Haydn Op. 76 vs Beethoven Op. 18??

[Dancing Divertimentian]

Wagner...good, NOW we're on to serious matters...

[max]

Wagner...good, NOW we're on to serious matters...

Absolutely! I always wondered how Beethoven's Grosse Fuge would sound like when played with 4 accordians!

[Josquin des Prez]

Mozart > Haydn. Sorry everybody, but good old Papa doesn't compare.

[springrite]

Absolutely! I always wondered how Beethoven's Grosse Fuge would sound like when played with 4 accordians!

You will hear unsuspecting audience say: "Now, that fuge is gross!"

[max]

Mozart > Haydn. Sorry everybody, but good old Papa doesn't compare.

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

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 or Berlioz, it was a denigration and that's not something I can ever agree with when listening to Haydn, especially to late Haydn.

Within the top ten tier of Western Composers, Haydn easily occupies a niche within that group.

[Opus106]

Wagner went beyond even him.

For he was standing on the shoulder of a Giant. (With apologies to Isaac Isaacovich.)

[val]

I think that my preference depends on the works. Beethoven's opus 18 has great moments: the opus 18/1, perhaps superior to all quartets of Haydn's opus 76, some moments of the opus 18/6, but the opus 18/2, for example seems very conventional. We must not forget that Haydn composed two more complete quartets, the opus 77, and these two masterpieces seem to me superior to Beethoven's opus 18, excepting the already mentioned first quartet (in fact one of the last to be composed).

[Haffner]

You will hear unsuspecting audience say: "Now, that fuge is gross!"

[Haffner]

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

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 or Berlioz, it was a denigration and that's not something I can ever agree with when listening to Haydn, especially to late Haydn.

Within the top ten tier of Western Composers, Haydn easily occupies a niche within that group.

Yes, also I should mention that in terms of landmark/revolutionary work, Joseph Haydn had it all day over Mozart. Mozart worked with what the Italians, French, and Germans did before him and no more. Granted, he did it astoundingly well, the man was a phenomenal genius (one of my favorite composers). But Haydn pretty much invented the Symphony and String Quartet (of course there were precedents, but not of the forms which became 'institutionalised' later, Haydn had everything to do with that). Haydn also had alot to do with laying down the grounds for Sonata form in music, When a person hears a jingly, question-answer, I-V based tune on the radio, Joseph Haydn had alot to do with the structure beneath.

Mozart just happened to do incredible things with what Haydn had already trailblazed (so did early Beethoven, by the way).

As far as Mozart's String Quartets, he made darn sure that he gave Haydn plenty of credit when it came to them...Mozart's string quartets had practically nothing in them that Haydn hadn't already done (and better) with opps. 20 and 33. I sold my cds of Mozart's string quartets ages ago, why listen to them when I can trade them for collections of Haydn and Beethoven's SQs. In fact the only Mozart SQ I still own is one sent me by Bogey, a great recording of one of his very very early, Italianesque String Quartets. Kind of fun, but no more than that.

I agree that Mozart's mid to late period Quintets for strings were fantastic.

[Herman]

As far as Mozart's String Quartets, he made darn sure that he gave Haydn plenty of credit when it came to them...Mozart's string quartets had practically nothing in them that Haydn hadn't already done (and better) with opps. 20 and 33.

Just as I was thinking this is an admirable post, you're going over board with this. Yes, Haydn was the trailblazer in many genres, and apart from that he's composed dozens of symphonies, string quartets, piano sonatas and piano trios that are beautiful and deeply enjoyable, even if you're not aware these were pioneering works. However Mozart took Haydn's formal innovations and took them to another level, investing them with suggestions of drama previously unheard.

Polls are often silly, but what's really the problem is this notion that there has to be a 'best' all the time. I don't know which poster it was who posted "Mozart > Haydn" but this is such a senseless way of listening to music. These are the greatest composers in 250 years' time, and there's no reason to put one down to make the other one bigger.

