Bach or Beethoven re most influential

[quintett op.57]

Actually, not only are Mozart's quartets wholly superior to Haydn's, but he also went on to create further amazing works of chamber music with his Piano Quartets, String Quintets and the final String Trio.

Superior in what? sorry?
Don't understand

[(poco) Sforzando]

Superior in what? sorry?
Don't understand

Neither do I. Mr. des Prez seems to have produced a remark worthy of Rod ("were I but of noble birth!") Corkin.

[Haffner]

Neither do I. Mr. des Prez seems to have produced a remark worthy of Rod ("were I but of noble birth!") Corkin.

I'd like to know also how they were "superior". Mozart's String Quartets were all basically variations on what Haydn did. There was no originality. Excellent craftmanship, but wholly in the Joseph Haydn style.

I love for anyone to coherently defend the last three Mozart Quartets against pretty much anything Haydn was doing at the time. Those last three are some of his lamest pieces (well, at least for the truly exemplary Mozart, a favorite composer of mine).

Go listen to Haydn's opus 20 and op.33. Then listen to any of the Mozart quartets. I hear nothing new, and mostly only well done imitation.

Again, this is coming from a huge admirer of Mozart's (my 2nd favorite composer, after Wagner). But I love more his String Duos, Trios, Quintets, operas, last five or six Symphonies, and concertos far more than his SQs.

[Haffner]

Agreed, Haydn's SQs were bowlegged for a week when Mozart was done with them.

Hard to believe that after listening to opps. 50-77. Sorry, Mozart.

[Josquin des Prez]

Mozart's String Quartets were all basically variations on what Haydn did.

Nonsense. You need to listen more closely. Mozart took Haydn's example and pushed the boundaries to heights unforeseen by the older master. The counterpoint is more profuse, his harmonic language far, far more daring (and i'm not just talking about the dissonante quartet. Mozart's language is always woven in subtle but extended chromaticism), and his melodic invention is unparalleled. To even suggest that those exquisite compositions are nothing but a raw simulacrum of Haydn's op.33 is border line absurd.

I love for anyone to coherently defend the last three Mozart Quartets against pretty much anything Haydn was doing at the time. Those last three are some of his lamest pieces (well, at least for the truly exemplary Mozart, a favorite composer of mine).

I don't have to. Mozart had left the quartet behind and was already writing timeless masterpieces in other forms of chamber music. Besides, it's not like Haydn didn't wrote lesser quartets as well. What about the op.71 for instance? I'd say the Prussian quartets are superior to those, at the very least.

Hard to believe that after listening to opps. 50-77. Sorry, Mozart.

All of which written after Mozart composed his. In fact, has anyone ever noticed that Haydn wrote all of his greatest masterpieces after the Viennese master was already dead? Don't get me wrong, that Haydn was a great influence on Mozart is unquestioned, but i think the influence the latter had on the first is rarely acknowledged.

[(poco) Sforzando]

Don't get me wrong, that Haydn was a great influence on Mozart is unquestioned, but i think the influence the latter had on the first is rarely acknowledged.

Rarely acknowledged? I'd say it's a fairly standard observation.

[Haffner]

Nonsense. You need to listen more closely. Mozart took Haydn's example and pushed the boundaries to heights unforeseen by the older master. The counterpoint is more profuse, his harmonic language far, far more daring (and i'm not just talking about the dissonante quartet. Mozart's language is always woven in subtle but extended chromaticism), and his melodic invention is unparalleled. To even suggest that those exquisite compositions are nothing but a raw simulacrum of Haydn's op.33 is border line absurd.

Okay, but can't I just be fully absurd?

I don't have to. Mozart had left the quartet behind and was already writing timeless masterpieces in other forms of chamber music. Besides, it's not like Haydn didn't wrote lesser quartets as well. What about the op.71 for instance? I'd say the Prussian quartets are superior to those, at the very least.

All of which written after Mozart composed his. In fact, has anyone ever noticed that Haydn wrote all of his greatest masterpieces after the Viennese master was already dead? Don't get me wrong, that Haydn was a great influence on Mozart is unquestioned, but i think the influence the latter had on the first is rarely acknowledged.

I completely disagree about the Prussian Quartets. Haydn's Op.71 is another fantastic masterpiece. However, I'll admit that opps.55,64 and 71 might pale in comparision to,say, Haydn's opps. 50 and 54 and 74. But of course, we're comparing Haydn's Latter-Era String Quartet Masterpieces.

