Very nice, Haydn was the man. Nothing could sound more classical than No. 1, AMAZING. And agree to be able to read the music is a delight, love those eight note trills and his use of the interval in faster tempos. Beautiful scene at the end.
I recently discovered early Haydn symphonies and I'm loving them! It's a fun brain exercise to pick a random symphony and try to see how accurately I can read along.
From this very first symphony it is clear what a great composer Haydn was. It is full of unexpected details that we can't find in a host of other composers in a similar style of that day, like Gluck, Benda, Holzbauer etc. Personally, I like the early works by H more than the " mature" ones where a kind of predictability and standardisation sets in.
I agree. Haydn in these early symphonies, especially I feel the Sturm und Drum period was so inventive and experimental - the symphony hadn't as yet settled into its later more "predictable" form.
Robin Tranter Disagree absolutely and fundamentally with both comments - something to consider: The thing that separates both Mozart and Haydn from all their contemporaries is the extraordinary and phenomenal degree to which their music grew and developed over their lifetimes. If you listen to an early/middle/late work by Mozart or Haydn, it will be easily identifiable very quickly; if you attempt the same thing with Michael Haydn or any of the composers listed below, it is almost impossible. It is precisely because they avoided the ‘predictability and standardisation’ of other composers of the time that their stature dwarfs the likes of Dittersdorf, Vanhal, JC Bach, Boccherini, Pleyel, Cimarosa, Paisiello, all the Mannheim composers, et al. Mozart and Haydn are the only true ‘A’ list composers of the second half of the eighteenth century. Regarding Haydn’s late works, as just one example, we know Beethoven copied out parts of Haydn’s Symphony 99 for study purposes, hardly something he would have bothered to do with a standard and predictable work. Beethoven studied many of Haydn’s later works very carefully, Mozart’s too, something he did not do with the standard and predictable composers! That said, their is a huge degree of variety in the forms and structures of the earlier symphonies of Haydn - more so than in Mozart - and they are fascinating experiments in originality, unequalled at the time.
Christian Wouters I’ve had another go at replying to your point about ‘predictability and standardisation’. I agree completely about the huge range of variety, originality and individuality in the earlier works but am still uncomfortable with your labelling of the later ones! You might be interested in my reply above.
@@GeraldM_inNC H could maintain a constant high quality in his numerous symphonies. That is the real difference. Other composers could also write sth excellent now and then. A good example is the Flemish composer Pieter van Maldere. In a set of 6 symphonies there is just one that is excellent, the D major one.
Haydn wrote his first symphony (Symphony No 1 Hob. I:1) in 1757 which was the same year as the death of Johann Stamitz who had by then writtten about sixty modern early-Classical symphonies. The crescendo effect Haydn uses at the opening of Symphony 1 was certainly an effect popularised by the Mannheim composers, and subsequently over-used by them to a degree that it became a hackneyed mannerism; ‘inspired’ is massively over-stating the case, and anyway the slow burning crescendo effect originated in Italy with composers like Jommelli which is equally likely to be from where Haydn got the idea. The crescendo as a special effect remained popular well into the 19th century where Rossini for example took it to the extreme.
On the contrary, it was Haydn and Beethoven in particular (along with Mozart’s last six) who defined what was to be a symphony, they were not defined by it. Schubert, Berlioz, and every subsequent composer simply expanded the definition.
Perhaps you may care to check out a decent biography or two of the composer before attempting a rather simplistic caricature of a psychological summary of the composer. (There is also a considerable body of the actual music itself which does not fit the description). Haydn was certainly a musical genius, and there are many examples of his kindness, but all the rest relies on a significant amount of selectivity and omission regarding the actual reality of his life. Regarding the ‘serenity’ and ‘mental sanity’ for example, you will find that in the late 1780’s, he came to regard the long months spent at Eszterhaza as little better than a prison,* and his ‘mental sanity’ suffered (check out some of his letters). During these later Eszterhaza years, he almost certainly suffered from bouts of depression. The composer Kraus visited him in 1784 and wrote an account of the visit, but was shocked by some aspects of Haydn’s character - he found him a ‘right good soul’ but went on to say that ‘It’s a curious thing with most artists…the closer one examines them, the more they lose the halo with which [others] invest them’. Kraus got close-up to Haydn - who called him ‘…the first genius I ever met’ - re-read your original comment then balance it with what Kraus said. To the end of his life, Haydn told his visitors that he was ‘…tortured by musical ideas’, again, hardly serene et cetera. Similarly, some examples of Haydn’s supposed ‘kindness and goodness’: Haydn pursued the Prince of Wales (future King George IV) through the British Parliament for loans made to the Prince whilst he was in England - this legal action shocked many people at the time; He dishonestly sold ‘exclusive’ copies of works to various publishers and patrons (one of the few things Beethoven openly admired about Haydn); He pursued a virtually blatant affair with the soprano Luigia Polzelli at Eszterhaza from 1779 until 1790; He had probably the worst marriage - mutually toxic - of any composer probably ever (conducive to neither mental sanity nor serenity); He was involved in an embarrassing court case in England - which he lost - over some piano trios fraudulently sent to publishers in London which were actually by Pleyel. The list is endless, and hardly speaks to his ‘kindness and goodness’ - though these examples it should be said are more in the nature of balance, rather than saying that he was a disreputable man, which he wasn’t…but he could be. Hope that’s useful to yourself, and any others passing-by; Haydn suffers more than most composers from simplistic generalisations that turn his present day persona into little more than a caricature sketch. Most ‘simplex lives of the composer’ type comments found on TH-cam usually omit more than they include. * On the death of Prince Nicholas on 28 September 1790, Haydn fled his prison immediately - he could not escape quickly enough - he left a huge amount of papers, scores, manuscripts, and personal belongings; he never returned to collect them.
@@elaineblackhurst1509 All very interesting but completely out of sync with what Mike Daniels was saying. You have no right to tell him that his perceptions are wrong. You might be perceived as a snob. You need to learn how to share historical facts with a neutral voice.
