Haydn and the classical aesthetic

[Opus131]

This past couple of years i've been exploring more or less casually much of the early classical and galante eras, exploring the various early styles, from the well known Mannheim school to the less understood early Italian pioneers like Sammartini who seems to be the progenitor of Boccherini and so forth. And of course i've also delved deeply into the early works of Joseph Haydn, and one thing i noticed is that there's something special about the latter almost right from the start. 

Generally speaking, while his early music is fairly well recieved and appreciated, i always got the sense his reputation as a "major" composer really begins with the "high" classical style he developed with the opus 33. There are some famous works for his earlier period, the Strum and Drung symphonies, the Opus 20 quartets and so forth, but i got the sense many don't consider his early works to be particularly different from all the other composers working in the same era using the same idiom and styles.

Yet, the more i listened to him, and the more i become acquainted with his contemporaries from this early period, i started to notice that there is something distinct about his music even early on. Not so much technically of course, i'm talkin more in terms of aesthetics and sensibility. Right from the very beginning almost, his music just seems to have a very well defined "Haydnesque" touch.

Compared to some of his contemparies, all of his early music has this sense of elegance and logical clarity combined with a more lively inventiveness. The music is often very concise but with melodies that are more extensive and free flowing (though not given to excess or wastefulness), and the texture of his works seem to already anticipate the interplay he achieved eventually with his string quartets, with balanced harmonies and chords, and a very pleasant blending of tones, especially in his writing for strings. 

In fact, speaking of his quartets, the one thing that made me curious is when i read the booklet on my recording of the opus 3, where it is mentioned that the composer of those works, a certain Roman Hoffstetter, so admired the opus 1 and 2 of Haydn that decided to write works in a similar manner. Now this just seemed interesting to me because i always saw the opus 1 and 2 as being minor early works, not worth of much consideration, yet it seems those works already exerted considerable influence when they were first published (and not just because they were "quartets" as that wouldn't have meant the same then as it does to us now), which made me wonder in what way they even differed from anything else being written in this period, and i guess what made them special is precisely that they introduced this new aesthetic.

And i have to stress that i'm talking about aesthetic specifically, not technique. When examining those early quartets most people just tend to look at them as the progenitor of the quartets as a form, but that's not what i'm talking about here and what i'm saying applies to pretty much all of his works, from the symphonies up to and including his minor divertimenti.

Even though much of this early music doesn't qualify as "great" by our standards, due to its technical simplicity, i'm convinced Haydn was an original creative force from the get go.

[Jo498]

It depends also what one means with "early". The quartets/divertimenti opp1.+2 are probably quite early, i.e. before he joined the Esterhazy court but e.g. the "Daytime symphonies" 6-8 were his first major pieces for Esterhazy and very original and accomplished. When he wrote symphony 49 or the quartets op.9 he was in his mid/late 30s with lots of experience.

I'd say even in e.g. op.1 Haydn has a lot of energy and originality. He is more "rustic" than e.g. Boccherini who seems far more elegant and virtuosic.
One of the most remarkable movements of op.1 is the beginning of #3 a beautiful duet for the two violins.

[Opus131]

I think his adagios are quite distinctive as well, with those pizzicato sections that just conjure this Viennese atmosphere in a way that seems unique to him.

I think the gist of my argument essentially is that even early on, when he was still using the common techniques of his era, like those of the Mannheim school, he already had a distinctive voice that was quite apparent to his contemporaries, even though it may not be so obvious to us now. Before his technical innovations he was already exerting an aesthetic influence.

[Mandryka]

You should post this on Talk Classical. There's someone there (Hammeredklavier) who has studied this very question quite carefully, and he's very aware of Haydn's contemporaries.  One thing I do know is that he would give you lots of things to listen to and to compare to Joseph Haydn - things from composers who are now obscure but back then weren't.

I expect his reply would be quite nuanced.

[Florestan]

I think his adagios are quite distinctive as well, with those pizzicato sections that just conjure this Viennese atmosphere in a way that seems unique to him.

What specific connection can be established between pizzicato and Vienna, I wonder.

[Jo498]

There was a Viennese School before Haydn, e.g. Wagenseil. I don't know about pizzicato being important for the.
I think for our popular idea of musical Vienna Haydn and Mozart in the 1780s are the earliest possible option, in fact, I think it is more dominated by later music, obviously the waltz that only became really popular in the 1820s.

I am also not sure how well known Haydn was before the 1770s. The Stabat mater was supposedly praised by Hasse but this has little to do with his 1760s symphonies and quartets. Sure, some pieces were printed and distributed and a minor figure like Hofstetter might have taken inspiration from earlyish Haydn but I doubt that established composers of Haydn's own generation were strongly influenced by him, this was later for some the Mozart generation, or still younger.
The most Haydnesque piece I know is the Symphony C major by Friedrich Witt from the late 1790s that was until the mid 20th century passed as early Beethoven (Jena symphony).

[Florestan]

There was a Viennese School before Haydn, e.g. Wagenseil. I don't know about pizzicato being important for the.
I think for our popular idea of musical Vienna Haydn and Mozart in the 1780s are the earliest possible option, in fact, I think it is more dominated by later music, obviously the waltz that only became really popular in the 1820s.

This. When today we think of typical Viennese music, the dances and marches of the Strauss family and the operettas of Lehar and Kalman spring to mind easier and quicker than Haydn's early string quartets.

Besides, if you play a Haydn early string quartet, pizzicato and all, to someone not familiar with it without mentioning who composed it, I doubt their first reaction will be "Hey, this sounds Viennese!"

[(poco) Sforzando]

If you don't know it, may I recommend Charles Rosen's book "The Classical Style."

[Opus131]

There was a Viennese School before Haydn, e.g. Wagenseil. I don't know about pizzicato being important for the.
I think for our popular idea of musical Vienna Haydn and Mozart in the 1780s are the earliest possible option, in fact, I think it is more dominated by later music, obviously the waltz that only became really popular in the 1820s.

I am also not sure how well known Haydn was before the 1770s. The Stabat mater was supposedly praised by Hasse but this has little to do with his 1760s symphonies and quartets. Sure, some pieces were printed and distributed and a minor figure like Hofstetter might have taken inspiration from earlyish Haydn but I doubt that established composers of Haydn's own generation were strongly influenced by him, this was later for some the Mozart generation, or still younger.
The most Haydnesque piece I know is the Symphony C major by Friedrich Witt from the late 1790s that was until the mid 20th century passed as early Beethoven (Jena symphony).

My argument was more of a question of aesthetics though, not forms. Haydn didn't invent the forms he was using (i mean early on) i'm just getting a sense he put a more significant stamp to the music of his time than what is usually recognized.

It may not be so obvious to us who are used to radical contrasts (a symphony by Beethoven being vastly different from a symphony by Brahms for instance) but i think it must have been evident to Haydn's contemparies given both his repuation and composers that picked up from him (like Dittersdorf and Vanhal).

At first hearing a symphony by Johann Stamitz and an early symphony by Haydn may appear to be very similar but there are in fact differences. At the very least, i can actually remember the symphonies of Haydn much more clearly than those of Stamitz. Something about them makes them more memorable and i can't imagine people in those days would have been oblivious to this contrast.

I don't know about pizzicato being important for the.

It's something i read in the notes of a recording i have of his early divertimenti. Apparnetly it was something he came up with (the style not the pizzicato itself as a technique) and was super popular overnight.