unfortunately, Sonja Gerlach’s key work relating to the chronology and dating of the symphonies is only available in German.
Mandyczewski’s faulty numbering was retained by the universal Hoboken catalogue to avoid confusion even though a number of works are badly misplaced (eg 37, 72).
Even later works such as the ‘Paris’ Symphonies are problematic - the current order is neither chronological nor is it Haydn’s expressed wish* but was decided arbitrarily by the publisher Artaria.
Neither is the ordering of the ‘London’ symphonies correct - it should almost certainly be (first set) 96, 95, 93, 94, 98, (Sinfonia Concertante), 97. In the second set, 99 - 104, the symphonies are chronologically correct.
It should be noted too that in whatever order Haydn wrote sets of works - symphonies, string quartets, and piano sonatas in particular - he invariably had a very clear idea in his mind about the order in which works were to be published and this was sometimes chronological, but more likely to revolve around the order of keys, the character of the works, and the position of the minor key work(s) or the C major work.
The fire at Eszterhaza which destroyed a significant number of Haydn’s scores (and copies) was on 18 November 1779 and post-dated Symphony 67 by about five years.
This was in fact the third fire to affect Haydn: in 1768 (August 2), there was a large fire which destroyed the lower part of Eisenstadt, including Haydn’s house. In this fire too, many of his scores were lost; a second fire in 1776 likewise accounted for further losses.
There was opera in the early/mid 1770’s about once a week at Eszterhaza; whilst always interested in opera, Prince Nicholas’ absolute obsession did not really show itself until about 1776 when he abandoned the baryton.
In the 1780’s, Eszterhaza was a significant European centre of opera as is shown by the number of performances recorded by Robbins Landon and others.
In addition to the busy opera house, there was also activity in the puppet theatre, and there were the visiting theatre stage groups for which we know Haydn provided the incidental music to some of the plays.
Re-cycling of music was common both before and after Haydn; you may well be right, you may not.
* Haydn wrote to Artaria that the six ‘Paris’ symphonies should be published in the order: 87, 85, 83, 84, 86, 82; Artaria ignored this and published them in what is the familiar Mandyczewski/Hoboken sequence.
I strongly advise anyone listening to these symphonies to abandon the numerical sequence 82 - 87 and follow Haydn’s sequence listed above which makes far more sense.
The traditional numbering - if you listen to them in a series - destroys Haydn’s carefully planned journey, and is as absurd as messing with the order of Mozart’s 39, 40, and 41.
I'm loving these performances. Your thoughts?
wzdavi
I think this series is setting new standards in recordings of this repertoire; the performances are of the highest possible standard, they are thoughtful, show appropriate understanding of period practice, and are deeply satisfying in an artistic sense.
My one word summary would be that Haydn 2032 has *impact.*
As recorded music is now so widely available, we are fortunate that we don’t have to limit ourselves to one favourite performance of any particular work; this series is however, time and again giving us inspired performances of the highest quality and setting standards by which others will be judged.
The actual music itself is largely of the highest quality, originality and interest.
Some thoughts:
These are period practice, authentic instrument performances, which I prefer overall; they allow Haydn’s unique originality to be heard more clearly and do not smooth over some of the very original sounds and effects the composer is striving for, though some may prefer modern instrument versions.
My view is that some of the modern versions have much to offer, though oddly I prefer some of the very big band Haydn produced by the likes of Karajan with the Berlin Philharmonic, Jochum, Davis, Solti, Bernstein etc, to some of the chamber orchestra versions of popular symphonies by the ASMF (Marriner) or ECO for example, which seem now quite dated and something of an inadequate compromise.
Adam Fischer’s Austro-Hungarian Haydn Orchestra cycle would be the most up-to-date modern instruments complete cycle and has some wonderful moments; overall, the authentic instruments suit Haydn better.
Dorati’s pioneering Phiharmonia Hungarica set has a special place as it was the first completed cycle, unfortunately, today the performances seem dated, and sometimes quite plodding, with too much of Haydn’s sometimes astringent originality smoothed over (though this approach does work quite well sometimes particularly in the slow movements).
Dorati and the Philharmonia Hungarica remains a much-loved reference point for many listeners.
The ‘big’ and modern orchestras have tended to concentrate on either late or popular works, the authentic bands have ranged more freely over the whole repertoire with revelatory results.
There are a small number of recordings out there that are unacceptable for one reason or another, for example corrupt scores, or little understanding of 18th century performance practice: Beecham’s old recordings served a purpose at the time and are well-loved by some, ditto Toscanini.
