Haydn Symphony No. 19 | Giovanni Antonini | Kammerorchester Basel (Haydn2032 live) 

I think the word primitive is a bit rough. There is considerable sophistication in the writing.

Primitive in terms of the history of the symphony from its beginnings c.1740 in comparison with later works from the 19th and 20th century, even compared with those of the later 18th. You are absolutely right, there is nothing ‘primitive’ about anything Haydn wrote - it is invariably highly professionally composed, extremely sophisticated, original, and often very intellectual music.

Thank you Elaine for your "liner notes". Very insightful, concise, well written!

I am allways struck by the enormous difference in composing that occurred in a very short time, 1730 to 1750 ca. No way Bach or his contemporaries would write anything like this. Everything is different: harmonic pace, orchestration, role of counterpoint.

@@christianwouters6764 Listeners often write about so-called transitional composers between the Baroque and the Classical; except for a very few cases, such composers do not really exist; the change from Baroque to Classical happened much more sharply, cleanly, and decisively. Sammartini in Milan, Wagenseil and Monn in Vienna, Johann Stamitz, Richter, Holzbauer and Fils in Mannheim, and others, did not gradually emerge out of the Baroque, as night turns to day, these composers were writing strikingly new sounding works with barely a glance back at their forbears. These composers were producing works unrecognisable from a Baroque concerto, overture, trio sonata or any of the other Baroque forms. The strange new sounds of Johann Stamitz were in many ways shocking; his works were written for new instruments, and instruments that were used differently. There were - for the time - sensational changes in dynamics, and works were written in new forms, such as the four movement symphony including a Minuet and Trio. Similarly, the older Baroque-style ritornello and binary forms were superseded by sonata form for example. The old terraced dynamics of the Baroque were being replaced with interesting novelties like the Mannheim crescendo (it actually originated in Italy), and a whole bag of new orchestral tricks. The list of changes was endless. Stamitz died in 1757 having written about 60 symphonies. Haydn wrote his first symphony in that year, and Handel was still alive, as was Rameau, and Telemann did not die until 1767, by which time, Haydn had written about 40 symphonies and was at the beginning of his ‘sturm und drang’ period. In short, there were two completely different musical worlds existing separately, but side by side, for about a quarter of a century from c.1740. One was old, dying and becoming extinct with its aged composers, the other youthful, vigorous, and developing rapidly a completely new music.

You seem to know a great deal about the music of Haydn. Good job!

It was kind of you for troubling to direct me towards a fascinating article full of interesting new insights - it was much appreciated. I was aware of the Philadelphia document but had never actually seen it; many thanks, it was interesting to see the reproduction. Besides Haydn’s symphonies 47, 62, and 75, it’s interesting to speculate on the number of his symphonies Mozart did know; we can with some certainty add at least 39, 78, 80, 82, 83, 84, and probably 45, 85, 86, and 87 to this list, along with some speculations about what Mozart may have heard on his earlier visits to Vienna, for example in 1773. Mozart was also familiar with a large number of quartets and sonatas, and probably heard La fedeltà premiata in Vienna in 1784 - a rare Haydn opera on tour! Regarding ‘influences’ in the opposite direction - Mozart to Haydn - I generally find them over-stated, and difficult to substantiate. I think Haydn knew almost nothing of Mozart’s music before their first meeting, probably in 1783 - hence the immediate impact when they did meet. If anything, Haydn’s deep understanding, knowledge and appreciation of Mozart served only to intensify his own individual style; where Mozart assimilated and integrated, Haydn was almost impervious, and introspective. I have largely discarded the word ‘influence’ with regard to Mozart - especially with regard to his post-1781 works. Other than his father, perhaps as an eight year old boy, JC Bach could have been said to have influenced Mozart, but the word becomes increasingly unsatisfactory as the years go by. I have come to think more in terms of Mozart assimilating external stimulae, and then integrating them into an enrichment of his own personal style - essentially one of the points you make in your article. These external stimulae included not only other composers, but performers as well - for example Anton Stadler, individual singers, da Ponte’s libretti, the Mannheim orchestra, the contrapuntal works of Handel and Bach (and others), et cetera. Handel* and Bach are a particularly good example of my problem with the word ‘influence’; Mozart was not influenced by either, he assimilated and integrated what he learnt from them into his OWN style and compositional technique. Haydn’s particular contribution to this development and stimulation of Mozart was I think to present challenge; as the only contemporary composer of comparable stature, Haydn posed questions no other composer could ask. Haydn’s Opus 33 string quartets are an obvious example - works also much admired by CPE Bach: Mozart’s uncommissioned and purely artistic response was the six ‘Haydn’ quartets ‘Essi sono, è vero il frutto di una lunga, e laboriosa fatica’, along with one of the most moving dedications in all of music illustrates this point perfectly. Thank you for your contributions to this discussion - they have provided much food for thought and I particularly enjoyed considering some new ideas. * The same is true for Haydn who was stunned by the power of Handel’s music in England and noted it carefully; but he was not ‘influenced’ by it. One of the surprising things about both The Creation, The Seasons, and the late masses, is actually how un-Handelian, and quintessentially Haydnesque they all are.

