Talk:Joseph Haydn
|
|
| Contents |
Sorting out what article is Haydn
We've got this article and one at Franz Joseph Haydn about the same person. Obviously we don't need both, and I think the article should be here rather than at Franz Joseph - both are common, but I think without the Franz is commoner generally. Google isn't much use here, because a lot of pages headed "Joseph Haydn" do have his full name in the text. In any case, I think I'm right in saying that Haydn referred to himself as Joseph (not Franz) and that's what he was known as in his lifetime. And Haydn redirects here rather than to Franz Joseph.
What I propose to do is move the old 1911 text at Franz Joseph Haydn to the bottom of this article (adding a disclaimer) and then make a redirect from there to here - is this the right procedure? I'm aware that the history of the 1911 text will get left behind, so I want to be sure. --Camembert
- Well, I've moved it now anyway - anyone who disagrees can change it back. --Camembert
Haydn looked just like F. Murray Abraham (not)
I've removed:
- Strangely, Haydn looked just like F. Murray Abraham as the jealous, less talented Antonio Salieri in the film Amadeus, while Salieri in reality didn't look like that at all.
It doesn't really have anything to do with Haydn. --Camembert
The swingeing cut
168.8.72.9 doesn't give reasons for the big cut. But trying to put myself in his/her shoes, I can guess that the part of the objection was that a fair amount of my earlier material was subjective; Wikipedia should largely confine itself to giving "just the facts". So, I've cut the most subjective bits, and left in material that reflects current scholarship, notably Rosen's, on Haydn.
Opus33 Sept. 19, 2003
- For the record: 168.8.72.9 also made a swingeing cut at piano trio when they replaced the entire article with "Hi there!". So I'm not sure that their cut here was done on the basis of long and hard thought ;-) --Camembert
How to spell "Kapellmeister"?
Re. whether we should capitalize Kapellmeister: One could go either way here. The Oxford English Dictionary and Collins have lower case, American Heritage has upper. Random House doesn't even have the word. My own feeling is that Kapellmeister is not an English word, but rather a German word that is occasionally employed by English speakers, so it deserves to be spelled in the German way.
There are other options; Angela a while ago was using "chapelmaster". "Kapellmeister" seems appropriate for describing an occupation of long ago that no longer exists [imagine having an employee whose job is to compose and perform symphonies for you! not even Bill Gates...]. The exoticness of the word matches the exoticness of the job.
I'm just trying to articulate my reasons here and I will not be bent out of shape if someone reverts to lower case.
Opus33 18:20, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Pronunciation
Does anyone know how to pronounce "Haydn"? Is it "Hi" or "Hey"?
Gil 22:59, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- "Hi". It's an old-fashioned type of German spelling; don't be confused by the resemblance to English "hay". I will check into how this might be included in the article if someone else doesn't do it first. Opus33 23:18, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
What did Haydn pioneer?
<In May 2003, Camembert wrote:>
I'm a bit doubtful about this:
- Besides the symphony and string quartet, Haydn also pioneered the development of sonata form, and was innovative in his writing of keyboard sonatas, which are perhaps the first piano sonatas, though some may have been written for harpsichord or fortepiano.
- I am almost certain that he was not the first composer to write piano sonatas - when I was making some notes for the piano article (still not written up), I found out that the earliest works expressly for the piano had been published by some unknown composer (an Italian, I think) in something like the 1730s. I think these pieces were sonatas - they certainly pre-date anything Haydn wrote for the instrument.
- I think Haydn did indeed write pieces specifically for the harpsichord, but saying he wrote things for the fortepiano is a bit misleading: the fortepiano, as far as I know, isn't a distinct instrument, it's just a name that gets given to early pianos.
- I'm also a bit doubtful about the sonata form business. In what way did he "pioneer the development of sonata form", exactly?