@@bartjebartmans As I said, Haydn suffers more than almost any other composer from a simplistic misrepresentation of his character which affects adversely the perception of his music. If my reply above - intended solely to *balance* one such example of these simplistic caricatures - is perceived as snobbish, or failing to adopt a neutral voice* then so be it; that absolutely was *not* the intention. Many of the points I raised about Haydn will be new to many casual readers, and therefore of some interest to those who have taken the trouble to tune-in. Your channel has done much brilliant work to promote Haydn, it sometimes needs a helping hand when some of the misleading ‘facts’ appear in the comments. * If someone claims that the earth is flat, I do not believe that either you nor myself would be able to correct the error effectively by adopting the ‘neutral voice’ you suggest; or perhaps you may do it better than me.
@@elaineblackhurst1509 I really enjoyed reading your first reply, and I think it was very much warranted! In my opinion, you are simply "sharing the facts"; it is definitely not 'snobbish' or 'biased'.
@@elaineblackhurst1509 "it's a curious thing with most artists.. the closer one examines them, the more they lose the halo with which others invest them" . I wish more people would think like that, not just regarding artists, but celebrities / people in general, but more specifically artists/musicians because they get put on such a high pedestal, people often forget that they're just people too, like the over the top Beethoven worship. They were simply people who studied and enjoyed what they did, which anyone can do if they put enough effort in. As a listener and player it gets overly tiresome with all the fawning
For me there's a big influence from J C Bach here. But it's well crafted music. No signs of immaturity or amateurism. Interesting to point out that Haydn wrote his first symphony when he was around 25. Mozart was 8 when he wrote his. Would be interesting to play the two works back to back.. Thanks for the upload.
mr sneaky2010 Zero influence here from JC Bach as explained below. You’re absolutely right though, that one of the amazing things about Haydn is that there are ‘no signs of immaturity...’ in anything he wrote; right from the earliest works, everything is highly professional, competent and very original. Haydn only ever acknowledged CPE Bach as a proto-type, and even with this link, it almost certainly came later; JC Bach and Haydn are however polar opposites. I can’t hear a single note of JC in this symphony beyond a few 18th century commonplaces, inevitable given their shared musical language. Rather more importantly however...in 1757 when Haydn wrote this work, JC was a student in Italy, aged 22. In 1756, the young JC left his half-brother CPE in Berlin, and was studying in Bologna as a pupil of Padre Martini; he had written not a single note in his familiar style, and it was to be another four years before he got his first appointment in 1760 as organist in Milan cathedral - therefore there could have been absolutely zero ‘big influence’ on Haydn whatsoever! Regarding Haydn Symphony 1 (c.1757) and Mozart Symphony 1 (1764); I think listening to the two works back-to-back reveals almost every fundamental difference between the two composers - something that is confirmed by almost every subsequent work they both wrote.
mr sneaky2010 The Mannheim crescendo as its name suggests was made famous by the orchestra and resident composers in that city. JC Bach is only one of many composers who copied it as it became fashionable. Haydn ‘copied’ hardly anything from any other composer; this very modest, short fuse Mannheim style crescendo, is a rare exception (if it can even be called a Mannheim crescendo). JC as explained above in my original post could have had nothing to do with it, and all JC’s influence anyway came later and was on Mozart beginning in London in 1764/65; it was the totally different world of CPE Bach that Haydn was studying! The crescendo probably originated almost inevitably with Italian composers, certainly Jommelli was one of the first of whom I am aware who introduced the effect, and I think it possible JC might have heard it first whilst he was in Italy, either studying with Padre Martini in Bologna, or whilst in Milan.
@@irenewood9569 Neither Haydn nor Mozart ever met CPE Bach, and neither studied with him. Both Mozart and Haydn (Beethoven too and almost everyone else) knew CPE’s Versuch - his manual on modern keyboard playing. CPE was important to Haydn in particular who when he discovered the Versuch - probably in 1766 - studied it intently, along with the associated sonatas, and asked his publisher to send him CPE’s works whenever they could. CPE was the only composer Haydn ever acknowledged as a mentor, in return, CPE said that Haydn was the only other composer who understood his teachings properly and knew how to make use of them. The links between CPE and Mozart (Beethoven too) are usually over-stated, excepting as ever, the Versuch.
This delightfully robust Sinfonia (written in 1759 for Haydn’s then-employer Count Morizin of Moravia) was the first one listed as such in his Catalogue of Sinfonias compil’d in the 1790s-opens with a mini-Mannheim Steamroller (starting piano & ending fortissimo) is actually a few years ahead of its time (became very popular in the 1770s, cf. Mozart’s 3rd Movement Finale to his Paris Sinfonia (also in D) K. 297 of May-June 1778. We can see instantly why other Nobility (e.g. Prince Esterhazy) wanted to snap-up the then-27 year old Haydn as their Kapellmeister-and 3 years later Prince Esterhazy did precisely that-employing this self-made genius for the next 30 years...
mr sneaky2010 The ‘Mannheim’ crescendo made famous by the composers and orchestra of that court is in fact of Italian origin. The earliest references to it with which I am familiar appear in the work of Jommelli who was a Neapolitan composer who also worked in Venice and Rome, but perhaps most tellingly in Stuttgart, where his orchestration was somewhat richer than the Italian norm. I suspect it was from Jommelli that the crescendo as an orchestral device was then taken up and widely popularised first at Mannheim, then elsewhere.
Donald Goodell Haydn told both his early biographer Griesinger and his secretary Johann Elssler, that Symphony 1 was his ‘first’ symphony and was written as you say, in 1759 for Count Morzin. However, a problem arises as there is an extant printed copy of the badly misnumbered Symphony 37 which is dated 1758. Haydn was adamant that Symphony 1 was indeed the first one; some scholars have argued that 37 may have been the first; it seems more likely that the aged Haydn just got the date wrong, but that means that Symphony 1 could be as early as 1757* (which is the now universally accepted date of Hob. I:1). The famous Mannheim crescendo actually originated in Italy; it is speculation as to whether Haydn heard it from Mannheim works being played in Vienna or in Italian sinfonias; the latter being actually the more likely - as you suggest, the scale of the crescendo is not a Mannheim slow-burn but something rather more brisk. Mozart’s ‘Paris’ symphony is indeed a spectacular compendium of almost everything from the box of tricks and special effects of the Mannheim composers - it is the greatest Mannheim symphony of all. Written on arrival in Paris direct from Mannheim, I would suggest that Mozart had in particular, Cannabich’s Symphony 63 ringing in his ears at the time. However, there is zero link between Haydn 1 and Mozart 31 written about 20 years later. Haydn from his appointment to the Eszterhazys in 1761 never left them; after the death of Prince Nicholas in 1790, he was in fact kept on with virtually no duties, and a generous pension and various other benefits until his own death in 1809; the relationship therefore actually lasted for 48 years. * The most up-to-date and universally accepted scholarship on the dating of Haydn’s early symphonies is by Sonja Gerlach - unfortunately only available in German - and it clearly places Symphony 1 as the first one, and dates it as 1757. PS. As in your original comment you quite correctly used the Italian word ‘Sinfonia’ could I just mention a word about the correct pronunciation. In many parts of the English-speaking world the pronunciation of sinfonia is anglicised - ie gruesomely mangled - something that is unfortunately particularly common amongst our friends in the US. Sinfonia is pronounced correctly - whether in Italian or English thus: ‘Seen-foh-*nee*-ah’.
