Haydn - Sinfonia Concertante in B-flat major. Jacek Kaspszyk & Warsaw Philharmonic 

at least ignorance

Not sure Haydn is underrated; to anyone who knows anything about music he sits with Mozart as one of the two greatest composers of the Classical period (c.1750-1800) and was duly rated very highly by CPE Bach (in print), Mozart (openly) and Beethoven (grudgingly) - three pretty good judges who certainly didn’t underrate Haydn. Haydn was also in his lifetime unquestionably the most performed, most published, and best-known composer across Europe, so the contemporary public - generally speaking - in fact rated him above everyone else Really doesn’t add up to your ‘…underrated’ tag does it.

There so many Sparks from Haydn Genius that the world has been burning for 200 years now.

Pretty much zero Mozart in this work to my ears, indeed, in spite of their close friendship there rarely is anything identifiably Mozartian in Haydn; there are some Haydnesque compositional techniques more evident in Mozart but in his case too, the music remains quintessentially Mozartian. Its probably true to say that as Mozart and Haydn had such unique and powerful musical personalities, the ‘influences’ between the two are usually overstated, and in most cases amount to little more than one being occasionally slightly reminiscent of the other, something that was inevitable between two contemporary composers who shared a common Classical (c.1750-1800) musical language.

@@elaineblackhurst1509 From what I've read, Mozart was influenced by Haydn's string quartets. And Haydn stopped writing operas after hearing Mozart's. They had a bromance, but their personalities were quite different. The music of Haydn's that I've heard is almost always cheerful. Mozart 's music can be equally cheerful, but is at times melancholy and even tragic. They were one of those paired opposites such as Michelangelo/Raphael, Tolstoy/Dostoyevsky, Verdi/Wagner, Prokofiev/Shostakovich, with the difference that they truly liked and admired each other, which speaks highly of their characters.

⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​The bromance you quite rightly mentioned was real enough; the two composers liked each other very much, and had a mutual respect which in Mozart’s case, came in the form of musical challenges that arose from knowing the only contemporary composer of a comparable stature. Mozart’s response to Haydn’s Opus 33 string quartets being the most obvious example of him taking up one of these challenges, but there were lots more as well. Haydn’s opinion of Mozart was unequivocal - the greatest composer he knew either in person or by reputation. Be careful about repeating lazy platitudes about Haydn and opera: i) Haydn had already stopped writing opera *before* he met Mozart or knew a note of his operatic music; his last comparable Eszterhaza opera was Orlando Paladino premiered 6 December 1782 (though he did write Armida - an opera seria premiered fifteen months later 26 February 1784). ii) Haydn of course did *not* stop writing operas as he wrote L’anima del filosofo in London which was due to be performed in that city in May 1791 but got caught up in legal and contractual issues. Additionally, in 1795 Haydn wrote his great operatic scena ‘Berenice, che fai ?’ which along with Mozart’s ‘Ch’io mi scordi di te ?’ are the two greatest works of this type of the Classical period, or second half of the 18th century if you prefer. Much of what you describe as ‘cheerful’ perhaps may be better understood as playful ingenuity; though there is a very long list of works where there are far more important characteristics evident, and a far more profound intent behind the music.

@@elaineblackhurst1509 Thanks for the info on Haydn's later operas. Why do you think they are so seldom performed?

