Haydn- more talented than Mozart
Few are more aware of the difficulties of selling Haydn than Franz Patay, an organizer of festivities marking the bicentenary.
“If you show someone a (Haydn) bust they’ll think it’s Mozart,” says Patay, who was also involved in the all-Austrian hoopla surrounding the 250th anniversary of Mozart’s birth three years ago. Patay says the Haydn budget of around $40 million — around $56 million — was about a quarter of what was allocated to the Amadeus year.
I’ve said it here before, but I’m not sure everyone heard me.
Haydn was a more creative, more talented and more skilled composer than Mozart.
More interestingly, I think the generally accepted breakdown of their respective gifts is mostly wrong. We hear that Mozart was the most facile and infallible composer who ever lived, a man who never needed to sketch or to revise, and whose works are infinitely fresh and inspired.
On the other hand, we’re taught that Haydn is the model of all that is normal in music. “In a Haydn symphony, you’d expect the development to do this, but Beethoven does something surprising here.”
In fact, I have yet to come across a single join between phrases or a single harmonic event or a single rhetorical corner in mature Haydn that unfolds in a predictable way. For all that he creates the strongest sense of expectation of any composer who ever lived, he never seems to simply give us what we expect. Simple alternations of 4-square antecedent consequent phrases are rarer than a hungry fox in a hen house.
On the other hand, for all we hear of Mozart’s divine spark, there are huge stretches of his music that are formulaic and four-square, especially in the orchestral music. For all the wonder that unfolds from it, the opening of the Jupiter Symphony is quite boilerplate. And Mozart did need to sketch- his most perfect works, like the Haydn quartets and the Requiem were meticulously sketched. For all that we think of him in terms of elegance and infinite facility, there is plenty of Mozart that is clunkier, more predictable and more formulaic than anything Haydn would ever write.
On the other hand, Mozart wrote a good chunk of the most deeply moving, profoundly sad music ever. Of course, regular Vftp readers know that I have a special place in my heart for the Requiem, but think also of the Andante from the Sinfonia Concertante for Violin and Viola, which towers above the rest of that piece, but is so, so, so moving. The 40th Symphony is simply the greatest tragic symphony ever written- certainly the most tragic tragic symphony ever written. When he broke a sweat, he could unleash an astonishing facility- think of the Finale of the Jupiter.
Far from being the facile and elegant classicist, Mozart’s genius was really as the first Romantic, experimental composer.
The oft repeated anecdote-
.
And Mozart’s father, Leopold, cited Haydn as telling him: “Your son is the greatest composer I know.”
Is often quoted to imply that somehow Haydn thought of Mozart as more talented, but Haydn and Mozart both knew that Haydn’s skill, invention and facility far surpassed those of his beloved young friend. That’s why Mozart struggled more with the Haydn quartets than with any other works in his output.
But Haydn’s statements on Mozart show that he understood better than most musicologists and performers the nature of Mozart’s genius-
“How inimitable are Mozart’s works, how profound, how musically intelligent, how extraordinarily sensitive!” he wrote.
Notice that he stressed profundity and sensitivity. Haydn understood that Mozart was the first Romantic- that his true gift was his ability to take us to the absolute centerpoint of the human soul than any other composer.
I’ve got a busy month of Haydn concerts ahead. The article quoted above implies that people don’t like Haydn as much as they like Mozart, but I’d say that my Haydn concerts of the last 3 or 4 years have been some of the most well-received ones I’ve done. These are all important gigs for me, and it is no accident that I pushed for Haydn on all of them- I know the audience will love it. Haydn doesn’t have to be a minority interest- when people hear his music done well, the adore it.