Art and music are overwhelming things  -  they're meant to be that way. To may people it's very confusing to enter these realms of great power and beauty (and also perceived status). Many people try to regain control by categorizing and listing things. If you can just say Beethoven is the best, and Beethoven's Ninth is the best Beethoven and everything else is a step down, you're back in control. Control is status. For some people this is very satisfying, but ultimately it's a destructive strategy, and IMHO it spoils a lot of discussions on this board.

[Homo Aestheticus]

Control is status. For some people this is very satisfying, but ultimately it's a destructive strategy.

An excellent point.

[Haffner]

Just as I was thinking this is an admirable post, you're going over board with this. Yes, Haydn was the trailblazer in many genres, and apart from that he's composed dozens of symphonies, string quartets, piano sonatas and piano trios that are beautiful and deeply enjoyable, even if you're not aware these were pioneering works. However Mozart took Haydn's formal innovations and took them to another level, investing them with suggestions of drama previously unheard.

I agree with some points in your post (it's admirably well thought out) but I don't hear anything more "dramatic" in any of the Mozart String Quartets than anything Haydn ever did. I'm not accusing you of failing to listen carefully, but there's drama in more than one section of Haydn's op.20, it's simply on a more subtle level. The drama isn't relegated to single movements (like the obvious, heavy metal fifths structure of the first movement of Mozart's k421). In Haydn, the drama is intertwined within the course of different movements, often unsettling because of the generally good-natured air of Haydn's music.Besides the overwhelming achievement of Don Giovanni, Mozart never wrote convincingly in the sturm und drang dramatic style (that style I believe you were talking about) until his Requiem. Even with the Commendatore and Requiem scenes, they werent exactly subtle in that they were both dealing with Dark subjects to begin with.

But that's just the String Quartets. I happen to love certain movements in Mozart's SQs. The fourth movement of k387 is a real Rocking bit of happy, affirming Light. I also always liked the k428. But, give me his String Trios, Duos, and Quintets over that lot any day.

I'd also like to mention here that Mozart really did surpass Haydn in terms of piano music, and especially the symphony; Mozart's last five (or six) symphonies (and I daresy the little G minor as well) just blow past the majority of things Haydn ever did. Even the Creation and op.76-77 can't stand up to Don Giovanni, Symphonie no. 25, the Haffner to Jupiter Symphonies, the Divertimento in Eb, the String Quintets in D and Gm, and the majority of the piano sonatas.

But, once again, that's my opinion, worth not much at all (if that)

[Sergeant Rock]

Thursday evening I heard both op.77/1 and op.18/2 live ...and folks, I refuse to choose between Haydn and Beethoven.

Sarge

PS I like polls. I love lists. But I don't take either seriously except as mind teasers and conversation starters.

[DavidW]

Mozart never wrote convincingly in the sturm und drang dramatic style (that style I believe you were talking about) until his Requiem. Even with the Commendatore and Requiem scenes, they werent exactly subtle in that they were both dealing with Dark subjects to begin with.

I don't think he was talking about the storm and stress movement.  It's really about a response to this absurd line of yours

Mozart's string quartets had practically nothing in them that Haydn hadn't already done (and better) with opps. 20 and 33.

the emotional resonance, the subtle use of dissonance and rhythm in Mozart's mature string quartets make them very far removed from those Haydn string quartets.  Mozart's mature chamber works in general were considered challenging listening at the time, but they are simply amazing works and not at all derivative of Haydn, not even the "Haydn" quartets.

And Mozart's Requiem is not a storm and stress work.  You are simply equating classical era works that have a strong impact on you as being storm and stress.  That movement is about affectations and poetic imagery and not just emotional impact.  I would that you find emotional resonance in many classical era works, without jumping to label them as storm and stress.

[Herman]

I don't hear anything more "dramatic" in any of the Mozart String Quartets than anything Haydn ever did. I'm not accusing you of failing to listen carefully, but there's drama in more than one section of Haydn's op.20, it's simply on a more subtle level.