I daresay the Mozart Prussian Quartets are the last thing I'd ever want to play for someone I wanted to introduce and/or convert to Mozart-admiration. It's just my opinion, but the Mozart Prussian Quartets always sounded alot like rehashes to me. On the other hand, the Joseph Haydn Prussian Quartets...For me the difference in quality in comparison to Mozart is particularly triking between these two sets of quartets. But that's just me.

I also fully agree as to the influence Mozart had on Haydn. Again, Haydn's chamber music for strings after Mozart's death completely outstrips anything done for the genre before, and remained unmatched until LvB's monumental op. 59. Again, just my very humble opinion.

[Haffner]

And I think it has more to do-with and is a case-of Haydn bearing fruits & flowering in his maturity, a life devoted to honing, developing, refining his composing, more-so than being influenced by any single composer...

It's truly incredible what Haydn and Wagner wrote after they were over 57 years old!

[quintett op.57]

It's truly incredible what Haydn and Wagner wrote after they were over 57 years old!

very difficultly at the end : He got a very hard time finishing The Seasons. He was sad he could not find strength enough to write down the new ideas he had during his last decade.
Whatever we know about his difficult relations with beethoven, he was happy, but not surprised, to see him fulfill some of his projects : The replacement of the Menuet by the Scherzo in the symphonies for example.

Every interesting (& very true) article about Mozart and haydn's influence : http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0277-9269%28198207%291%3A3%3C265%3AMVHLTB%3E2.0.CO%3B2-T&size=LARGE&origin=JSTOR-enlargePage

Not the kind of text explaining that one's influence was 1.2 times more important than the other's

[Haffner]

very difficultly at the end : He got a very hard time finishing The Seasons. He was sad he could not find strength enough to write down the new ideas he had during his last decade.
Whatever we know about his difficult relations with beethoven, he was happy, but not surprised, to see him fulfill some of his projects : The replacement of the Menuet by the Scherzo in the symphonies for example.

Every interesting (& very true) article about Mozart and haydn's influence : http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0277-9269%28198207%291%3A3%3C265%3AMVHLTB%3E2.0.CO%3B2-T&size=LARGE&origin=JSTOR-enlargePage

Not the kind of text explaining that one's influence was 1.2 times more important than the other's

In other words a bit more mature than that right Q.?

Very cool article. Wish I could read all of it!

I find it sad that Haydn couldn't have squeezed out a first and last movement to that last String Quartet (you probably already guessed that, huh ?).

[Teresa]

Not entirely a subjective question. I forget now which composer is said to have had the most influence on classical music, more than Mozart. 

On a pure emotional level and as a precursor to the types of Classical Music I like I would have to say that Beethoven was more influential as he laid the groundwork for the Romantic Era.  Now could there have been a Beethoven without the influence of a Bach?  This is a question I cannot answer as I don't hear any influence of Bach in Beethoven's music but I do hear Haydn's influence in early Beethoven works.  It seems each generation expands on what the previous generation did thus when all is said and done it could be Bach was the most influential.

[c#minor]

Mozart was no innovator really, he often assimulated (with insight) the developments & innovations of others..

Okay it is generally agreed that Mozart wrote building upon the "developments and innovations of other" but would it be so absurd to say that without Mozart, Beethoven might have not existed? Mozart pushed the ear of the listening public to be able to accept more "emotional" music. Mozart is of exceptional genius because he did stay within the general framework of the classical period yet still pushing the idea of light whimsical melodies into more of a "Romaticesk" attention to the emotion of music. Mozart instilled a passion in his music that was a precursor to the Romantic period. Haydn is still an absolute master of working within form but i cannot believe or accept the statement that Mozart is less of a composer than Haydn, or that Mozart was no innovator. Though Mozart was not an innovator in the sense that Haydn or Beethoven might have been, he had subtle innovations with the "feel of music" and the way in which it should be presented. That would be like saying the Roman Empire was not great or innovative. They did build their culture and rise to power by implementing the innovations of other civilizations, but they brought all these innovations into one grand display of greatness and insight. As well when they came to power they founded technological and military innovations which will secure their place in the history of the world. Mozart is the Roman Empire in this way. What is the first civilization you learn about in grammar school? Who is the first composer that most people know and hear?