Elaine - it’s curious that the young Mozart having come back from his continental tour as a musical Wundetkind (it lasted from 9 July 1763 to 29 November 1766) he again saw Michael Haydn (the talented younger-brother of Joseph) in Salzburg where he had been engag’d since the summer of 1762. Thus although there is no evidence that M. met Joseph Haydn in person before December 1781 in Vienna (Haydn was given November, December & January off every year) Mozart definitely was aware of Michael Haydn’s older brother’s works by reputation & hand-copied (& printed copies) of scores (mainly Sinfonias & String Quartets by JosephHaydn after 1772) - I’m not sure about the early Haydn Divertimenti written in 1757-they sound just like Sinfonias to me, but Haydn ought to know what his first Sinfonia was, if anyone...one would imagine; his ‘failing memory’ theory just doesn’t wash with me...
Donald Goodell You are quite right that Mozart clearly knew a number of works by Haydn some years before their friendship of the 1780’s; some clear and obvious examples would include: - the Opus 9 and 17 quartets - there is an extant copies in Salzburg of some of the Opus 17 works annotated by Mozart; - the piano sonatas Hob. XVI:21 - 26, where a number of stylistic features appear in some early Mozart sonatas eg the third movement of the Sonata in C (K279); - the g minor Symphony 39 which is clearly the model for Mozart’s g minor Symphony 25 (K183). It appears that Haydn knew almost nothing of Mozart’s music before the latter left Salzburg and moved to Vienna. Regarding the chronology of Haydn’s earliest symphonies, the first symphony is as I explained originally. The latest research by the German musicologist Sonja Gerlach, whose important work on the chronology of the early symphonies - building on that of Larsen, Robbins Landon, and others - is not really challenged by anyone; Gerlach dates Symphony 1 as 1757 and places it as first. Gerlach lists five other symphonies as being possibly 1757 but with a qualifying possible later date: Symphony 1 is 1757 Symphony 37 is 1757/58; Symphony 18 is 1757/59; Symphony 2 is 1757/59; Symphony 4 is 1757/60; Symphony 27 is 1757/60. In short; Haydn got the right first symphony, but the wrong date.
The correct date for this symphony is *1757* (not 1759). Despite some conjecture in the past, this symphony is now universally acknowledged amongst scholars as being Haydn’s first, something about which the composer himself was adamant (though Haydn himself mistakenly recollected it being composed in 1759, hence the debate). The doubts arose as there is an extant copy of the badly misnumbered Symphony 37 bearing the date 1758. This manuscript copy of 37 was at odds with Haydn’s clear statement to both his early biographer Griesinger, and his secretary Elssler that the first symphony was Symphony 1, and as mentioned above, the confusion was caused by his faulty memory in old age. The 1759 date that unfortunately appears on your score, is simply incorrect. Sonja Gerlach, who completed a major work on the chronology of the early symphonies - building on the work of Larsen, Robbins Landon et al - is the current last word on this subject; she has established that Symphony 1 was in fact written in 1757. In summary, Haydn got the right first symphony but the wrong date. Sonja Gerlach also lists five other works that could possibly be backdated to 1757 - 1758/59/or 60, but only Symphony 1 as 1757. For anyone interested, I have written further on this subject in reply to Donald Goodell, below.
@@leo32190 I presume that you referring to a now deleted comment, and are not referring to the detailed explanation I have have given above relating to the latest scholarly dating of Haydn’s first symphony which is entirely accurate and correct. If you are referring to the description, you’re quite right that it is incorrect, and Bartje should amend it. He might also remove the silly reference to ‘Father of the Symphony’ - there is just as much evidence that Haydn is Father Christmas.
@@elaineblackhurst1509 "Father" is an appellation given to honor Haydn's domination and summation of the symphonic form, in both sheer quantity and quality of output rather than being the actual progenitor of the symphony. It's not meant to convey he composed the first symphony any more than Beethoven labeling Bach the "father of harmony" is meant to imply harmony didn't exist before Bach. Someone of your purported intelligence shouldn't need this explained, but I see you laboring over this point over and over again ad nauseum in these comments.
@@Jalapablo I get your point entirely, and in some respects you are right, but your argument is based fundamentally on: i) Re-defining the word ‘father’ to mean something that it does not mean; again to labour the point, a father *must* by definition be involved at the conception, and Haydn clearly was nowhere near the conception of the symphony. ii) Ignoring every known fact about the origins of the early symphony. It’s true I have repeated this before, but one gentleman in particular* has repeated this silly ‘father of the symphony’ comment 104 times recently (the original ‘ad nauseam’) in a virtually identical comment which I have tried to correct in 104 different, and hopefully interesting, and occasionally maybe, amusing ways. What I have written needed saying - Haydn was *not* the father of the symphony - as it leads to comments on Symphony 1 along the lines of ‘So this was the first ever symphony…’ (to be found in this thread). I have not laboured the point ad nauseam - I never raise it - but I do admit fully to replying ad nauseam to correct the misleading error. I have on some of the replies made clear Haydn’s extraordinary contribution to the *development* of the symphony, basically your point, with which I agree completely. Why is it that only Haydn seems to be stuck with these nonsensical, inaccurate and misleading appellations - why isn’t Mozart therefore the ‘father of the piano concerto’, or Boccherini the ‘father of the string quintet’, et cetera ? * This same gentleman incidentally has appended the same offending comment which he has used on almost every Haydn symphony also to one by *Michael* Haydn, and he clearly cannot tell the difference which somewhat undermines confidence in what he is saying. Additionally - and even more bizarrely - you will find a comment from him under one of the uploads of The Creation claiming that Haydn ‘influenced’ JS Bach!!! Such utter nonsense and misleading absurdities deserve challenge and correction.