June 19, 2009
Orchestra of the Swan
Shakespeare Summer Proms
Stratford-upon-Avon
Haydn and Mendelssohn Anniversary Prom
Stratford-upon-Avon
Mozart- Symphony no. 12
Haydn- Cello Concerto no. 1 in C major
Nick Stringfellow, cello
Mendelssohn- Song Without Words
Haydn- Symphony no. 45 “Farewell”
Haydn-Jahr 2009June 26, 2009
International Festival-Institute at Round Top
Texas Festival Orchestra
Haydn Anniversary Gala Concert, Haydn-Jahr 2009
James Schlefer- Concerto for Shakuhachi and Chamber Orchestra
World Premiere Commission
Haydn- Sinfonia Concertante for Oboe, Bassoon, Violin and Cello
Haydn- Symphony no. 86 in D Major
June 26, 2009Haydn Anniversary Gala Concert, Concerto for Shakuhachi and Chamber OrchestraWorld Premiere CommissionHaydn- Sinfonia Concertante for Oboe, Bassoon, Violin and CelloHaydn- Symphony no. 86 in D MajorJuly 4, 2009
Helix Ensemble
Haydn- Symphony no. 60 “Il Distratto,” Haydn-Jahr 2009
Philip Sawyers- Symphony no. 2
Beethoven- Symphony no. 4
Haydn was the conductor of the greatest orchestra ever assembled (one has only to look at what he wrote for his principals to know that!), the friend of princes, the master in whose shadow Mozart and Beethoven stood. He also sounds like a hipper and more fun guy than most people think-
A lover of wine, Haydn insisted that a part of his yearly salary be paid in it. He worshipped women — except for his wife, who used to rip up his scores and use the paper as hair curlers. Haydn was a mentor to Mozart, who credited him with teaching him how to write string quartets — and who freely used elements of the elder composer’s music in his works.
And — despite his relative obscurity now compared at least to Mozart — he was BIG in his time.
Mozart died impoverished and with his musical legacy unsecured. Haydn, in contrast, dined at the table of Esterhazy — one of Europe’s most powerful princes — and members of the British royal family bowed to him during his London sojourns.
Beethoven famously refused to defer to royalty, but royalty offered to defer to Haydn. ‘Nuff said.
Well I think J.S. Bach has them both beat. But I also think Haydn was a bit more disciplined in his habits and in his writing and that plus his tremendous output are a hard combination to beat. Esterhazy was no doubt a real task-master and we are the richer for it.
Haydn isn’t just better than Mozart. He’s better than damn near everybody.
“Haydn was a more creative, more talented and more skilled composer than Mozart.”
DAMN!!! Someone finally gets this besides ME!!! Glad to hear it!!!
The thing about Haydn is that he is just so modern and so fresh. I always feel energized hearing or playing anything by Haydn, and I am always surprised and awed by his inventiveness. He did learn a great deal from Mozart though, and without Mozart it is unlikely that Haydn’s later works, like his London Symphonies would have the elegance that they have. Mozart exuded elegance, while Haydn was bursting with craft. Each admired what the other had, and posterity is the ultimate beneficiary.
Enjoy every measure of your time with Haydn, Ken!
Elaine
How can you possibly compare the two? Maybe there’s a point in lamenting the fact that currently Mozart is more popular; due to ‘Amadeus’ and the requisite martyrdom of one who died so young. Haydn was the original avant-garde composer. He delighted in finding a new effects. Was he more creative, talented, or skilled? Not important. His music is completely different. I think the important question here is which one worked harder. I’ll bet if you figured out their respective output Mozart might end up on top. I think it was Foss who figured out that a contemporary copyist working full tilt could not have copied, much less composed and copied, all of Mozart’s works in the time allowed by his life-span.
The Haydn/Bach comparison is one I think about a lot. Of course, Bach stands alone in musical history, but what Bach was to counterpoint, Haydn was to rhetoric….
Res is essntially right that comparing the two is more or less silly, except that past comparisons have created such a misleading sense of who Haydn was. I can’t really think of a more mis-understood composer than Haydn. This idea of him as a naive, blandly good natures smiling bumpkin is crap. If pointing out that he coule work with musical ideas with a fluency Mozart could only dream of starts to get people thinking that he wasn’t just a hard worker, but a towering genius, then I’m going to do it……
Thanks for all the comments!!!!! I love comments.
K
I didn’t mean to imply I thought it was silly; everybody does it, human nature I guess. I just think it’s an impulse we should avoid. I don’t think composers (like me) do much of this. We have very strong opinions, after all, composing is at it’s essence making choices. I think most of us (composers) find that other composers who have put their lives on the line (emotionally, if not otherwise), and are able to make their music sound like it, need all the support they can get. It’s not a question of whether I happen to like their music or not.
