Papa and Gangerl

An interesting little article over at Slate discusses the musickal differences between Haydn and Mozart:

The two great composers were certainly aware of each other for many years before they met. In addition to his younger brother's firsthand reports, Haydn would have read published accounts of Mozart's exploits as a child prodigy. And by the time Mozart came to maturity, Haydn was already the most celebrated composer in Europe; knowledge of his influential scores was de rigueur for any serious contemporary musician.

Later, they were members of the same Masonic lodge in Vienna, and became personal friends as well as mutual admirers. This last is noteworthy, especially with respect to Mozart, who was often scathing about colleagues. When he spoke of Haydn, however, it was with reverence. His six great string quartets were dedicated as a set to the older composer, partly as acknowledgment of how much he had learned from Haydn's own essays in the form. Haydn's later quartets are said to have been influenced in turn by the quartets Mozart wrote under his influence. After Mozart's death, the older composer even seems to have experienced something akin to survivor's guilt; he declined a request to write string quintets and refused permission for his early operas to be performed, on the grounds that Mozart's work in these genres was supreme.

Read the rest. The piece discusses (and illustrates with linkies) audible differences in the two men's works based on their relative social backgrounds, their comparative approaches to wit and the depth and complexity of their emotional expression.

Overall, I don't see anything in the article with which I would in general terms disagree, although I think there are a few "yes, buts" along the way. For instance, the "Surprise" of Haydn's Symphony No. 94 is discussed as an example of Papa's more straightforward slapstick humor. It's certainly true, but wouldn't one also have to consider the fact that he wrote the piece for a London audience at a time when the Brits were not quite as musickally sophisticated as some of their Continental contemporaries? He had also produced a set of six symphonies for the Paris aristocracy, at the time notorious for its demand for musickal sophistication and elegance. They knocked the Parisians' socks off. (One of them, No. 85, is still known as La Reine because it was said to be a favorite of poor Antoinette.)

Sorry. I get a tad defensive on behalf of Haydn because I feel his musick is dismissed too readily by some these days as pleasant to listen to but lacking much bottom, not because of the musick itself but because Haydn does not fit into the standard stereotype of the "artiste". He came from humble beginnings, worked hard in a job he didn't much like for a number of years, struck out on his own and hit the big time, writing music that people could both understand and enjoy. As the article notes, he was the most celebrated composer in Europe in his own days, which were long, prosperous and happy. Hardly the prototypical Romantic. However, all you need to know about the real quality and worth of Haydn's musick is the fact that both Mozart and Beethoven positively worshipped the man.

Yips! to Arts & Letters Daily.