As I say, the classical era isn't really my area, so I'm not going to edit any of this without a spot of research to back it up. If anybody can clarify any of it, that'd be great. --Camembert
<A year later, Tdent replied:>
(... my discussion of these points is now irrelevant, has been incorporated in the edit...)
Sonata form was around from the beginning of the Classical era in the 1750's onwards. So Haydn can't really be called a pioneer of sonata form. However, he did interesting things with it which no-one else had done before and which led to a considerable evolution of the form (and so, to be brief, made the Classical style possible as an artistic movement). The quotation is misleading because any sort of music (symphony, quartet, etc.) could use sonata form.
How about this:
(... now edited into the main page... )
Tdent 19:21, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
- <Opus33 replied positively; see next section>
Too much sonata form?
(... I asked if the bit about sonata-form was too long - I shortened it... ) Tdent
- I favor both of Tdent's proposed changes and encourage Tdent to implement them. The one thing I that seems worth retaining about Haydn and sonata form, I think, is that he was the leading practitioner of the monothematic exposition. Opus33 19:21, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
- I agree with Opus33. Looking forward to your edits, Tdent :) --Camembert
A Paternity Suit?
OK, having said that, I'm going to question something - is Haydn really known as the "father" of the Classical style? He's certainly often called the father of the symphony and the string quartet (whatever the accuracy of the label, it's often applied), but I've not seen it claimed that he is father of the whole style. It seems a claim too far to me - the Classical style emerged gradually, and can't be credited to any one composer. (Sorry, should've mentioned this before, I know.) --Camembert
- I don't think it's very important, since this is an apocryphal saying - no specific person is attributed with calling Haydn the "father" of the symphony - without a clearly-defined meaning. Along with "Papa Haydn", it's just what generations of music historians have become accustomed to saying (Mozart being buried in a pauper's grave, etc). Since CPE Bach was writing rather good early classical symphonies around the time Haydn started on his No.1, H didn't even "father" the classical symphony in the sense of originating it as an artistic form. I'm no musicological expert, but here's my verdict for paternity of the mature classical style (as manifest in, say, 1780):
- String quartet: Haydn 100%. No-one wrote quartets of musical interest before H got going.
- Symphony: Haydn 50%. CPE Bach, JC Bach, Leopold Mozart etc. were also major influences on the development of the symphony.
- Piano sonata: Haydn 50%. CPE Bach played a big role in forming Haydn's early style, there may have been other influential composers (now obscure and never played).
- Piano trio: Haydn >75%. (Debatable, because the piano trio was just a fancied-up piano sonata. I know of no-one else writing actual piano trios in the period 1755-75.) (Of course Mozart's teenage works fall into this category, but I think they don't count as important in the development of the style.)
- Classical mass form, divertimento, the rest: Haydn 50%, as a conservative estimate. Difficult to judge because no-one else's works in these forms from the relevant time period ever get played.
If you can find a way to encapsulate this in a couple of sentences of deathless prose, you're welcome. I tried to fix it (see latest edit.) Tdent 18:13, 15 May 2004 (UTC)
- Your rewording looks good to me. I know, of course, that no specific person is attributed with calling Haydn the father of the symphony or string quartet, but I know a lot of people do call him those things, so I've no gripe with it. It was just that I don't recall anybody calling him the father of the Classical style. But anyway, it's OK for me now (I could probably gripe about some little tiny bits if I was feeling troublesome, but I'll make trouble somewhere else, I think ;). Thanks for your work on this. --Camembert
Runciman
I've deleted this external link:
- Full text of the biography Haydn (http://www.gutenberg.net/etext/13504) by John F. Runciman, 1908, from Project Gutenberg
I read the whole thing (in hard copy), and (if what I've read in other, more recent books is correct) it's just filled with errors, and it's not clear we're doing our readers a favor by listing it. If there's something who thinks it's worth posting because of some other merits that I don't see, I guess I wouldn't be bent out of shape if you restore it. Opus33 00:48, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
When did Haydn get his first regular job?
that is, with Count Morzin. I have:
- 1759 according to Mary Hughes
- 1759 according to Karl Geiringer
- 1757 according to the New Grove
but nobody I've seen says 1755. Is there a source for this? Opus33 21:42, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Papa?