Now, where do you get this idea of Haydn as a naive bumkin? I’ve never heard this from anyone. When I was studying music we spent just as much time on Haydn as Mozart. I don’t think Mozart envied Haydn’s fluency; if anything Mozart was able to absorb and inhabit foreign musical styles better than just about anyone. I do think he might have envied Haydn’s inventiveness and originality though. I’ve often wondered what Mozart would have been doing, had he lived, as Beethoven developed; that would have been interesting!
My favorite quote on the essence of composing is from Mozart (I think, from one of his letters), ‘Neither a lofty degree of intelligence nor imagination nor both together go to the making of genius. Love, love, love, that is the soul of genius.’ -Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart
What did he mean here by ‘love’?; I think it’s simply love of the material, the sounds. This fits with quotes from Stravinsky and Picasso. Not all of his music is excellent, as some have claimed; but you can always tell when he was in love with his material, which was most of the time.
Your complaints about Mozart’s phrase structure reminds me of similar complaints in Kyle Gann’s blog about the four-square phrase structure in Dvorak’s 9th. (see http://www.artsjournal.com/postclassic/2009/06/procrastinating_with_percy.html), and the key follow-up with quotes of his own music (see http://www.artsjournal.com/postclassic/2009/06/caution_slow_listener.html). This also reminds me of Stravinsky complaining after a performance of Mahler’s 8th about having to spend, what, 2 hrs. or more, to find out that 4 + 4 = 8! I always thought this was so funny! We all have our little personal appetites, and we often listen in order to feed them. I like chocolate, but not all the time.
Res- great Mozart quote. I read the Gann post, but can’t say I agree with it, having just done the piece last week. Of course, the rigid sonata form is hardly a weakness, but his very goal. Like many composers, Dvorak become more classical in his old age in terms of his handing of sonata form. What is miraculous is how fresh the piece is. Of course it is easy to follow, but is that bad?
I must say that I profoundly disagree with your comment that Haydn ‘could work with musical ideas with a fluency Mozart could only dream of’. If you can direct me towards a symphonic movement by Haydn that rivals the seemingly effortless ingenuity of the opening allegro of Mozart’s symphony in D then I’ll be grateful. There’s nothing in Haydn’s six contemporaneous ‘Paris’ symphonies that even comes close. For me personally it’s the greatest symphonic movement of the 18th century and a staggering technical and artistic achievement. Not only is the first movement exposition densely contrapuntal but it is also developmental, and yet it sounds as light as a feather. And as you know, there are many many instrumental movements by Mozart that are monothematic and which show tremendous skill in the transformation of a basic material. The difference between Haydn’s material and Mozart’s is that Mozart can be both melodic and motivic simultaneously. And we haven’t even mentioned Mozart’s supremacy as an operatic composer. For me it’s safer to compare Haydn with Beethoven, Schubert and Handel and other mortals, and leave Mozart on a quite different plane of achievement
Which symphony in D are you referring to?
These comparisons are largely meaningless.
The fact that you think the Andante of the Sinfonia Concertante K. 365 stands “far” above the rest of the piece, simply suggests you don’t really get what Mozart’s all about.
Three examples of how Mozart composed rings around Haydn:
1) His piano concertos. Haydn was simply incapable of writing this kind of thing, and he knew it. There is plausible speculation that Haydn quit writing piano concertos (except perhaps for a couple on commission) because he heard Mozart’s later Viennese concertos and realized he was left in the dust along with everyone else.
2) Mozart’s operas. Haydn largely quit writing operas about the time Mozart’s great Viennese operas became better-known. There is better than plausible evidence to suggest Haydn quit writing operas because he knew he simply didn’t have it in him to write a Figaro or a Don Giovanni
3) Mozart’s string quartets. The Quartets Mozart dedicated to Haydn are simply full of things Haydn not only never thought of, but would never *have* thought of. Seriously, can you imagine Haydn writing anything that sounds like K. 464? And it’s no coincidence that this was one of Beethoven’s favorite pieces of any kind. You could even make a pretty convincing case that Beethoven spent the rest of his life trying to write something he thought was as good at K. 464, culminating in Op. 132, with which Beethoven came as close as he could to eclipsing his model.
Which brings me to the point: Haydn and Mozart were fundamentally different people, different artists, and to make some faux-objective claim that Haydn was somehow more talented than Mozart is just misguided.