@@Jalapablo As an afterthought, I might at a push - in fact a very heavy shove - just about accept the term of Haydn as ‘Father *to* the Symphony’, or the rather more clumsy ‘Step-father’ or ‘Foster-parent to the Symphony’.
Mozart copiaba a Haydn totalmente. Visitaba la casa de éste muy a menudo desde niño y hasta hay partituras atribuidas a Mozart niño, que en realidad eran de Haydn, Telemann, etc.
Sammartini is said to have written the first "concert-symphonies" that we now understand as symphonies. Sinfonias of the baroque era are almost a different genre, but those date back to the 17th century.
Alkım Koş Probably the first symphonies/overtures were written as early as the 1730’s. All talk of Haydn as the ‘Father of the Symphony’ which is endlessly and mindlessly re-cycled on TH-cam - and elsewhere - is the most absurd, factually inaccurate, and deviant baloney and codology in the whole of music. The terms sinfonia and overture were synonymous and interchangeable even up to the end of the century when almost all of Haydn’s symphonies for example, were still being described as ‘overtures’ in the London press and notices in the early/mid 1790’s. The earliest ‘symphonies’ were works that grew out of the three movement Italian opera overtures from the early years of the 18th century. An early example would be the ‘VI Introduttione Teatrale’ (sic) Opus 4 Nos 1 - 6 published by Locatelli in Amsterdam in 1735; these six works, whilst being in the form of the three movement Neapolitan opera overture - fast/slow/fast - they still retain some of the concertino/ripieno character of the concerto grosso, and could well have been used as theatre works as the title implies, or be played independently. GB Sammartini and Brioschi in Milan; Johann Stamitz, Holzbauer, Fils, and Richter in Mannheim; Monn and Wagenseil in Vienna, amongst others, were all writing modern early Classical ‘symphonies’ that were independent concert openers or finales (rather than simply opera overtures); many of these works date from as early as the 1740’s ie whilst the supposed so-called ‘Father of the Symphony’ was still a boy treble in the choir of St Stephen’s in Vienna. Monn wrote the earliest four movement symphony of which I am aware - ie including a Minuet - in 1740.
Your comment highlights exactly why the biggest paternity fraud in the whole of western classical music needs exposing for the utter nonsense and misinformation it really is. No it’s not ‘…the first ever symphony composed’.
@@bartjebartmans In the first English biography of Haydn by James Cuthbert Haddon published in 1902 (the biographical details largely and openly based on Pohl), he mentions that due to his darkish complexion, Haydn was sometimes referred to as ‘The Moor’ by his first Eszterhazy employer Prince Paul Anton (1711-1762). Occasionally, this silly reference is still mentioned as though it is somehow relevant, and if it was ever used, would only have ever been by one person between Haydn’s appointment to the court in 1761 and the Prince’s death the following year. Haydn considered himself ugly, similarly Mozart looked very odd particularly over the last ten years of his life - ‘…bug-eyed’ according to Jan Swafford - whilst Beethoven was downright unattractive as he was routinely unkempt, dirty and smelly living amidst squalid chaos. The portraiture of all three composers is not reflective of their true appearance.* what we have is romanticised, sanitised images - almost all Haydn’s facial disfigurements - enlarged nostrils, nasal polyp, pock-marked skin - have been airbrushed or photo-shopped if you like, whilst the images of all three in movies such as Amadeus or Eroica bear little resemblance to the reality. In terms of outward appearance, both Mozart and Haydn dressed exceptionally smartly; Beethoven did not. Its surprising really that all three composers didn’t attract more rather derogatory nicknames than the one mentioned here. * Though it has to be said that Haydn in particular went to inordinate time and lengths over his personal appearance, clothes, jewellery, and all the rest - never appearing without his wig for example; Mozart too took some care in this area, Beethoven almost none.
@@elaineblackhurst1509 Schubert was even worse. Time by time he was homeless, living as a guest in the households of his friends. He was called "mushroom" (Schwammerl) by his friends.
@@olavtryggvason1194 Given all the ‘Papa’ nonsense against which I have complained ad nauseam ad infinitum in regard to Haydn, I think it should be mentioned that Schubert referred to Salieri as ‘Grosspapa’; thanks for the ‘mushroom’ reference - something of which I was not aware - and as a non-German speaker, there is no clue in the word to anyone thinking English or Italian (or any other Romance language) as to its meaning
@@elaineblackhurst1509 Mushroom translates to "Pilz" in German, but in Austrian German they use the word "Schwamm", which also means sponge. -erl is a suffix for diminuation, thus "Schwammerl" means "little mushroom".
Very nice, Haydn was the man. Nothing could sound more classical than No. 1, AMAZING. And agree to be able to read the music is a delight, love those eight note trills and his use of the interval in faster tempos. Beautiful scene at the end.
Wonderful to hear such beautiful playing and to be able to read it as we go along. Thanks once again!
I recently discovered early Haydn symphonies and I'm loving them! It's a fun brain exercise to pick a random symphony and try to see how accurately I can read along.
Beautifully crisp music and such a neat score too! Thanks for uploading. ❤️🎼🎵🎶👏🇮🇪☘️
Surprisingly good! And he wrote more than a hundred of them. Wow!
Marvelous!
From this very first symphony it is clear what a great composer Haydn was. It is full of unexpected details that we can't find in a host of other composers in a similar style of that day, like Gluck, Benda, Holzbauer etc. Personally, I like the early works by H more than the " mature" ones where a kind of predictability and standardisation sets in.
I agree. Haydn in these early symphonies, especially I feel the Sturm und Drum period was so inventive and experimental - the symphony hadn't as yet settled into its later more "predictable" form.
Robin Tranter
Disagree absolutely and fundamentally with both comments - something to consider:
The thing that separates both Mozart and Haydn from all their contemporaries is the extraordinary and phenomenal degree to which their music grew and developed over their lifetimes.