@@philzmusic8098 *The operas of Haydn.* i) The music’s great, but the libretti are generally speaking second-rate, and whilst Haydn uses stock 18th century characters, Mozart’s are more modern, more real, and more human (generally speaking) particularly in his later better-known operas. ii) The operas were written for Prince Nicholas’ private theatre, not a ticket buying public as was the case with almost all Haydn’s contemporaries such as Paisiello, Cimarosa, Soler, Mozart, et al; this made a significant difference. iii) The sense of dramatic pacing by the composers listed above (driven by point ii) was superior to that of Haydn who was driven by the requirements of Prince Nicholas for whom nothing was too long; Haydn himself was quite clear that his own operas were written specifically for his own theatre, singers, and circumstances. To illustrate this point, listen to the sublime trio for three sopranos ‘Mi sembra un sogno’ from Haydn’s opera L’incontro improvviso (1775), then compare it with the equally sensuous ‘Soave sia il vento’ from Mozart’s Così fan tutte (1790). Mozart delivers his piece in a dramatically effective two-and-a-half minutes, Haydn’s action stalls as we spend nearly ten magical minutes floating up to heaven with music that loses nothing in comparison to Mozart at his most celestial. iv) Opera is horrendously expensive to mount, and opera companies around the world tend to stick to what they know will sell tickets; customers know what they like and like what they know; this leads to extremely safe choices with repertoire from this period - ie almost exclusively the same small proportion of Mozart’s operas (even Gluck barely gets a look in). This affects not only Haydn, but many of the other composers listed above as well; there really is room to replace the endless performances of Figaro which is over-performed to saturation, with some of the finest contemporary works such as: Paisiello - Nina, or Il barbiere di Siviglia Cimarosa - Il matrimonio segreto Soler - Una cosa rara v) In spite of the above, almost all of Haydn’s operas have been performed by smaller specialist companies across Europe in particular,* and they have been better received than might have been expected - as I said, the music is very fine, something acknowledged by Mozart. For example, Haydn’s end-of-act finales which would have been a real eye-opener to Mozart when to take a specific case, he heard La fedeltà premiata in Vienna in 1784; Haydn’s musically detailed and complex finale was way ahead of anything being heard in the city - or elsewhere - at the time.** It’s also worth mentioning that in fact Haydn’s operas are actually probably more performed than the twelve operas of Mozart composed before Idomeneo of 1779/80, and in fact, the programming of Mozart’s operas is largely restricted to just five of the post-1780 works - Entfuhrung, , Figaro, Don Giovanni, Così, and Zauberflote. I would suggest that JC Bach’s setting of Lucio Silla (1774) for Mannheim is superior to that of Mozart setting virtually the same text for Milan (1772); in other words, early Mozart suffers in the same way as every other composer when compared to the later, most popular Mozart, and it leaves composers like JC Bach absolutely nowhere, regardless of quality. vi) Haydn’s music is essentially instrumental in conception, even when writing for voices; Mozart’s music is essentially cantabile and vocal in conception, even when writing for instruments; this makes a difference and is another reason why Mozart is more popular in the opera house. Interestingly, Beethoven is entirely in the Haydn camp here, and not surprisingly therefore, he also struggles in the opera house, especially when similarly compared to his contemporaries such as Rossini. vii) Lots of other things, but this will do for starters. Hope that’s helpful. * Occasionally ruined by director’s inflicting absurd productions that mistakenly attempt to fix perceived deficiencies in the pacing of the operas by up-dating the action, dressing-up the characters in nonsensical costumes, or having them behave oddly; this criticism however is heard frequently around the world by despairing audiences whoever is the composer. ** The finale of Act 1 of La fedeltà premiata lasts nearly 20 minutes, and is an astonishing musical tour-de-force. The finale is essentially in B flat major (3rd-related to the operas overall key of D major). Astonishingly, within the finale, Haydn moves downwards (from light to darkness) in a sequence of 3rd-related keys: B flat major - Gmajor - g minor - E flat major - C major - A flat major - g minor - B flat major - g minor - B flat major. The downward cycle ends with the A flat section where Haydn deftly matches the words to the end of the downward spiral (it’s to do with marriage!). Much of the meticulous musical detail in Haydn - of which the above is just one example - is lost without a score; the music however, even if only subliminally, is therefore very satisfying.

A sinfonia concertante is neither a symphony, nor is it a concerto; it is a sort of hybrid combining elements of both and was popular across Europe in the second half of the 18th century. Besides this single one by Haydn, Mozart wrote two sinfonie concertanti (K297 and K364), and JC Bach quite a number (the one in C major for flute, oboe, violin and cello T289 No 4 is particularly fine), as did many other composers; they are invariably extremely attractive works with almost any combination or number of solo instruments possible.* In searching for further examples, both Mannheim (Carl Stamitz for example) and Paris (Gossec) will yield further examples. Into the 19th century, composers abandoned the sinfonia concertante and moved more towards concertos with more than one instrument such as Beethoven’s triple concerto Opus 56, though in the 20th century, some composers returned to the form. Hope that’s helpful to anyone passing by interested in the subject. * One of the oddest combinations being the interesting Sinfonia concertante in E flat major by Kozeluch for mandolin, trumpet, double-bass and piano (sic). PS: if you want to go further than ‘bravo’ (well done) use ‘bravissimo’ (very well done); ‘molto bravo’ is unidiomatic and never used.

…pour cette symphonie concertante (ma Haydn ha usato le parole italiane sinfonia concertante).

Mark Manning Perhaps because of the chamber-musical writing for the four soloists.