I love Haydn, and I’m not about to claim Mozart was “better” than Haydn. He was just different. I happen to like the difference enough that I probably value Mozart’s art more than Haydn’s, but at least I’m willing to admit that’s a totally subjective statement.
This is like the endless argument over whether Bach dusts Telemann. It’s just stupid. Telemann was a completely different kind of person from Bach. Neither man was ever going to write what the other one did, but it’s worth noting both admired the other, and collected and performed their music with pleasure. And whether you value the one over the other–just as with Mozart and Haydn–says a lot more about you than about the art itself.
Hi LL
Thank you for your comment. Welcome!
I’ll stick to my statement- that Haydn was more inventive, more skilled, more creative a composer, and that Mozart’s gifts, which were unparalleled before or since, were in sensitivity, inspiration, depth of expression and melody. If I had to pick one composer’s output to live with, I’d pick Haydn’s which is more varied, more imaginative, more intellectually stimulating. On the other hand, if I had to pick one piece, it would probably be Mozart’s G minor Symphony, or the Requiem or the Jupiter. Mozart didn’t have Haydn’t facility or his structural genius, but boy could he shake the soul.
And remember, Mozart found the composition of the “Haydn” quartets to be the most daunting challenge of his career. I’ve played them all and I love them all. Could Haydn match them? Mozart thought so- that’s why he struggled so hard with them.
KW
Just yesterday I was listening to Haydn’s Heiligmesse and thinking once more about the ways Haydn and Mozart are different from each other.
The Heiligmesse is a brilliant piece from beginning to end, and I wouldn’t change a thing about it. But think of what Mozart might have done with a mass-setting in his maturity.
It’s hardly an original thought, but if there’s one thing that puts Mozart in a class by himself, and especially compared to Haydn, it’s the emotional ambiguity of his music. This has been noted by many people, and I maintain Haydn was simply incapable of that kind of thing. The very thing that places Mozart’s music out of reach of anyone else, before or since. If Brahms were a little more approachable in general, I’d say Brahms had this aspect of the art nailed perfectly, but Mozart manages this deep emotional ambiguity even in pieces that are full of a Haydn-like wittiness. And manages it with ease, unlike Brahms, who seems to labor terribly to achieve something like the same effect–Brahms’ basic melancholy as an artist gets in his way.
Mozart 19th piano concerto comes to mind as a good example of this (or all of Cosi fan Tutte, for instance). The Concerto comes across as one long witticism, but if you spend a little time with it, you realize that the play of light and shadow in the piece is very subtle and sophisticated, and the more I listen to it–now over many years, a lifetime, really–the more I’m convinced Mozart did this kind of thing very deliberately, that it is not some kind of unconscious expression, but the product of careful calculation–and Mozart’s natural bent as a person, probably.
You get this emotional ambiguity very early on in Mozart’s work too.
Haydn was just not that kind of artist, and I would argue that the delicate play of light and dark in Mozart is the one thing every musician after him despaired of achieving. Many tried. Beethoven. Brahms. Tchaikovsky. Mahler. None able to quite achieve this quality the way Mozart did.
Oddly, I’d almost give Shostakovich credit for nearly pulling off this kind of thing, although I suspect his essentially sardonic character gets in his way.
I’ll put K. 464 up again as the ideal of this kind of mixed affect. The g-minor string quintet an even more distilled essence of the same thing, and then, of course, there are the Vienna operas, soaked in emotional ambiguity.
Haydn just did not have this stuff in him. Neither did anyone else.
I am a big Haydn fan. HIs music is really great, his sense of irony and rhythm, phrasing, and spirit.
A lot of Mozart is dull (like Haydn’s operas can be dull..in parts). Yet Mozart has fantastic “Middleground” structures that are mind-boggling.
Then there’s Beethoven…geez…
All three are great. ¡Salud!
All I say is that there are moments in Haydn that sort of stagger and shatter my soul in way that Mozart’s music does not deliver. But then, there are Mozartian moments of such extraordinary beauty as to be too much to bear.
Ross, I think you say it very well. I’m encouraged that folks are still commenting on this post, and I’m hoping I can come back to it soon because I think it’s time to expand on the subject pretty soon. Funnily enough, I think the misconception that Mozart’s music was somehow all touched by a divine hand and that every note is a little gem of musical perfection actually diminishes our ability to fully appreciate his huge gifts. Stay tuned