If you listen to an early/middle/late work by Mozart or Haydn, it will be easily identifiable very quickly; if you attempt the same thing with Michael Haydn or any of the composers listed below, it is almost impossible.
It is precisely because they avoided the ‘predictability and standardisation’ of other composers of the time that their stature dwarfs the likes of Dittersdorf, Vanhal, JC Bach, Boccherini, Pleyel, Cimarosa, Paisiello, all the Mannheim composers, et al.
Mozart and Haydn are the only true ‘A’ list composers of the second half of the eighteenth century.
Regarding Haydn’s late works, as just one example, we know Beethoven copied out parts of Haydn’s Symphony 99 for study purposes, hardly something he would have bothered to do with a standard and predictable work.
Beethoven studied many of Haydn’s later works very carefully, Mozart’s too, something he did not do with the standard and predictable composers!
That said, their is a huge degree of variety in the forms and structures of the earlier symphonies of Haydn - more so than in Mozart - and they are fascinating experiments in originality, unequalled at the time.
Christian Wouters I’ve had another go at replying to your point about ‘predictability and standardisation’.
I agree completely about the huge range of variety, originality and individuality in the earlier works but am still uncomfortable with your labelling of the later ones!
You might be interested in my reply above.
Head and shoulders above the best of his contemporaries.
@@GeraldM_inNC H could maintain a constant high quality in his numerous symphonies. That is the real difference. Other composers could also write sth excellent now and then. A good example is the Flemish composer Pieter van Maldere. In a set of 6 symphonies there is just one that is excellent, the D major one.
Joseph Haydn:1.D-dúr Szimfónia
1.Presto 00:05
2.Andante 05:05
3.Finálé:Presto 11:28
Academy of Ancient Music
Vezényel:Christopher Hogwood
The opening is directly inspired by Johan Stamic and the Mannheim style. Johan Stamic died 2 years earlier, 1757.
Haydn wrote his first symphony (Symphony No 1 Hob. I:1) in 1757 which was the same year as the death of Johann Stamitz who had by then writtten about sixty modern early-Classical symphonies.
The crescendo effect Haydn uses at the opening of Symphony 1 was certainly an effect popularised by the Mannheim composers, and subsequently over-used by them to a degree that it became a hackneyed mannerism; ‘inspired’ is massively over-stating the case, and anyway the slow burning crescendo effect originated in Italy with composers like Jommelli which is equally likely to be from where Haydn got the idea.
The crescendo as a special effect remained popular well into the 19th century where Rossini for example took it to the extreme.
The symphony that defined a generation (Haydn, Mozart Schubert and Beethoven)
On the contrary, it was Haydn and Beethoven in particular (along with Mozart’s last six) who defined what was to be a symphony, they were not defined by it.
Schubert, Berlioz, and every subsequent composer simply expanded the definition.
Hoy me he propuesto escuchar una sinfonía de Haydn cada 3 días; hasta terminarlas.
Thanks so much for uploading. I wish for more Haydn pieces :D. Thanks so much for the effort.
This symphony hereby certifies Maestro Haydn's genius, serenity, utter & absolute mental sanity and noble soul full of kindness & goodness.
Perhaps you may care to check out a decent biography or two of the composer before attempting a rather simplistic caricature of a psychological summary of the composer.
(There is also a considerable body of the actual music itself which does not fit the description).
Haydn was certainly a musical genius, and there are many examples of his kindness, but all the rest relies on a significant amount of selectivity and omission regarding the actual reality of his life.
Regarding the ‘serenity’ and ‘mental sanity’ for example, you will find that in the late 1780’s, he came to regard the long months spent at Eszterhaza as little better than a prison,* and his ‘mental sanity’ suffered (check out some of his letters).
During these later Eszterhaza years, he almost certainly suffered from bouts of depression.
The composer Kraus visited him in 1784 and wrote an account of the visit, but was shocked by some aspects of Haydn’s character - he found him a ‘right good soul’ but went on to say that ‘It’s a curious thing with most artists…the closer one examines them, the more they lose the halo with which [others] invest them’.
Kraus got close-up to Haydn - who called him ‘…the first genius I ever met’ - re-read your original comment then balance it with what Kraus said.
To the end of his life, Haydn told his visitors that he was ‘…tortured by musical ideas’, again, hardly serene et cetera.
Similarly, some examples of Haydn’s supposed ‘kindness and goodness’:
Haydn pursued the Prince of Wales (future King George IV) through the British Parliament for loans made to the Prince whilst he was in England - this legal action shocked many people at the time;
He dishonestly sold ‘exclusive’ copies of works to various publishers and patrons (one of the few things Beethoven openly admired about Haydn);
He pursued a virtually blatant affair with the soprano Luigia Polzelli at Eszterhaza from 1779 until 1790;
He had probably the worst marriage - mutually toxic - of any composer probably ever (conducive to neither mental sanity nor serenity);
He was involved in an embarrassing court case in England - which he lost - over some piano trios fraudulently sent to publishers in London which were actually by Pleyel.
The list is endless, and hardly speaks to his ‘kindness and goodness’ - though these examples it should be said are more in the nature of balance, rather than saying that he was a disreputable man, which he wasn’t…but he could be.
Hope that’s useful to yourself, and any others passing-by; Haydn suffers more than most composers from simplistic generalisations that turn his present day persona into little more than a caricature sketch.
Most ‘simplex lives of the composer’ type comments found on TH-cam usually omit more than they include.
* On the death of Prince Nicholas on 28 September 1790, Haydn fled his prison immediately - he could not escape quickly enough - he left a huge amount of papers, scores, manuscripts, and personal belongings; he never returned to collect them.
@@elaineblackhurst1509 All very interesting but completely out of sync with what Mike Daniels was saying. You have no right to tell him that his perceptions are wrong. You might be perceived as a snob. You need to learn how to share historical facts with a neutral voice.
@@bartjebartmans
As I said, Haydn suffers more than almost any other composer from a simplistic misrepresentation of his character which affects adversely the perception of his music.
If my reply above - intended solely to *balance* one such example of these simplistic caricatures - is perceived as snobbish, or failing to adopt a neutral voice* then so be it; that absolutely was *not* the intention.
Many of the points I raised about Haydn will be new to many casual readers, and therefore of some interest to those who have taken the trouble to tune-in.