In more recent times I struggle to understand how anyone can listen to Roger Norrington’s horrible scramble through the London symphonies with the London Classical Players.
Derek Solomons and L’Estro Armonico produced some of the first of these new brand of authentic recordings that allowed us to hear the music as Haydn intended - well worth seeking out, I remember well first hearing what was to me at the time a very new sound.
Bruno Weil’s Tafelmusik, Franz Bruggen and the Orchestra of the 18th Century, Sigiswald Kuijken and Le Petite Bande are all rather ‘German’ sounding, but again provide valuable insights - I enjoy them all very much.
Roy Goodman and the Hanover Band is I feel quite an acquired taste; the detailed booklet explains his raison d’etre but I am not convinced either by the insistence on a keyboard continuo, nor by some of the choices of tempi generally and in the minuets especially which I feel are too fast. Goodman’s harpsichord is intrusive and often obscures Haydn’s intentions; I don’t think the harmony needs filling out anyway as Haydn often specifically and intentionally wrote sparse two part lines and knew very well what he was about.
Hogwood and the Academy of Ancient Music is the (almost complete) series most would compare with Antonini’s current project; it has much to commend it but too often for me, ultimately, it lacks a spark.
Pinnock’s recording of nineteen ‘Sturm und Drang’ symphonies rightly won many plaudits and awards; my main concern with these performances is that the bass consists of just two violas, two cellos and one double bass (plus col basso bassoon?), with 14 (sometimes 9) violins.
The effect of this with Pinnock is that I feel the bass is underpowered compared to Antonini’s orchestras - the difference is stark when you compare the sound to Pinnock’s complete Mozart symphonies which sound much better with a larger bass section.
Pinnock uses a harpsichord continuo; it’s not intrusive, but it contributes little, is unnecessary and is actually quite irritating at times.
So in general, I prefer - though not exclusively - Antonini’s performances on almost every count when compared to a variety of alternative interpretations: tempi, size and balance of the orchestra, preparation, performance etc. I do have the occasional quibble though that’s inevitable in the area of music appreciation which is personal and subjective.
I think all repeats should be taken without exception - two symphonies so far in this series have omitted the first movement development repeat which is a mistake and to my ears unbalances both the movement and the symphony (this may be to accommodate a number of works on a particular CD).
Symphony 42’s first movement is just about the only movement I think has missed the mark; I disagree totally with Robbins Landon’s assessment of this movement (heresy!!!), and am not sure Antonini has worked it out either.
I also feel that whilst most of these early and middle works were conceived as chamber symphonies, some, like number 60 are ceremonial and festive works which would benefit from a larger or supplemented orchestra; this will become more of an issue with almost all the later works and certainly from 82 onwards.
However, like all music from any period, I would not limit myself to just one CD.
A real challenge for the series will come when they record some of the symphonies where there is real, award winning competition already in the field: Symphonies 6/7/8 Freiburger Barockorchester, and 82 - 87 Harnoncourt and his Concentus Musicus Wein to name just two.
A second challenge will be how they approach the Paris and London symphonies which Haydn clearly intended to be performed by much larger orchestras, larger even than Antonini’s two bands combined (which might be a solution?).
Nicholas McGegan with the Philharmonia Baroque Orchestra have released in 2014 some brilliant performances of three middle period symphonies (57, 67, 68). Using a larger group of players on authentic instruments, I think they are very fine performances and illustrate why it is useful to have more than one interpretation of these works.
Antonini has passed this competition test well with Symphony 49 ‘La Passione’ which is one of the most recorded of all the non-London works, his performance is one of the best.
Nor would I be without either Antonini or McGegan’s 67 - they are both very fine, full of character and life and best demonstrate how original instrument orchestras are playing this music so brilliantly today.
These two stand in sharp contrast to Dorati’s fine, but ultimately slightly dated sounding performance from the 1970’s.
Hope that answers your question; in short, the whole series is developing into what will be one of the greatest artistic achievements in the history of recorded music.
@@elaineblackhurst1509 I totally agree with your thoughts, on your choice of recordings. I like Adam Fisher and his Austro-Hungarian Orchestra performances. The Dorati set holds a special place in my heart. It's how, I was introduced to these great symphonies. I much prefer period performances too. But, I like some big band performances too. The Karajan performance of the Paris set is admirable. Especially no. 83! Bernstein's Paris set is a bit uneven, the standout is No. 82. Have you heard the Marc Minkowski London set? This new 2032 edition looks to be a standout. Yes? By the way, there's a new upload to this series. Symphony No. 30.
I like to imagine that Mozart heard or at least knew of this symphony at some point.