Some thoughts regarding the points you raise. i) In Haydn, there is an almost complete absence of influence of any composer apart from CPE Bach (though there is a more general Italian context to Haydn, as the dominant Italian musical culture across Europe affected almost every composer to a greater or lesser degree); therefore finding little of JS Bach in Haydn is hardly surprising. Haydn to the end of his life only ever really acknowledged a debt to CPE in terms of being an influence* (though this influence is not always obviously apparent). ii) Apart from a few isolated piano works, for example the Baroque style Suite K399 - which reflects Mozart’s interest in both Bach and Handel - or the Fantasie and Fugue K394, and some string chamber arrangements, there is a similar absence of JS Bach in Mozart’s scores more widely. iii) Mozart - and Beethoven later - were interested in Bach, but much of Mozart’s interest related specifically to his study of contrapuntal forms, fugues in particular. Mozart clearly found them fascinating - with good cause. Thus, he was interested besides JS, in CPE and WF Bach, Handel, Michael Haydn, and also lesser composers such as Eberlin. Mozart almost certainly borrowed Joseph Haydn’s heavily annotated copy of Fux - Haydn over time had meticulously worked out all the exercises - whereas Mozart’s own copy simply had noted comments. iv) Fux was a common thread amongst almost all composers from its first publication in 1725 (original Latin version) and 1742 (first German translation), and then throughout the rest of the 18th century. Whether Baroque or Classical - and beyond - almost every composer studied and referred to Fux on matters of counterpoint. There were other counterpoint manuals, but Fux’s Gradus ad Parnassum was the shared reference point, therefore it was inevitable that some identifiable Fuxian threads run between all the composers mentioned. I remember reading that Fux was the only theoretical book in JS Bach’s library - it is therefore a direct line from JS, to Mozart - whose father used it in teaching the young Wolfgang - and Haydn, then from Haydn to Beethoven who used it for the counterpoint lessons, as did Albrechtsberger who took over the lessons when Haydn left Vienna for his second trip to London. v) Haydn possessed a manuscript copy of the b minor mass of JS Bach, and there is a late portrait of him with a bust of JS in the background. vi) As with much of the so-called ‘influences’ on Mozart, the level of assimilation and integration into Mozart’s own style is so highly developed that it is better thought of as enrichment. The contact with JS Bach enriched Mozart in a way it did not with the more impervious Haydn who was in any case, supremely confident with counterpoint. Beethoven also studied JS Bach carefully - the choral works of Handel, Mozart’s Requiem, and Haydn too - for example as preparation for the choral section of the 9th symphony. However, here too, I think there is actually little audible evidence of these studies, more a case of these studies enriching another very powerful, unique, and individual musical personality and style. vii) Mozart and Beethoven were pianist performer/composers, Haydn was not; it is therefore natural that they would be interested in aspects of JS Bach - the major keyboard works in particular - that were less relevant to Haydn. viii) Mozart - and sometimes Haydn too when he was in Vienna - attended Baron van Swieten’s Sunday morning concerts of old music; both therefore became familiar with a number of works by Handel and Bach in particular. Haydn was far too busy at Eszterhaza to have time to write letters about music in general, nor did he have a correspondent like Leopold for whom we have to thank for a significant number of the letters of Mozart. In that respect, we do not really know as much about Haydn’s views on JS Bach as we do about what he thought of Handel. However, I think the real impact of Handel on Haydn came later - it was in England that Haydn was struck by the Handel thunderbolt, not in Vienna.** Similarly, when Mozart heard a JS Bach motet in Germany in 1789, it was there that it impacted on Mozart in a new way. Just some first thoughts, but as a general point, I do think the importance of ‘influence’ is often over-stated when dealing with composers of the stature mentioned above. I would be interested to learn from any contrary views. * Arguably Porpora should be mentioned as well. The very young Haydn did say also that he learned much about singing, composition, and the Italian language, whilst acting as accompanist and valet to the composer and teacher Nicola Porpora as a very young man soon after he left St Stephen’s Cathedral. It also seems highly likely that Porpora would have helped Haydn with his counterpoint studies as he worked his way through Fux at this time. ** Mozart spent some considerable time on his Handel orchestration/arrangements; historical curiosities, but some of my least favourite ‘Mozart’ works. If Haydn had heard any of the smaller-scale performances of Mozart’s arrangements of Handel in Vienna, they made little impact; what he heard in London stunned him.