Your channel has done much brilliant work to promote Haydn, it sometimes needs a helping hand when some of the misleading ‘facts’ appear in the comments.
* If someone claims that the earth is flat, I do not believe that either you nor myself would be able to correct the error effectively by adopting the ‘neutral voice’ you suggest; or perhaps you may do it better than me.
@@elaineblackhurst1509 I really enjoyed reading your first reply, and I think it was very much warranted! In my opinion, you are simply "sharing the facts"; it is definitely not 'snobbish' or 'biased'.
@@elaineblackhurst1509 "it's a curious thing with most artists.. the closer one examines them, the more they lose the halo with which others invest them" .
I wish more people would think like that, not just regarding artists, but celebrities / people in general, but more specifically artists/musicians because they get put on such a high pedestal, people often forget that they're just people too, like the over the top Beethoven worship. They were simply people who studied and enjoyed what they did, which anyone can do if they put enough effort in. As a listener and player it gets overly tiresome with all the fawning
Thanks Bartje!!
P.S. Thanks also for the informative notes!
this is such a wonderful clear music, pure joy!
Thank you for posting this on TH-cam.
Amazing stuff!
Wonderful!
The cleverness and unpredictability of CPE Bach within a much tighter formal structure.
Very nice
For me there's a big influence from J C Bach here. But it's well crafted music. No signs of immaturity or amateurism. Interesting to point out that Haydn wrote his first symphony when he was around 25. Mozart was 8 when he wrote his. Would be interesting to play the two works back to back..
Thanks for the upload.
mr sneaky2010
Zero influence here from JC Bach as explained below.
You’re absolutely right though, that one of the amazing things about Haydn is that there are ‘no signs of immaturity...’ in anything he wrote; right from the earliest works, everything is highly professional, competent and very original.
Haydn only ever acknowledged CPE Bach as a proto-type, and even with this link, it almost certainly came later; JC Bach and Haydn are however polar opposites.
I can’t hear a single note of JC in this symphony beyond a few 18th century commonplaces, inevitable given their shared musical language.
Rather more importantly however...in 1757 when Haydn wrote this work, JC was a student in Italy, aged 22.
In 1756, the young JC left his half-brother CPE in Berlin, and was studying in Bologna as a pupil of Padre Martini; he had written not a single note in his familiar style, and it was to be another four years before he got his first appointment in 1760 as organist in Milan cathedral - therefore there could have been absolutely zero ‘big influence’ on Haydn whatsoever!
Regarding Haydn Symphony 1 (c.1757) and Mozart Symphony 1 (1764); I think listening to the two works back-to-back reveals almost every fundamental difference between the two composers - something that is confirmed by almost every subsequent work they both wrote.
@@elaineblackhurst1509 the use of the Manheim crescendo maybe? A very J C Bach gesture, ...
mr sneaky2010
The Mannheim crescendo as its name suggests was made famous by the orchestra and resident composers in that city.
JC Bach is only one of many composers who copied it as it became fashionable.
Haydn ‘copied’ hardly anything from any other composer; this very modest, short fuse Mannheim style crescendo, is a rare exception (if it can even be called a Mannheim crescendo).
JC as explained above in my original post could have had nothing to do with it, and all JC’s influence anyway came later and was on Mozart beginning in London in 1764/65; it was the totally different world of CPE Bach that Haydn was studying!
The crescendo probably originated almost inevitably with Italian composers, certainly Jommelli was one of the first of whom I am aware who introduced the effect, and I think it possible JC might have heard it first whilst he was in Italy, either studying with Padre Martini in Bologna, or whilst in Milan.
Haydn studied with the son of J.S Bach.
@@irenewood9569
Neither Haydn nor Mozart ever met CPE Bach, and neither studied with him.
Both Mozart and Haydn (Beethoven too and almost everyone else) knew CPE’s Versuch - his manual on modern keyboard playing.
CPE was important to Haydn in particular who when he discovered the Versuch - probably in 1766 - studied it intently, along with the associated sonatas, and asked his publisher to send him CPE’s works whenever they could.
CPE was the only composer Haydn ever acknowledged as a mentor, in return, CPE said that Haydn was the only other composer who understood his teachings properly and knew how to make use of them.
The links between CPE and Mozart (Beethoven too) are usually over-stated, excepting as ever, the Versuch.
This delightfully robust Sinfonia (written in 1759 for Haydn’s then-employer Count Morizin of Moravia) was the first one listed as such in his Catalogue of Sinfonias compil’d in the 1790s-opens with a mini-Mannheim Steamroller (starting piano & ending fortissimo) is actually a few years ahead of its time (became very popular in the 1770s, cf. Mozart’s 3rd Movement Finale to his Paris Sinfonia (also in D) K. 297 of May-June 1778. We can see instantly why other Nobility (e.g. Prince Esterhazy) wanted to snap-up the then-27 year old Haydn as their Kapellmeister-and 3 years later Prince Esterhazy did precisely that-employing this self-made genius for the next 30 years...
Stamitz used Mannheim crescendos even before Haydn.
mr sneaky2010
The ‘Mannheim’ crescendo made famous by the composers and orchestra of that court is in fact of Italian origin.
The earliest references to it with which I am familiar appear in the work of Jommelli who was a Neapolitan composer who also worked in Venice and Rome, but perhaps most tellingly in Stuttgart, where his orchestration was somewhat richer than the Italian norm.
I suspect it was from Jommelli that the crescendo as an orchestral device was then taken up and widely popularised first at Mannheim, then elsewhere.
Donald Goodell
Haydn told both his early biographer Griesinger and his secretary Johann Elssler, that Symphony 1 was his ‘first’ symphony and was written as you say, in 1759 for Count Morzin.
However, a problem arises as there is an extant printed copy of the badly misnumbered Symphony 37 which is dated 1758.
Haydn was adamant that Symphony 1 was indeed the first one; some scholars have argued that 37 may have been the first; it seems more likely that the aged Haydn just got the date wrong, but that means that Symphony 1 could be as early as 1757* (which is the now universally accepted date of Hob. I:1).
The famous Mannheim crescendo actually originated in Italy; it is speculation as to whether Haydn heard it from Mannheim works being played in Vienna or in Italian sinfonias; the latter being actually the more likely - as you suggest, the scale of the crescendo is not a Mannheim slow-burn but something rather more brisk.