Well I'm not talking about Sturm und Drang, but about that kind of Angst and despair Mozart can suggest so well, as for instance in the 3d mvt of the K387 SQ, or indeed the strange contrasts between rollicking jollity and (again) despair in the K563 Divertimento for String Trio.

I'd also like to mention here that Mozart really did surpass Haydn in terms of piano music, and especially the symphony; Mozart's last five (or six) symphonies (and I daresy the little G minor as well) just blow past the majority of things Haydn ever did. Even the Creation and op.76-77 can't stand up to Don Giovanni, Symphonie no. 25, the Haffner to Jupiter Symphonies, the Divertimento in Eb, the String Quintets in D and Gm, and the majority of the piano sonatas.

Here we go again. What makes you think you have to choose and discard? You can listen to Haydn and Mozart. Hell, you could even listen to Beethoven, or Schubert. Or Stravinsky. You have a whole life to live, and you cannot afford to throw away any great music, just because you're under the illusion only a couple things can be The Best.

[Wanderer]

I like both sets of works but I voted neither just for the heck of it.

I like polls. I love lists. But I don't take either seriously except as mind teasers and conversation starters.

Seconded.

[aquablob]

Beethoven is a GIANT.

Wagner went beyond even him.

Just to stir the pot a little... 

Sir Donald Francis Tovey, very excited by the second theme group's Neapolitan recapitulation in the finale of LvB's Op. 131:

"[Beethoven's] power of modulation is really unsurpassed even by Wagner, but this fact is generally ignored or disbelieved, because the occasions on which Beethoven exercises the power in any obvious way are very rare."

[Haffner]

Just to stir the pot a little... 

Sir Donald Francis Tovey, very excited by the second theme group's Neapolitan recapitulation in the finale of LvB's Op. 131:

"[Beethoven's] power of modulation is really unsurpassed even by Wagner, but this fact is generally ignored or disbelieved, because the occasions on which Beethoven exercises the power in any obvious way are very rare."

Listen to opus 131, then listen to the prelude to Tannhauser. For something more subtle, yet even more devastating, listen to the prelude to Lohengrin. There are many more examples I can give.

[aquablob]

Listen to opus 131, then listen to the prelude to Tannhauser. For something more subtle, yet even more devastating, listen to the prelude to Lohengrin. There are many more examples I can give.

I was, of course, representing Tovey's opinion, and not necessarily mine.

For what it's worth though, if you want to talk about modulatory "subtlety," the Neapolitan thread in Op. 131 (particularly it's slippery introduction in the opening fugue) is worth examining in some detail!

Beethoven even basically wrote a whole quartet basically in tribute to Haydn (op.135).

A good but—and I say this most respectfully—exaggerated point. I'd grant you the first and last movements of Op. 135, but some (e.g. Joseph Kerman) have actually found more Mozart than Haydn in them. Of course, there is, as you have stated, also a great Haydn influence on both Mozart and Beethoven, so this does not invalidate your statement.

Perhaps a better yet Haydn-in-Beethoven example would be the substitute finale for Op. 130?

[Haffner]

I was, of course, representing Tovey's opinion, and not necessarily mine.

For what it's worth though, if you want to talk about modulatory "subtlety," the Neapolitan thread in Op. 131 (particularly it's slippery introduction in the opening fugue) is worth examining in some detail!

A good but—and I say this most respectfully—exaggerated point. I'd grant you the first and last movements of Op. 135, but some (e.g. Joseph Kerman) have actually found more Mozart than Haydn in them. Of course, there is, as you have stated, also a great Haydn influence on both Mozart and Beethoven, so this does not invalidate your statement.

Perhaps a better yet Haydn-in-Beethoven example would be the substitute finale for Op. 130?

I'm very grateful that you pointed out the subtleties in op.131, and I am also in agreement concerning the way I overemphasized the Haydn tribute in opus 135 by a long shot. I owe David W. an apology, I was way too impulsive writing these last posts. I accused David of being as impulsive and edit-impaired as I myself was. Thanks so much by at least indirectly helping me clean my act up.