Wouldn't it make sense to at least mention the common nickname 'Papa' Haydn?
- Yes, I think that it would, but it might also be somewhat irrelevant(not to be impolite).
My copy editing
As with some other articles concerning major composers recently, I have just done a light and restrained editing of this entire article. I fixed punctuation, worked for stylistic uniformity and clarity, and improved (as I hope!) several links. I have tried to avoid changing anything of substance in the content (which, by the way, I think is excellent). If you think I have inadvertently interfered with content, I hope you will fix it; but please be mindful to retain punctuational and related fixes that I have done – unless you really think I have not got them right. Thanks! --Noetica 12:01, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Hi Noetica,
- I'm happy with most of the edits. A couple raise the problem of continuity--if you put in picky details at conspicuous points it makes the article seem "jumpy" and hard to read; better, I think, to let the linked articles handle such things as the spelling of "Eszterhazy".
- I'm puzzled by Stirling Newberry's removal of the joke discussion--it's a salient characteristic of the music, noticed (and condemned) in Haydn's day--and I propose to put it back in.
Opus33 15:09, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I didn't remove it - but moved it to the section with a short mention of Haydn's practice of making the transitions between sections of a movement a source of wit and tensions. Stirling Newberry 16:15, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Oops--sorry. Opus33 21:13, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Commentary on recent changes
Hi Opus33. I agree about the discontinuity brought about by details such as the "Eszterházy" note in the intro. I was concerned about it, but also about wavering around the spelling in the article, which I wanted to pre-empt. I'd be happy to have the note removed entirely. I certainly think that, if it is retained, it ought to be in brackets. This sort of note is exactly what brackets are for!
I have several concerns about Stirling's alterations. While detail is added, a good deal of it is excessive in the context of a general article on Haydn; much of it would be more fitting as an addition on Haydn's contribution to sonata form, in that article. Some changes are made that I would have made too if I had wanted to be bold; but some awkward grammar is added too, along with a few frank errors. Not wanting any trouble, I hesitate to alter these in the text itself. I note them here for anyone to deal with as they judge appropriate:
...Luigia Polzelli, a singer in the Eszterházy establishment with whom he carried on a long-term love affair, and often wrote to on his travels.
Only slightly ungrammatical. Should be: and to whom he often wrote on his travels
Mozart, in contrast, from 1782 to 1785 to produce a set of six string quartets that would live up to the standard of Haydn's recently completed Opus 33 set, ...
The sentence begins ungrammatically, without a finite main verb.
...Gluck and Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach, of the later Haydn wrote "without him, we know nothing".
Here we see a tendency I have noted elsewhere. This comma doesn't work. We need at least a semicolon, or an "and". A new sentence is probably best (with a correction to "latter" also): ...Bach. Of the latter....
...and carefully constructed his around countrapunctal devices, so that it could be overlayed with itself in a variety of ways, and the fragments could be worked with individually, and still retain some degree of unique character.
Apart from being generally fussy writing, this has "contrapunctal" in need of correction to "contrapuntal", and "overlayed" to the more universally accepted "overlaid".
Haydn's work became central to what was later described as the sonata form, and his work was central to taking the binary schematic of what was then called a "melodie".
Awkward, and over-specific with "melodie" (which ought to capped anyway, as a German word).
It was a form divided into sections, joined by important moments in the harmony which signalled the change. One of Haydn's important innovations, one which was adopted by Mozart and Beethoven, was to make the moment of transition the focus of tremendous creativity, instead of using stock devices to make the transition, Haydn would often find inventive ways to make the move between two expected keys.
Stylistically poor repetitions of "important" and "moment", which are rather flat words anyway. And the comma after "creativity" is again inadequate. There needs to be a semicolon or a full stop there.