Mozart’s ‘Paris’ symphony is indeed a spectacular compendium of almost everything from the box of tricks and special effects of the Mannheim composers - it is the greatest Mannheim symphony of all.
Written on arrival in Paris direct from Mannheim, I would suggest that Mozart had in particular, Cannabich’s Symphony 63 ringing in his ears at the time.
However, there is zero link between Haydn 1 and Mozart 31 written about 20 years later.
Haydn from his appointment to the Eszterhazys in 1761 never left them; after the death of Prince Nicholas in 1790, he was in fact kept on with virtually no duties, and a generous pension and various other benefits until his own death in 1809; the relationship therefore actually lasted for 48 years.
* The most up-to-date and universally accepted scholarship on the dating of Haydn’s early symphonies is by Sonja Gerlach - unfortunately only available in German - and it clearly places Symphony 1 as the first one, and dates it as 1757.
PS. As in your original comment you quite correctly used the Italian word ‘Sinfonia’ could I just mention a word about the correct pronunciation.
In many parts of the English-speaking world the pronunciation of sinfonia is anglicised - ie gruesomely mangled - something that is unfortunately particularly common amongst our friends in the US.
Sinfonia is pronounced correctly - whether in Italian or English thus:
‘Seen-foh-*nee*-ah’.
Elaine - it’s curious that the young Mozart having come back from his continental tour as a musical Wundetkind (it lasted from 9 July 1763 to 29 November 1766) he again saw Michael Haydn (the talented younger-brother of Joseph) in Salzburg where he had been engag’d since the summer of 1762. Thus although there is no evidence that M. met Joseph Haydn in person before December 1781 in Vienna (Haydn was given November, December & January off every year) Mozart definitely was aware of Michael Haydn’s older brother’s works by reputation & hand-copied (& printed copies) of scores (mainly Sinfonias & String Quartets by JosephHaydn after 1772) - I’m not sure about the early Haydn Divertimenti written in 1757-they sound just like Sinfonias to me, but Haydn ought to know what his first Sinfonia was, if anyone...one would imagine; his ‘failing memory’ theory just doesn’t wash with me...
Donald Goodell
You are quite right that Mozart clearly knew a number of works by Haydn some years before their friendship of the 1780’s; some clear and obvious examples would include:
- the Opus 9 and 17 quartets - there is an extant copies in Salzburg of some of the Opus 17 works annotated by Mozart;
- the piano sonatas Hob. XVI:21 - 26, where a number of stylistic features appear in some early Mozart sonatas eg the third movement of the Sonata in C (K279);
- the g minor Symphony 39 which is clearly the model for Mozart’s g minor Symphony 25 (K183).
It appears that Haydn knew almost nothing of Mozart’s music before the latter left Salzburg and moved to Vienna.
Regarding the chronology of Haydn’s earliest symphonies, the first symphony is as I explained originally.
The latest research by the German musicologist Sonja Gerlach, whose important work on the chronology of the early symphonies - building on that of Larsen, Robbins Landon, and others - is not really challenged by anyone; Gerlach dates Symphony 1 as 1757 and places it as first.
Gerlach lists five other symphonies as being possibly 1757 but with a qualifying possible later date:
Symphony 1 is 1757
Symphony 37 is 1757/58;
Symphony 18 is 1757/59;
Symphony 2 is 1757/59;
Symphony 4 is 1757/60;
Symphony 27 is 1757/60.
In short; Haydn got the right first symphony, but the wrong date.
Merci beaucoup ! Peut-on espérer d'autres symphonies de Haydn interprétées par Christopher Hogwood et l'AAM ?
The correct date for this symphony is *1757* (not 1759).
Despite some conjecture in the past, this symphony is now universally acknowledged amongst scholars as being Haydn’s first, something about which the composer himself was adamant (though Haydn himself mistakenly recollected it being composed in 1759, hence the debate).
The doubts arose as there is an extant copy of the badly misnumbered Symphony 37 bearing the date 1758.
This manuscript copy of 37 was at odds with Haydn’s clear statement to both his early biographer Griesinger, and his secretary Elssler that the first symphony was Symphony 1, and as mentioned above, the confusion was caused by his faulty memory in old age.
The 1759 date that unfortunately appears on your score, is simply incorrect.
Sonja Gerlach, who completed a major work on the chronology of the early symphonies - building on the work of Larsen, Robbins Landon et al - is the current last word on this subject; she has established that Symphony 1 was in fact written in 1757.
In summary, Haydn got the right first symphony but the wrong date.
Sonja Gerlach also lists five other works that could possibly be backdated to 1757 - 1758/59/or 60, but only Symphony 1 as 1757.
For anyone interested, I have written further on this subject in reply to Donald Goodell, below.
Incorrect
@@leo32190
I presume that you referring to a now deleted comment, and are not referring to the detailed explanation I have have given above relating to the latest scholarly dating of Haydn’s first symphony which is entirely accurate and correct.
If you are referring to the description, you’re quite right that it is incorrect, and Bartje should amend it.
He might also remove the silly reference to ‘Father of the Symphony’ - there is just as much evidence that Haydn is Father Christmas.
@@elaineblackhurst1509 "Father" is an appellation given to honor Haydn's domination and summation of the symphonic form, in both sheer quantity and quality of output rather than being the actual progenitor of the symphony. It's not meant to convey he composed the first symphony any more than Beethoven labeling Bach the "father of harmony" is meant to imply harmony didn't exist before Bach. Someone of your purported intelligence shouldn't need this explained, but I see you laboring over this point over and over again ad nauseum in these comments.
@@Jalapablo
I get your point entirely, and in some respects you are right, but your argument is based fundamentally on:
i) Re-defining the word ‘father’ to mean something that it does not mean; again to labour the point, a father *must* by definition be involved at the conception, and Haydn clearly was nowhere near the conception of the symphony.
ii) Ignoring every known fact about the origins of the early symphony.
It’s true I have repeated this before, but one gentleman in particular* has repeated this silly ‘father of the symphony’ comment 104 times recently (the original ‘ad nauseam’) in a virtually identical comment which I have tried to correct in 104 different, and hopefully interesting, and occasionally maybe, amusing ways.