The centrality of Fux - both as a master of counterpoint and a composer - is undoubtedly correct. Indeed, one can presume that Haydn absorbed a good deal of contrapuntal know-how during his youthful role as a choirboy in Vienna, singing masses by Fux and other 'late Baroque' composers, such as Caldara. In terms of influence, it might be fruitful to examine the significance of the works of Georg Christoph Wagenseil (1715-1777), a Fux pupil, on Haydn's early symphonies. Moreover, ambitious contrapuntal movements from the first half of Haydn's career (for example, in the Symphonies Nos. 3 and 40, and three of the Opus 20 String Quartets) would appear to owe a good deal to Haydn's absorption of Fux's contrapuntal legacy. In addition, the 'Missa Sunt Bona Mixta Malis' by Haydn, a D minor a cappella mass dating from around 1768 (when Haydn was already a mature composer) is an exercise in a 'Fuxian' contrapuntal idiom, which appears to have been left incomplete (the holograph breaks off in the Gloria of this mass). Interestingly, the young Brahms honed his own contrapuntal skills in the 1850s, by writing (or at least starting) what is now known as his 'Missa Canonica' - an analogous foray into 'traditional' counterpoint of greater or lesser severity. To the extent that C.P.E. Bach ("CPE") was an influence on Haydn, any such influence appears to have been largely restricted to Haydn's keyboard sonatas of the mid-to-late 1760s (by which time he had already written some 40 symphonies, in which any influence of CPE is, at best, hard to detect). Finally, arguably the most imposing contrapuntal movement in any 18th Century symphony - the finale of Mozart's 'Jupiter' Symphony of 1788 - is a spectacular display of Fux's legacy, with its contrapuntal complexity and resplendent C major orchestration redolent of movements in some of Fux's larger operas, such as 'Angelica, Vincitrice di Alcina', and 'Costanza e Fortezza', in which orchestras that include 8 trumpets and 4 timpani are deployed.