Absolut wunderbar! Aber wo ist das Cembalo?
T.J. White
If you can read English, if you look for Symphony 12 in this series, in the comments section you will see the question:
‘Where is the harpsichord?
I have written a detailed answer that you might find helpful.
(My apologies for not being able to reply in German).
Interesting. In your Vienna performance there was no such recital.
The symphony itself and this execution are beyon d wonderful! But, as an English speaker, I found the spoken intervals merely an annoyance. When I listen again, as I surely will, I'll skip over them.
23:45, the Fourth Movement.
Adagio ends with joke : the theme staccato stated one last time "col legno dell' arco " (sic!)
antonio veraldi
It is fascinating how people have such different perceptions of the same thing.
I find no joke here, and nothing to laugh about, but instead, a very beautiful and poignant moment to end a delicate and profound movement.
"Joke" or "trick" its at least a novelty, patented Haydn
6:34 NOBODY ASKED
Tak, nie ma odpowiedzi, szkoda 😢mozna sie wsciec 😂 ja rozumiem troche po niemiecku, ale napisy bylyby dobre. Przepaszam za pisownie❤
Cosa dice il signore?
Non capisco il tedesco 🤷🏻♂️
Non preoccuparti, le parole tedesche sono assolutamente superflue; anche non li ho capiti, ma gli altoparlanti tedeschi hanno detto che erano inutili.
Can someone explain to me why Mozart is considered a greater genius than Haydn? I can't see it myself. Perhaps I'm stupid.
There is no need to weigh the greatest composers in the scales of greatness nor to assess levels of genius because it is a pointless exercise, rather in the manner of trying to measure whether red or blue is the greatest colour.
Haydn’s views about Mozart were unequivocal, he told Leopold Mozart that:
‘I tell you before God, and as an honest man, that your son is the greatest composer I know, either personally or by reputation. He has taste, and apart from that, the greatest knowledge of composition’
Mozart reciprocated with the lengthy and touching Italian dedication to Haydn at the top of his six ‘Haydn’ quartets.
I would add a couple of other points; people’s perception of music is different, and sometimes ‘greatest’ gets confused or conflated with ‘favourite’
McDonalds is more popular on almost every count than any Michelin-starred French or Italian cuisine, but it’s not a measure of greatness; Mozart’s Symphonies 25 or 31 ‘Paris’ are favourite works for many, they are not however ‘great’ works compared to any of the last six.
Another way of thinking about the differences is to consider Mozart as feminine, but Haydn as masculine (as is Beethoven), or that Mozart’s music is cantabile in conception whilst that of Haydn (and once again Beethoven as well) is instrumental in conception.
Some of the reasons many attribute some special degree of genius to Mozart are in fact nothing out of the ordinary - sometimes accountable to movies like Amadeus.
Mozart having music completed in his head for example has been often quoted as a unique example of his genius; it probably was, but it was not unique in that he was not alone in this; a cursory glance at extant Haydn scores shows that many of his works came out with astonishingly few alterations or corrections as well.
There is a long list of composers who wrote quality music at breakneck speed, Handel and Rossini being two obvious examples; Mozart really was in no way special in this respect, and much of the myth surrounding him is just fanciful urban myth and idolatry.
Both Mozart and Haydn in this respect were the polar opposite of Beethoven, though Mozart with his ‘Haydn’ quartets, and Haydn with parts of The Creation sweated hard and laboured long over their scores which did *not* come easily.
Another example is the speed at which Mozart composed; yes he could, but so could almost every composer of the age; a few weeks before Mozart sat down in 1788 and wrote off Symphonies 39-41, Michael Haydn had done something similar with his set of six - Symphonies 34-39.
In short, you’re not stupid, and it’s simply better to consider Mozart and Haydn as different; ditto JS Bach and Handel, or any other pairs or groups of roughly contemporaneous composers such as Schumann, Chopin, Mendelssohn, and Liszt.
@@elaineblackhurst1509 Thank you for this most considered reply. I take everything you say. But I, m still disappointed that Haydn, whom I love, is so often compared inferiorly to Mozart. But we all do this don't we? Like I think Schubert is one of the most underrated_- my god isn't he sublime? And( now this is a personal like) I think the mighty Bruckner far (in my preference, to prove your point) to Mahler. Thank god for loving Music, and disagreeing about our preferences. But it is Bruckner! Or am I mad as well as stupid!! Thanks for the correspondence. Love and kisses from UK.
@@grangetowncardiff6935
Those who adversely compare Haydn to Mozart normally do not understand Haydn’s genius fully, or in truth, only superficially, and in addition have a simplistic view of Mozart which is usually based on exquisitely balanced melody clothed in the most beautiful orchestration.
