Haydn Op. 76 vs Beethoven Op. 18??

[Florestan]

As for the epithet "Papa Haydn", if it came from Mozart - and I'm almost certain it did - it was a declaration of respect and seniority. When enunciated by Schumann [...], it was a denigration

You're wrong. When Schumann set about writing his own SQ, he studied only briefly Beethoven's, but extensively Mozart's and Haydn's. He had a deep reverence for the musical past and never crossed his mind to dismiss it.

[Homo Aestheticus]

Agreed.

Wagner's glorious harmonic world is much, much richer & deeper than anything LvB could muster up. I can't think of a single Beethoven symphony that comes even remotely close to the profundity of the Prelude & the Good Friday music to Parsifal...or the Tristan & Isolde prelude/interludes ..for me, these things alone are way beyond anything LvB did.

Thank you for stating this.

[Josquin des Prez]

If we're discussing quartets as compared to quintettes, I beg to differ. If Haydn write wrote any string quintettes - and I suspect not - they wouldn't be anytwhere near Mozart's achievement. The reason I say this is because I never heard of a Haydn String Quintette, which I would have, had they been near to Mozart's merit. But minus one instrument, Haydn's late quartets are phenomenal and imo equal to Mozart's though different as they should be if individuality and singularity is a quality in itself as it has always been in Beethoven

I disagree. I think the "Haydn quartets" are superior to anything Haydn ever produced, and they are roughly on the same level of inspiration as the quintets. In fact, i tend to think Mozart surpassed Haydn in pretty much everything, quartets, symphony, what have you, and it is significant that Haydn's best compositions were written after Mozart was already dead. I don't think people realize the enormity of what Mozart accomplished through out the 1780s when compared to the music of the time, including the works of Haydn. For instance, take the symphony, and think that the pinnacle of this genre during this period were Haydn's Paris symphonies, and then compare those to the last three symphonies of Mozart, which were written shortly after. And then when we look at the London symphonies, we have take into considerations that those compositions were written against the standard set by Mozart, and is there anything here that actually compares to the g minor symphony, or the Jupider? And now think of what Mozart could have accomplished if he had lived another decade.

[max]

You're wrong. When Schumann set about writing his own SQ, he studied only briefly Beethoven's, but extensively Mozart's and Haydn's. He had a deep reverence for the musical past and never crossed his mind to dismiss it.

I think Schumann had a deep reverence for the past as well!

Nevertheless, this is what he wrote re Haydn:

Haydn's music has always been played here often and one can no longer experience anything new with him.
He is like an intimate friend of the family [Hausfreund] whom one meets always with respect and gladly. But
a deeper relevance for today's world he does not possess.

It wasn't only Schumann who held this view.

[Herman]

Wagner's glorious harmonic world is much, much richer & deeper than anything LvB could muster up.

Which is why many people prefer Beethoven, or other classical era music.

Bigger isn't necessarily better.

[Homo Aestheticus]

Which is why many people prefer Beethoven, or other classical era music.

Bigger isn't necessarily better.

Herman,

I was only expressing the opinion that Wagner's harmonic, melodic, rhythmic and coloristic inventions are immensely more seductive and beautiful than Beethoven's.

That has absolutely nothing to do with 'bigger'.

[Bulldog]

Herman,

I was only expressing the opinion that Wagner's harmonic, melodic, rhythmic and coloristic inventions are immensely more seductive and beautiful than Beethoven's.

It's comments like the above that make you one of GMG's extremist contributors.

[Homo Aestheticus]

It's comments like the above that make you one of GMG's extremist contributors.

It's merely an opinion on music and aesthetics. The word 'extremist' has little meaning in this context.

[Herman]

I don't see what the word "extremist" means either. There are tons of people here who could be called Beethoven extremists.

[Bulldog]

It's merely an opinion on music and aesthetics. The word 'extremist' has little meaning in this context.

Your response shows that you aren't likely to stop using exaggerations.

[DavidW]

There was no exaggeration or extremist position in that one reply of his Don, he was just merely trying (& failing) to clarify things for Herman who misread. Anyway, I was referring to Wagner's deep rich harmony.

Apples and oranges: Romanticism and Classicism were harmonically very different.  If you were to compare Beethoven to Mozart or Haydn I would see that's how your taste runs, if you compare Beethoven to Wagner I'm tempted to think that you simply have no taste for the harmonic structure of classical era music.  Is that the case?

[Bulldog]

There was no exaggeration or extremist position in that one reply of his Don, he was just merely trying (& failing) to clarify things for Herman who misread.

It was the word "immensely" that bugged me.  But I'm now in my NFL frame of mind, so this subject is now history.

[Florestan]

I think Schumann had a deep reverence for the past as well!

Nevertheless, this is what he wrote re Haydn:

Haydn's music has always been played here often and one can no longer experience anything new with him.
He is like an intimate friend of the family [Hausfreund] whom one meets always with respect and gladly. But
a deeper relevance for today's world he does not possess.

Thanks for the quote. It might be extracted from a larger context, but it's still iluminating, I think.

Let's face it: the mental and intellectual worlds of Haydn and Schumann (and their corresponding aestethics), not to mention their personalities, were galaxies apart. Given that, the quote above is not in the least denigratory.

[Rod Corkin]

Considering the wretched and understudied performances that Op18 is usually given I'm not surprised Haydn is leading in the poll (amongst those who expressed a preference). Quite frankly it seems Op18 as a whole are beyond even the most renowned quartet ensembles from the interpretive perspective.

Of the recordings I've heard the Turner Quartet are better than most, they use period instruments too which is a bonus. You can hear a few extracts from their recording at my site (if you log in that is).
http://classicalmusicmayhem.freeforums.org/beethoven-6-string-quartets-op-18-t991.html

[aquablob]

Considering the wretched and understudied performances that Op18 is usually given I'm not surprised Haydn is leading in the poll (amongst those who expressed a preference). Quite frankly it seems Op18 as a whole are beyond even the most renowned quartet ensembles from the interpretive perspective.

What a crock "cork" of poopy 

[Haffner]

What a crock "cork" of poopy 

Zee poo-poo?

[Rod Corkin]

Ah there's only one GMG... 

[Haffner]

Ah there's only one GMG... 

Rod, I've got to ask: do you like any non-Hip performances of op.18? You don't like the Veghor Juillard set?

[aquablob]

Ah there's only one GMG... 

Put a Corkin it 

[Dr. Dread]

There's only one GMG and that's why he keeps posting here.

Everyone knows his agenda by now. I don't know why he bothers...