I know it's a weird way of putting it but just roll with it.

c#   

[dave b]

I am absolutely astounded by the NUMBER of works of Mozart. This hit home for me when I went to Arkivmusic and saw, under Composers, the number of recordings they have, and the number for Mozart was phenomenal, and even Bach and Beethoven could not compare, volume wise. I know that the number of recordings or works of any composer does not determine greatness. But still, it is mighty impressive to see his numbers, so to speak. It is as if he composed something every minute of his life.

[(poco) Sforzando]

I am absolutely astounded by the NUMBER of works of Mozart. This hit home for me when I went to Arkivmusic and saw, under Composers, the number of recordings they have, and the number for Mozart was phenomenal, and even Bach and Beethoven could not compare, volume wise. I know that the number of recordings or works of any composer does not determine greatness. But still, it is mighty impressive to see his numbers, so to speak. It is as if he composed something every minute of his life.

Remember that many of Bach's works are lost, so he almost certainly wrote substantially more than we know today. Manuscripts entrusted to his son Willhelm Friedemann were handled carelessly because of the son's extreme dissipation. Bach may have written at least a hundred more cantatas than we now have. Mozart wrote over 600 works before his death at close to 36 years of age; Beethoven wrote far less. One important aspect of Beethoven's influence on later music is that he makes far greater effort to individuate his works than any of his predecessors (he also shifts the balance of his compositions much more to instrumental rather than vocal music). These two things alone are examples of his profound influence over later composers - whether they share his aesthetic in a more obvious way or not.

[(poco) Sforzando]

Okay it is generally agreed that Mozart wrote building upon the "developments and innovations of other" but would it be so absurd to say that without Mozart, Beethoven might have not existed? Mozart pushed the ear of the listening public to be able to accept more "emotional" music. Mozart is of exceptional genius because he did stay within the general framework of the classical period yet still pushing the idea of light whimsical melodies into more of a "Romaticesk" attention to the emotion of music. Mozart instilled a passion in his music that was a precursor to the Romantic period. Haydn is still an absolute master of working within form but i cannot believe or accept the statement that Mozart is less of a composer than Haydn, or that Mozart was no innovator. Though Mozart was not an innovator in the sense that Haydn or Beethoven might have been, he had subtle innovations with the "feel of music" and the way in which it should be presented. That would be like saying the Roman Empire was not great or innovative. They did build their culture and rise to power by implementing the innovations of other civilizations, but they brought all these innovations into one grand display of greatness and insight. As well when they came to power they founded technological and military innovations which will secure their place in the history of the world. Mozart is the Roman Empire in this way. What is the first civilization you learn about in grammar school? Who is the first composer that most people know and hear?

I know it's a weird way of putting it but just roll with it.

c#   

It is often said that Mozart was not an innovator, but surely he brought both the concerto and comic opera to maturity in ways no other composer before him had. I doubt you'll find earlier composers who had Mozart's sense of dialogue between piano soloist and wind instruments, or his adaptation of operatic aria to the concerto. Similarly in opera, what earlier composer had Mozart's sense of musical characterization, his ability to adapt sonata form to the musical action, and his genius at constructing long-range finales?

Certainly Beethoven learned from Mozart too. The Mir is so wunderbar canon quartet in Fidelio is directly modelled on the canon quartet in Act Two of Cosi, the op. 18/5 quartet in A strongly resembles Mozart's K 464 in the same key - a work Beethoven especially admired, and Beethoven was known to have copied passages from Don Giovanni in his own hand. The "C minor" Sturm und Drang mood we think of as so very Beethovenian is all prefigured in Mozart too - above all in the C minor piano concerto and the piano sonata in that same key - a passage from the slow movement of which occuring almost verbatim in the slow movement of Beethoven's Pathetique Sonata.

[c#minor]

He often used Mozart as a model for a lot of his work and was influenced by him greatly. The shift to more instrumental was merely indicative of the time not an innovation of LvB, and he spent a lot of effort setting his EGO to music, and the fact that whilst he did so he also made great formal innovations does nothing to render it more palatable to me.....he too like Mozart, is a very overated composer as well, though I suppose his formal innovations are important. I dont doubt his talents but I dont like how his music sounds personally. The theatrical and overblown in his music is a symptom of his self-fascination. I still think his position in the perception of music history is misguided, and often about extra-musical, romantic hype rather than on the basis of how great his music is - to actually listen to. Much prefer Brahms, it's built on Ludwig B's formal developments I guess, but the music is way ahead. None of the drama queen & the portentous, that LB wallowed in. He simply wasn't a Drama Queen like Ludwig. More musically rounded, and adventurous (I'm not talking about purely structural or formal innovation) and more moving.