@@martinheyworth3750 You raise many interesting points, to which I offer the following observations. 1. Wagenseil. I think he is key early influence on shaping the new early Viennese style and his music was clearly known to Haydn, indeed all early Classical composers in Vienna, and including Mozart as well for whom Wagenseil was a model for some of his early keyboard works for example. It is clear from many of Haydn’s early works - symphonies, concertos and sonatas - that he was familiar with Wagenseil’s new galant idiom, and his compositional techniques such as rhythmic rather than melodic first subjects, second subjects in related minor keys, and so forth. This influence of Wagenseil was I think very widespread; his works were known in manuscript throughout Austria and Germany, and were even published in Paris and as far away as London. Haydn was familiar I think with the music of several of these early Classical composers, and would include Sammartini, Stamitz, Holzbauer, Richter and Monn, and his young friend Dittersdorf on this list. 2. CPE Bach. Haydn and CPE ran a mutual admiration society from afar.* There is no need to repeat the well known tributes the pair paid to each other, except to say that Haydn acknowledged no other composer to whom he owed any debt - including Mozart - and CPE stated that Haydn was the only composer who fully understood his teachings and knew how to make use of them properly. The problem that arises however, is that little of Haydn sounds like CPE and vice-versa. The solution in fact lies in what Haydn learnt about musical structures, thematic treatment, and the accuracy and consistency of musical notation - most obviously, the standardisation of ornamentation for example. All these things were taken from CPE’s Versuch, the associated sonatas, and later keyboard works; after the author himself, no other person so thoroughly knew the Versuch as did Haydn. Therefore, I think the question of ‘influence’ works in a similar way to that between Haydn and Beethoven: the answer lies more in the compositional techniques and details below the surface, rather than the composers’ music having any obvious similarities. 3. Haydn and Mozart and contrapuntal forms. You are correct that in many earlier works of Haydn we find Fuxian style fugal movements; however, I think counterpoint was a fundamental and integral part of Haydn’s compositional technique throughout his career. It appears for example frequently in sonata form development sections as a natural working out of the motifs and themes - the first movement of Symphony 77 being a specific example. You are correct about the degree to which Haydn absorbed Fux; his heavily annotated copy was probably borrowed by Mozart, he used it for the counterpoint lessons with Beethoven, and this thus creates a direct link from JS Bach who had a 1725 Latin first edition, direct through Haydn, to Beethoven, and into the 19th century. I think counterpoint, and in particular how it could be integrated into modern sonata type music, it is one of the subjects Mozart and Haydn discussed frequently when together. Along with the discovery of Handel and Bach, Haydn is one of the key reasons that Mozart’s post-1781 symphonies - and other works - are so much richer in this respect than before his move to Vienna. Mozart’s ‘Jupiter’ symphony is a very particular masterclass of this integration of sonata music with counterpoint, such a masterclass indeed that no later composer chose to emulate or follow it. Haydn offered similar masterclasses in a different way in his later symphonies - most obviously in the finale of Symphony 95, and as mentioned above, as a natural part of the development of his themes. Haydn’s themes incidentally tend to have a rather different shape from those of Mozart; they normally lend themselves more naturally - or fragments of them do - to contrapuntal work. However, I think Mozart 41 has gone so far beyond Fux as to be almost unrecognisable; it is the product of the composer’s lifetime of assimilation, integration, and synthesis of different aspects of both contemporary and older music into his own unique, and enriched personal style. 4. Missa ‘sunt bona mixta malis’ (Hob. XXII:2). I have a recording of this interesting a cappella style mass - with organ continuo - or at least the extant parts. David Wynn Jones has speculated that the mass may in fact have been completed, and that the extant autograph Kyrie and ‘unfished’ Gloria was in fact Haydn’s neat copy of the complete original draft. The theory is that the original of 1768 was being copied by Haydn, who got as far as the extant fair copy shows, but then the fire at Haydn’s house in 1768 destroyed the original from which Haydn was copying. What we have has five spare, blank pages, indicating that Haydn intended to continue - the fire destroyed the original original. The other reason to suggest the work may have been completed earlier in 1768 is that the work was entered into his Entwurf-Katalog; Haydn would not have done this had the work not been completed. Hope you find something of interest in these thoughts, many thanks for your contribution. * On his return from the second visit to England in 1795, instead of the shorter English Channel crossing, due to the French wars, Haydn was forced to take the longer North Sea crossing to Hamburg where CPE had lived since 1768. Haydn called to see CPE Bach! It is one of the great unexplained mysteries of music why Haydn was unaware CPE had died seven years earlier in 1788. It is incredible to me that the news was unknown in Vienna when Mozart and Haydn were together up to late-December 1790, and unknown in London - which included large numbers of emigres from Paris, and many Germans such as Salomon. Mozart had noted the death of JC Bach in a letter to his father only weeks after JC’s death - but neither Mozart nor Haydn knew anything of the death of one of the most famous composers of the day, seven years after the event. As incredible as it is mysterious.