What I have written needed saying - Haydn was *not* the father of the symphony - as it leads to comments on Symphony 1 along the lines of ‘So this was the first ever symphony…’ (to be found in this thread).
I have not laboured the point ad nauseam - I never raise it - but I do admit fully to replying ad nauseam to correct the misleading error.
I have on some of the replies made clear Haydn’s extraordinary contribution to the *development* of the symphony, basically your point, with which I agree completely.
Why is it that only Haydn seems to be stuck with these nonsensical, inaccurate and misleading appellations - why isn’t Mozart therefore the ‘father of the piano concerto’, or Boccherini the ‘father of the string quintet’, et cetera ?
* This same gentleman incidentally has appended the same offending comment which he has used on almost every Haydn symphony also to one by *Michael* Haydn, and he clearly cannot tell the difference which somewhat undermines confidence in what he is saying.
Additionally - and even more bizarrely - you will find a comment from him under one of the uploads of The Creation claiming that Haydn ‘influenced’ JS Bach!!!
Such utter nonsense and misleading absurdities deserve challenge and correction.
@@Jalapablo
As an afterthought, I might at a push - in fact a very heavy shove - just about accept the term of Haydn as ‘Father *to* the Symphony’, or the rather more clumsy ‘Step-father’ or ‘Foster-parent to the Symphony’.
gut
Excelente tema
La pièce est 1/2 ton plus basse que ce qui est sur la partition. Est-ce normal?
Who are the performing orchestra?
If you click on the tab "show more" under the video you will see: The Academy of Ancient Music, conducted by Christopher Hogwood.
26 .9
Where is the score taken from?
IMSLP
Mozart copiaba a Haydn totalmente. Visitaba la casa de éste muy a menudo desde niño y hasta hay partituras atribuidas a Mozart niño, que en realidad eran de Haydn, Telemann, etc.
Tutti hanno diritto a un opinione anche se completamente sbagliata - il tuo commento è un sacco di disinformazione.
So technically this was the first ever symphony composed?
No
Johann Stamitz, Antoine Mahaut wrote symphonies as early as 1741.
Sammartini is said to have written the first "concert-symphonies" that we now understand as symphonies. Sinfonias of the baroque era are almost a different genre, but those date back to the 17th century.
Alkım Koş
Probably the first symphonies/overtures were written as early as the 1730’s.
All talk of Haydn as the ‘Father of the Symphony’ which is endlessly and mindlessly re-cycled on TH-cam - and elsewhere - is the most absurd, factually inaccurate, and deviant baloney and codology in the whole of music.
The terms sinfonia and overture were synonymous and interchangeable even up to the end of the century when almost all of Haydn’s symphonies for example, were still being described as ‘overtures’ in the London press and notices in the early/mid 1790’s.
The earliest ‘symphonies’ were works that grew out of the three movement Italian opera overtures from the early years of the 18th century.
An early example would be the ‘VI Introduttione Teatrale’ (sic) Opus 4 Nos 1 - 6 published by Locatelli in Amsterdam in 1735; these six works, whilst being in the form of the three movement Neapolitan opera overture - fast/slow/fast - they still retain some of the concertino/ripieno character of the concerto grosso, and could well have been used as theatre works as the title implies, or be played independently.
GB Sammartini and Brioschi in Milan; Johann Stamitz, Holzbauer, Fils, and Richter in Mannheim; Monn and Wagenseil in Vienna, amongst others, were all writing modern early Classical ‘symphonies’ that were independent concert openers or finales (rather than simply opera overtures); many of these works date from as early as the 1740’s ie whilst the supposed so-called ‘Father of the Symphony’ was still a boy treble in the choir of St Stephen’s in Vienna.
Monn wrote the earliest four movement symphony of which I am aware - ie including a Minuet - in 1740.
Your comment highlights exactly why the biggest paternity fraud in the whole of western classical music needs exposing for the utter nonsense and misinformation it really is.
No it’s not ‘…the first ever symphony composed’.
Composed by a Moor.
Explain your comment please. Enlighten us.
@@bartjebartmans
In the first English biography of Haydn by James Cuthbert Haddon published in 1902 (the biographical details largely and openly based on Pohl), he mentions that due to his darkish complexion, Haydn was sometimes referred to as ‘The Moor’ by his first Eszterhazy employer Prince Paul Anton (1711-1762).
Occasionally, this silly reference is still mentioned as though it is somehow relevant, and if it was ever used, would only have ever been by one person between Haydn’s appointment to the court in 1761 and the Prince’s death the following year.
Haydn considered himself ugly, similarly Mozart looked very odd particularly over the last ten years of his life - ‘…bug-eyed’ according to Jan Swafford - whilst Beethoven was downright unattractive as he was routinely unkempt, dirty and smelly living amidst squalid chaos.
The portraiture of all three composers is not reflective of their true appearance.* what we have is romanticised, sanitised images - almost all Haydn’s facial disfigurements - enlarged nostrils, nasal polyp, pock-marked skin - have been airbrushed or photo-shopped if you like, whilst the images of all three in movies such as Amadeus or Eroica bear little resemblance to the reality.
In terms of outward appearance, both Mozart and Haydn dressed exceptionally smartly; Beethoven did not.
Its surprising really that all three composers didn’t attract more rather derogatory nicknames than the one mentioned here.
* Though it has to be said that Haydn in particular went to inordinate time and lengths over his personal appearance, clothes, jewellery, and all the rest - never appearing without his wig for example; Mozart too took some care in this area, Beethoven almost none.
@@elaineblackhurst1509 Schubert was even worse. Time by time he was homeless, living as a guest in the households of his friends. He was called "mushroom" (Schwammerl) by his friends.
@@olavtryggvason1194
Given all the ‘Papa’ nonsense against which I have complained ad nauseam ad infinitum in regard to Haydn, I think it should be mentioned that Schubert referred to Salieri as ‘Grosspapa’; thanks for the ‘mushroom’ reference - something of which I was not aware - and as a non-German speaker, there is no clue in the word to anyone thinking English or Italian (or any other Romance language) as to its meaning
@@elaineblackhurst1509 Mushroom translates to "Pilz" in German, but in Austrian German they use the word "Schwamm", which also means sponge. -erl is a suffix for diminuation, thus "Schwammerl" means "little mushroom".