Joseph Haydn - Symphony No. 59 in A major "Fire" (Harnoncourt) 

I refer to it as structure and form, which are things seriously lacking in certain very famous composers I daren't mention.

@@bobshifimods7302 With many composers of the 18th century Classical period, the structure and form define the composer and his music; in Haydn’s case - and Beethoven in the next generation - the composer defines the structure and the form. I could list endless examples of this such as: - the radically new idea of the delay of the first movement second subject in the ‘Farewell’ symphony which appears in the development instead of the exposition; - the end of act finales in La fedeltà premiata; - the E major slow movement in the piano sonata in E flat Hob. XVI:52; - the return of material from the Minuet in the Finale of Symphony 46; - the Fantasia: Adagio movement in the string quartet Opus 76 No 6; - Et cetera. You could no doubt add numerous examples of your own, which in the cases of Haydn and Beethoven is not a difficult task. (In a rather different way, it is true of Mozart as well).

govcalif we have musical geniuses... search for Jeremy’s Soule OST for Elder Skrolls 5

Too many people ... Too many money ...

Because society is not progressing but regressing

It's too intelligent for the modern populace.

+Luis Alberto Almeida He is more than that!

luis I quite agree,Ilearn as many f the piano works I can possibly manage.love it

Indeed, he was very skilhed.

Luís Alberto Joseph *Haydn* was even more brilliant!

Theoden the Renewed Regardless of any labels that are frequently applied - or mis-applied - Beethoven is clearly from a different musical, social, political, economic, and cultural (ad infinitum) age to Mozart and Haydn. Mozart and Haydn = Age of Reason, Age of Enlightenment; the 18th century was an age of *certainties.* Beethoven = Age of Revolution; the 19th century was an age of *uncertainty.* To casually add Beethoven on to the end of the Classical world of his two great predecessors is mindless absurdity, one that is frequently to be encountered in texts by authors who should know better. As Beethoven is not Romantic either in the sense of composers like Schumann, Chopin, Mendelssohn, and Liszt, I prefer to label him - if we must - as post-Classical, and would include in this group composers like Rossini, Cherubini, Hummel and a number of others who sit equally uncomfortably in the traditional boxes of either Classical or Romantic.

Haydn’s father was a wheelwright, though I’ve never heard any of his music so can’t comment. Dittersdorf wrote a lot of symphonies.

​@@elaineblackhurst1509Уважаемый! Отец Гайдна не был музыкантом, поэтому Вы ничего и не услышите!А вот его сын Йозеф Гайдн был композитором. И он признанный отец симфонии, сколько бы Диттерсдорф со Стамицем не написали произведений,называя их симфониями. Гайдн-Отец, Музыка-Мать, Симфонии-их дочери! И эту истину Вам не поменять, как не старайтесь!

⁠@@user-gu6oj7iz5k A father must by definition be involved at the conception; regarding the symphony, Haydn wasn’t, so isn’t - it’s really very simple, clear and straightforward. Additionally of course, there is no one single ‘father ofthesymphony’ as the earliest symphonies emerged in different places from the hands of different composers such as Sammartini and Brioschi in Milan, Johann Stamitz, Holzbauer, Richter and Fils in Mannheim, and Wagensiel and Monn in Vienna, along with others elsewhere. Haydn’s first symphony (Symphony 1) was written in 1757 which was the year Johann Stamitz died having already written about 60 modern early-Classical symphonies which neatly evidences both the absurdity and the unfairness of crediting Haydn with something with which he had absolutely nothing to do. If we are talking about the *development* of the symphony in the second half of the 18th century, then no single composer is more important than Haydn and he is rightly credited for his special role, but father…forget it.

Ваши познания вызывают восхищение! Снимаю перед вами шляпу!Но к сожалению, забыть, что отцом симфонии является Гайдн, не могу, так же, как и Вы, и миллионы других любителей музыки.Ваши обширные познания мешают Вам принять тот факт, что Гайдн-отец симфонии не предмет музыковедческого спора, а объективная данность, признанная современниками и последующими поколениями. Это уже давно стало МУЗЫКАЛЬНЫМ ТЕРМИНОМ! Гайдн был отцом первой и последующих симфоний, которые мы и считаем симфониями, а не прозведениями , очень похожие на симфонии по некоторым объективным признакам и названными симфониями, но всё-таки не являющимися таковыми. Я могу, вторя Вам, назвать Стамица или Дитерсдорфа отцами "раннеклассической симфонии", и пусть это будет Вашей терминологической победой( и Вам решать, кто из них был первым отцом "раннеклассической симфонии". А музыкальный термин "Гайдн-отец симфонии" оставьте миллионам любителям музыки, переубедить которых в ошибочности истины не возможно и не стоит бесполезных усилий. С огромным уважением и симпатией к Вам!

No pun intended.