This is opinion though. Where you might see over-dramatization i see a man pouring his soul into music. You honestly cannot say that your opinion alone should be considered correct over the assumptions of most musicologists. Not to say you are plain wrong, but the vast amounts of opinions by other well informed people conflict with yours. No one is per say "right or wrong" but there are the generally accepted views of what is right and wrong. So if you come in conflict with those generally accepted conventions it is merely a matter of opinion. I do respect your opinion, though i disagree. But i will not go as far to say that i am definitely right.

I feel like i am going in circles, as well as saying "opinion" alot. 

[(poco) Sforzando]

he [Beethoven] too like Mozart, is a very overated composer as well

Then like the majority of well-informed, discriminating music lovers, I will continue overrating them both.

[quintett op.57]

Okay it is generally agreed that Mozart wrote building upon the "developments and innovations of other" but would it be so absurd to say that without Mozart, Beethoven might have not existed? Mozart pushed the ear of the listening public to be able to accept more "emotional" music. Mozart is of exceptional genius because he did stay within the general framework of the classical period yet still pushing the idea of light whimsical melodies into more of a "Romaticesk" attention to the emotion of music. Mozart instilled a passion in his music that was a precursor to the Romantic period. Haydn is still an absolute master of working within form but i cannot believe or accept the statement that Mozart is less of a composer than Haydn, or that Mozart was no innovator. Though Mozart was not an innovator in the sense that Haydn or Beethoven might have been, he had subtle innovations with the "feel of music" and the way in which it should be presented. That would be like saying the Roman Empire was not great or innovative. They did build their culture and rise to power by implementing the innovations of other civilizations, but they brought all these innovations into one grand display of greatness and insight. As well when they came to power they founded technological and military innovations which will secure their place in the history of the world. Mozart is the Roman Empire in this way. What is the first civilization you learn about in grammar school? Who is the first composer that most people know and hear?

I know it's a weird way of putting it but just roll with it.

c#   

Approved by a person who idolises Haydn.

Unlike Beethoven and haydn, Mozart's work was not dedicated to innovation, but he had too much creativity not to contribute to the evolution of music.

[Haffner]

I know it's a weird way of putting it but just roll with it.

c#   

What is the first civilization you learn about in grammar school?  American



Who is the first composer that most people know and hear? Beethoven

[Haffner]

surely he brought both the concerto and comic opera to maturity in ways no other composer before him had.

Let's leave Shirley out of this (get it? Shirley/surely, BWA-ha-ha...

_^maybe?

Sorry Sforzando, I'm a preposterously corny dude!)

I agree with you on the concerto and comic opera. And probably the drama giacoso as well (he might actually have invented the latter). And I think that Mozart's last 5 or six symphonies are generally accepted as the peak Symphonies of the 18the century.

I doubt you'll find earlier composers who had Mozart's sense of dialogue between piano soloist and wind instruments, or his adaptation of operatic aria to the concerto. Similarly in opera, what earlier composer had Mozart's sense of musical characterization, his ability to adapt sonata form to the musical action, and his genius at constructing long-range finales?

Certainly Beethoven learned from Mozart too. The Mir is so wunderbar canon quartet in Fidelio is directly modelled on the canon quartet in Act Two of Cosi, the op. 18/5 quartet in A strongly resembles Mozart's K 464 in the same key - a work Beethoven especially admired, and Beethoven was known to have copied passages from Don Giovanni in his own hand. The "C minor" Sturm und Drang mood we think of as so very Beethovenian is all prefigured in Mozart too - above all in the C minor piano concerto and the piano sonata in that same key - a passage from the slow movement of which occuring almost verbatim in the slow movement of Beethoven's Pathetique Sonata.

These are all insightful assertions. Note the preponderance of Haydn in not only the early SQs right up to and not including op.59. Also I'd have to assert that both Symphony no.8 and op.135 are about as Haydn influenced as Beethoven got; probably because they were at least partly intended that way.