It was actually written in London, and specifically for an English audience.

Уховёрки, вот и всё.

Too repetitive for my taste that second movement.

That's a little elitist don't you think

Haydn would not have composed this in 1795 for Salomon: his orchestra had been forced to disband so that money could be reallocated for war funds even as Haydn continued to ride the waves of success that his second London visit was bringing him. Haydn composed his symphonies 103-104 not for Salomon but for Giovanni Battista Viotti’s Opera Concerts at the King’s Theatre. And the Concertante? It is a product of the first London visit, written in 1792 on request of Salomon. Haydn’s student Ignaz Pleyel had been stationed in London for a while and was competing with Haydn and Salomon with not only symphonies but concerti as well, including the genre of Sinfonia Concertante. Salomon wanted Haydn to play his former student at the student’s own game. Of course Haydn did so with consummate mastery.

Ignatz and Joe were having none of the rivalry thing and they included each others music in their concerts. I never met Joe, old as I am but I am pretty sure that he hated the idea of the Concertante - which was a " Mozart thing " and the strange but effective choice of the quartet instruments suggests he had no intention of going into competition. Don't think he really liked concertos at all, although he would write them if paid, or if asked nicely.

@@petercrosland5502 I never said that they were in competition as composers. Rather, Salomon was in competition with a rival impresario who liked the sinfonia concertante as a genre as a whole and programmed works by Pleyel and others in the genre. Salomon indeed asked Haydn nicely for it. I can also believe that Salomon paid Haydn nicely for the work, as it was a hit in its own day.

@@StuartSimon Some really thoughtful responses, more importantly though, factually accurate responses. Regarding sinfonie concertanti in general, the only thing I might add is that composers tended to write them for the soloists available at the time and place, rather than writing them and then expecting the soloists to be found. The details in Robbins Landon’s biography (Volume 3) are interesting, not least in the way he shows the immense work pressures Haydn was under at the time of composition.

That's because most of his concertos are written for very small chamber orchestras for mostly string instruments.

Haydn’s Sinfonia Concertante - like Mozart’s two examples - is not a concerto. The word concerto does not appear in the title; all three are more symphonic in design, being a sort of hybrid, with both the prominent solo elements of a concerto, but with these parts more integrated into the work as a whole, rather than being at the forefront and dominating proceedings. Sinfonie Concertanti were popular in the later 18th century, but in the 19th, composers preferred - in an age of more blatant virtuosity - to compose double or triple concertos (Beethoven), or go down the path of Berlioz’s Harold in Italy for example.

Польша прекрасна. Но почему полякам нужно спасать европейское искусство? Итальянцы, испанцы, немцы, французы и остальные - с их многовековой культурой не справятся сами? p.s.: Ненужные Слова С Больших Букв - верный признак легких психических отклонений.

Вы обладаете даром матери одного из моей челяди, которая, как и вы думает, что может определить человека по заглавным, или каким-то, ей ещё, известным, сочетаниям букв.

@@AndreyRubtsovRU не забывать Австрицев...

haha

Cc lol

@@el_gadjo7847 tu es qui ?

Machowska

Hmm😎

Andrey Rubtsov Typically, all the timpani that a player needs for an entire program will be arranged onstage well before a concert. It is too much work to handle during intermission. The timpanist needs the other timpani for other works on the program.

It seems "Mozartian" indeed, but who knows why... .

The London Symphonies seem full of Mozartian echoes, and they are from the same period. Haydn does seem to have been influenced by Mozart during the early 1790's.

I believe what you all mean to say is, "oh, now I see where Mozart borrowed his material from."

No it bloody doesn't. It owes sod all to Wolfgang apart from the fact that Wolfie liked doing them and Joe didn't. so the strange mix of soloists

Peter Crosland Straight to the point, but you’re right; the two composers’ friendship served only to highlight their own individuality. There is a huge amount of nonsense written by people who imagine that they hear non-existent ‘influence’ which in truth, usually does not exist. Just because Picasso uses red paint, it does not mean that he has been ‘influenced’ by Michelangelo because he too used red paint; many of the imagined links imagined in RU-vid comments are manifestly absurd. The soloists for this work, like those in Mozart’s two sinfonie concertanti and almost every other such work written at the time, were determined pragmatically by the commission and/or the soloists available.

Yes, I since saw the names at the beginning of the video. Thanks for the reply.

Yes, she looks very much pregnant.

Irrelevant.

She must have so much air in her lungs