Dude this is lit

I bet your book's a piece of shit anyway.

Hahahaa!

I've said for a while that Hadyn's symphonies are the best. Mozart put his genius and joy into his piano concertos and operas.

Mmm, Mozart composed many a brilliant symphony, in fact for his time he was bordering on the avant garde in his instrumentally innovative writing and orchestration... pointing towards 19th century Romanticism. Haydn was very influential in his middle period of symphonic writing... but less so at the end of his life when his style started to be considered old fashioned, compared to the young Beethoven. I think Haydn beats Mozart on the String Quartet front without doubt. Symphonic output.. I don't think there is a clear winner... Piano Concerto and Opera Mozart wins over Haydn. That's my personal opinion.

A Koster Some interesting opinions but you might like to consider the following points. Mozart’s final symphonies - 35, 36, 38, and 39 to 41 - are six of the greatest symphonies of the 18th century; both brilliant and profound; Mozart reached a level way beyond everything he had written in the symphonic form previously. I think you may only be partly correct about Mozart writing ‘...many a brilliant symphony’: many earlier symphonies were brilliant *sounding* - Symphony 31 (‘Paris’), or 25 for example, they could even be described as spectacular - neither would I list amongst the greatest symphonies of the 18th century. The ‘Paris’ symphony in particular - under scrutiny - is not a ‘great’ symphony. - Leopold Mozart had his doubts about it; - it’s noisy, full of fashionable special effects and tricks - the premier coup d’archet for example; - it was written for an audience Mozart did not respect; - it has virtually no thematic development and is just a succession of beautiful ideas; - it is a relatively conventional work; - it has very long stretches of D major; - Mozart himself probably intended to revise the work as late as 1786 with perhaps a new finale? - ...and so forth. The ‘Paris’ symphony was specifically composed to ‘wow’ an audience Mozart described as ignorant...very different from what he produced for Prague for example. In short, Mozart wrote many fine symphonies, but until the last six, did not really choose the form as one into which he poured his most searching music. Prior to Symphony 35, they are almost without exception beautiful and effective works, clothed in a fantastic orchestration reflecting the density of his musical thought, and wonderful sense of orchestral sonorities, but in contrast to many of his other works, they do not represent the composer at his greatest. Mozart’s orchestration is stunning, but it is 18th century, and everything about Mozart is of the Ancien Regime and the Enlightenment; I think trying to equate Mozart with Romanticism is as inaccurate as it is misleading because there is nothing of it in a single note of his music. The 19th century fate of Mozart and Haydn was very similar; they both became old-fashioned in the world of Beethoven, though you are right that Haydn did more so than Mozart. Even Mozart’s 19th century reputation however was limited to a tiny number of works, particularly the ‘demonic’ minor key works such as Don Giovanni or the d minor piano concerto K466. Haydn’s reputation stayed intact until his death, Mozart’s actually improved after his death, but for both composers, the 19th century was a bit of a struggle. Mozart always held a special place, Haydn’s recovery only really dates from the middle of the 20th century. The main problem with comparing Mozart and Haydn is that it leads you nowhere; they are more different than most people realise. Even the most basic composition techniques are different, the sound is different, the motivic treatment of Haydn is different from the contrasts evident in Mozart, Mozart’s exquisite balance and poise is contrasted with the deliberate disruption of expectations and odd phrasing in Haydn...and so on. Mozart is more interested in the sound of the notes, Haydn - like Beethoven later - in what he can do with them. It is better really to try to understand why the two composers were so fascinated with each other and it is a better use of time to investigate the differences rather than look for similarities. Even in an area like opera where Mozart clearly ‘wins’, there are issues to consider: Mozart’s libretti are clearly superior to any Haydn ever set, and Mozart had a much better sense of dramatic forward momentum - he was writing for ticket paying audiences, Haydn was writing for Prince Nicholas who would have happily spent all night in the theatre. The music in Haydn’s operas is often better than the libretti deserve; there are things in Haydn such as the complex end of act finales in La fedeltà premiata which would have astonished Mozart and was exactly the sort of thing the two composers would have discussed and helped to cement their astonishing friendship. Similarly with concerti, Mozart clearly used the form to create some of his greatest works and Haydn did not; this is essentially a reverse of the situation with the symphony (exceptions excluded). Another thing that complicates attempts to compare works is that some very great Haydn both pre-dates and post-dates mature Mozart. Mozart in 1772 was incapable of getting anywhere near Haydn’s Opus 20 string quartets, or the c minor or A flat piano sonatas (Hob. XVI:20 and 46), or symphonies 44 and 45. After Mozart’s death, Haydn with some of his piano works had moved beyond Mozart almost into the world of Beethoven, both with keyboard technique and the actual music itself. Similarly, there is nothing in Mozart approaching the Representation of Chaos from The Creation, or the tonal experimentation and developments in form of the Opus 76 quartets or the extraordinary late Part-songs. You are clearly interested in music from this period and we have exchanged comments before. I hope this rather long reply gives you and any other passer-by some food for thought and an interesting 5 minutes of reading.