CPE Bach (in print), Mozart (openly), and Beethoven (usually tetchily and grudgingly) all acknowledged Haydn’s status, so they must be considered pretty good judges by any standards, and none considered Haydn inferior in any way.
These three are the first line of defence against those who do not understand the very particular Haydnesque features and characteristics which raise him above all his contemporaries except Mozart, indeed sometimes above Mozart as Mozart is sometimes above Haydn.
There is arguably more Haydn in Beethoven’s compositional DNA than any other composer.
Haydnesque and Mozartian are very different adjectives; if you judge Mozart by Haydnesque qualities, and Haydn by Mozartian ones, then the verdict will be poor.
Regarding Schubert, you have a good case; he sometimes went into areas unimaginable to Beethoven, and rather like Haydn, his genius is less well known and understood than that of Beethoven who like Mozart generally speaking has a reputation built on a small number of deservedly famous and powerful works.
To illustrate this slightly simplistic understanding some have of Beethoven, ask someone to tap out the opening ‘Fate’ motif of the 5th symphony; given that it is perhaps the most famous calling card in all music, I would suggest that 9 out of 10 people *cannot* do it correctly.
You will hear tapped out in 3/4 time, a triplet followed by a minim - twice.
The Bruckner and Mahler debate once again back to my point about preferring red to blue, or Italian cuisine to Indian if you like; there’s no right or wrong and it’s all cool.
Coming from the Anglo-Saxon bit of England, I recently drove down to London and put on Karajan’s 1975 recordings of Bruckner 4 and 7 with the Berlin Philharmonic to ease the pain of the M6 and M1 just because I felt like it, and it was neither madness nor stupidity.*
(The return journey was the whole of Harnoncourt’s Salzburg Festival live recording on 29 August 2013 of another epic - Haydn’s Il ritorno di Tobia (ideal for long distance motorway travel).
* In Italy a number of years ago, I found a new 38 disc DG box of Karajan and the Berlin Philharmonic recordings from the 1970’s and 1980’s playing:
Beethoven 1-9 and the Overtures
Brahms 1-4 Haydn Variations and Tragic Overture
Bruckner 1-9
Haydn 87-82 and 93-104
Mendelssohn 1-5
Mozart 29 32 33 35 36 38 39-41
Schumann 1-4 Overture Scherzo and Finale
Tchaikovsky 1-6 Marche slave Capriccio italien
(I added a single contemporary HMV disc of Schubert 8 and 9 to the box similarly by Karajan and the BPO).
Cost of the box: €49.99
Certainly the Mozart operas especially the DaPonte trilogy should be part of any discussion of this topic
@@andygore9313
Mozart’s Da Ponte operas are ideal works with which to illustrate examples of Mozart’s supreme genius, though as I stated originally, it’s difficult to measure one composer against another when dealing with composers of this stature.
Perhaps slightly controversially, until Mozart got to Vienna in 1781, his symphonies up to that point do not really illustrate his genius as a composer of symphonies, though it becomes apparent with the final six.; similarly the genius is more difficult to identify in the twelve operas before Idomeneo (1780/81).
A direct comparison between Mozart’s setting of Lucio Silla for Milan in 1772 and that of JC Bach for Mannheim written in 1775 does Mozart no favours (this was done at Salzburg about ten years ago).
I would suggest that the Piano Concerto No 9 K271 ‘Jeunehomme’ written in 1777 is Mozart’s first work of absolute genius, a work that raises him in the field of the keyboard concerto above the ranks of every contemporary composer, something that until that point could only be said of Joseph Haydn with works from the late-1760’s and early 1770’s like his Opus 20 string quartets, some of the sturm und drang symphonies, and the piano sonatas in A flat major (Hob. XVI:46) and c minor (Hob. XVI:20).
In the field of opera which you mentioned, you cannot of course start measuring composers like JS Bach who obviously comes nowhere, whilst a string of composers like Rossini, Verdi or Wagner can only be rated using opera as a yardstick as the world would be none the poorer if it lost almost every other note they wrote outside this field.
Excelent, but we prefer just the music without speaches...
You mean "speeches" anyway I understand German, so I'm ok
Fast forward
I agree! why the conductor included it, I have no idea! plus, he only speaks in German. What happens if you only speak & understand English? Tough luck!!
Pity about the silly old coot coming on to talk after the 1st movement.
Oh no, he's escaped again. It really does destroy the atmosphere of the beautiful music.
I'm no expert on this, but a previous comment indicates this was incidental music, presumably with spoken parts.