+ +Later musical theorists would codify the formal organization in the following way: + +*Introduction: If present in an extended form, a slower section in the dominant, often with material not directly related to the main themes, which would then rapidly transition to the...
Too detailed in the context, and quite unclear. "If present in an extended form" is ambiguous: if present as part of an extended form, or if taking on an extended form itself? Context will not be sufficient, for many readers. "...a slower section in the dominant..." is obscure. What is or what has the slower section? Is it really in the dominant, if it is at the start of the movement? This could be what's meant, of course: but such a device would not be so common as to warrant so salient a mention here.
[Development:] If not present, the work is termed a "sonatina".
"If not present" would, in grammatical propriety, qualify "the work". This can't be right, so I assume what's intended is: "If no development is present,..." But then I think this is at best misleading. Termed by whom, anyway? One might think it is only the character, length, and form of the whole piece, with all its movements, that would decide whether the piece is a sonata or something else instead.
European concert music at this time was structed by tonality,...
Should be "art music". "Concert music" is too restrictive. And is "structed" meant to be "structured"? If "structed" is indeed intended, it is not helpful. The more standard word should be used, to help the reader.
... and the sections of a work of the Classical era were marked by cadences. The most important transitions were between the exposition and the development, and between the development and the recapitulation.
Not helpful to the neophyte. No link for "cadences", nor further discussion of them, so that what comes after seems like a non sequitur.
...or by having the occur so subtly...
Typo: "them occur".
... that it takes some time before it is established that the transition has, in fact happened.
The single comma is not good by itself. Either "has, in fact, happened" or "has in fact happened".
Perhaps paradoxically one of the ways in which Haydn did this was by reducing the number of different devices for harmonic transitions between, so that he could explore and develop the possibilities he found in the ones he regarded as most interesting.
Wordy, and ungrammatical with "between".
...in his "Surprise symphony|Surprise" symphony, No. 94, but others are perhaps funnier: ...
Needs a pair of closing square brackets, in the link.
[On Beethoven:] ...he revived and intensified Haydn's practice, joining the musical structure to tight small motifs, often by gradually reshaping both the work and the motifs so that they fit quite carefully.
Inaccurate, in the matter of joining. What exactly is joined to what? "...so that they fit quite carefully" is odd too. What fits what, "quite carefully"? The work to the motifs? The motifs to each other?
--Noetica 22:31, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Haydn's Birthdate
According to Haydn's birth register he was born on 1 April, not 31 March. A quote from Haydn: "I was born on 1 April, and that is the date found in my father's Hausbuch - but my brother Michael maintains I was born on the 31st of March because he doesn't want it said that I came into the world as an April fool." Is there any evidence suggesting that he wasn't born on 1 April? I would like to know before I change it. --Berserk798 01:41, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Hi Berserk,
- This seems to be a vexed scholarly question.
- The New Grove gives March 31 (without saying why). Their article is pretty recent and is written by two top Haydn experts, so I would tend to trust it.
- Also, when Haydn made the remark you quote (to his biographer Dies), he was very old and possibly a bit senile. He is also known to have been fond of facetious humor.
- A Google search gives both dates in about equal proportions.
- My preference would be to give both dates in the main article, and perhaps produce at some point a satellite article to give the evidence for both possibilities. I'd hate to interrupt the main article with what is, after all, a pretty trivial matter.
- Cheers,
- Opus33 15:36, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Looking in my other sources, I don't find anything better either. I have both the 1980 and the recent Grove, and it is as Opus says; Slonimsky, in Baker's Biographical Dictionary of Musicians, says "probably born March 31, baptized April 1." Britannica also gives March 31 without further explanation. I concur that both dates should be in the article; perhaps it could say "Born either March 31 or April 1." Antandrus 15:49, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Sounds fair enough. Although I doubt that statement was a biproduct of senility, it seems plausible that he was joking. I'll include both and maybe make an article about his birthdate. --Berserk798 21:53, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)