@@elaineblackhurst1509 Just a short reply to your long reply. I'd not disagree with what you say regarding Mozart's symphonies. He wrote less than Haydn but his latter symphonies in my opinion made up for this. Mozart was definately Classical... but certainly in some of his latter works he was not afraid to explore or cross over acceptable style boundaries in music writing of his time... and in my opinion some of mozart's more innovative works do "point" towards the future, including his latter symphonies... but even more so his fantasies for pianoforte.. which at times do not sound classical at all but could have been written 20 or so years after Mozart's death... hence my use of the term "avant-garde". I think Haydn was most exploratory in his development during his symphonic mid-period... Mozart at the end of his life. Unfortunately, Mozart and Haydn's works that did continue to be performed in the 19th and early 20th century became layered with 19th century taste and interpretation... so it was for the historically informed movement from the 1960s onwards to scrape off the layers of 19th century from Haydn and Mozart's works.

A Koster As you avoided the word ‘Romantic’ in your reply, I agree with most of that! The only thing I would suggest is that you have significantly under-estimated the developments Haydn made in the twelve ‘London’ symphonies. The overall design of the symphonies was new, complex, and moved into areas not investigated by Mozart, this is not surprising as the last symphonies of Haydn post-date those of Mozart by nearly seven years. Whilst different from Mozart, there are clear developments in orchestral sonorities and timbre; the recapitulations are often re-orchestrated and in truth, are essentially not recapitulations at all, but a second development section - this is a real advance on 1788. The use of faux naïf themes and motifs which are then sublimated with extensive transformation, often with the use of sophisticated counterpoint, means that there is a real balance between easily approachable music with sufficient for the connoisseur. This is developed further than any composer had done before, Haydn included. Haydn was occasionally criticised for being ‘...too scientific’. This development from the simple to the sublime was a common theme of the London reviews which were some of the most spectacularly positive in the history of music - they were selective though, a review by the same papers of a Gyrowetz work reported by Robbins Landon in his biography of Haydn is absolutely brutal. The designs of the symphonies were increasingly complex and experimental, including with different purposes in the slow introductions. The symphonies had different centres of gravity, including sometimes even in the finale - this experimentation with the respective and relative weight of movements and overall balance of the symphony was new. There is clear evidence of experiments in third-related tonality and symphonies moving from statement - to argument - to resolution, across a unified work as a whole. There are also new developments evident in motivic unity across movements and whole works. There are developments in form, the double variation slow movement in Symphony 103 is just one obvious example. Symphony 95 in c minor - actually quite a conservative work in many respects - illustrates a number of these points: 1st movement - c minor 2nd movement - E flat major 3rd movement - c minor/C major/c minor 4th movement - C major. Recognise the pattern? Substitute an different 3rd-related slow movement - A flat instead of E flat - and you have the exact model for the journey from conflict to resolution found in Beethoven’s 5th symphony. This is the sort of DIFFERENT type of experimentation you find in Haydn that does not occur in Mozart; it intrigued Beethoven, and is why I am suggesting that there is perhaps more in late Haydn than your post suggested. Beethoven also copied out sections of Haydn 99 and in the couple of years after Haydn’s return from London, they performed together frequently in Vienna, Haydn conducting his ‘London’ symphonies, Beethoven performing his B flat piano concerto. Beethoven learnt a huge amount from Haydn’s late works, almost none of it from the formal counterpoint lessons! In short, Beethoven found Haydn rather more interesting and developmental than perhaps your original comment suggested - and much of this interest was aroused by Haydn’s later symphonies. Beethoven found a huge amount to study and learn from, much of which does not occur in Mozart who did things differently. The more I learn about Mozart and Haydn, the more I come to believe that their unique friendship was based on an appreciation of how completely the different they actually were; it was those differences which actually stimulated and challenged them both to greater heights.

Well, I wouldn't dare calling Haydn exactly original, but he is having fun in his compositions

YOBA Industries Inc This is because you don't know music profoundly. Research how music was before him and then come back here to comment.

Well, he did invent symphony and string quartet as a genre back in the day, but he wasn't much of innovator since then, I think people like Mozart and C.P.E. Bach have more to do with advancements in music.

YOBA Industries Inc You are wrong. Many ideas that many people find original in Beethoven or Schubert actually came from Haydn.

Haydn was one of the greatest innovators in music history. Mozart was not. To say Debussy was not original is tantamount to saying I`ve lost my hearing. The four biggest breaks in music history and tradition, are Beethoven`s Eroica, Wagner`s Tristan, Debussy`s Prelude to the Afternoon of a Faun and lastly the rite of Spring by Stravinsky.