Talk:Joseph Haydn

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Potential for a general "Haydn" template[edit]

I created this template as an experiment, and feel that perhaps I should get some feedback on whether it would be any use to place at the bottom of this article? The reason for making it was that it would be nice to have a summary list of various details on the composer, categorised, rather than simply a long "See Also" link list. One problem I encountered is the blurred lines between collegue and friend, as well as the fact that he knew so many people - meaning many less significant individuals must be left out. I may have been slightly overkill on what I included, but perhaps there could be some suggestions as to what should be removed, and what not? Antienne (talk) 16:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello Antienne,
General reaction: be sure to plan ahead, so that in 2015 this template isn't huge and unwieldy.
Specific suggestions:
  1. Don't link to every string quartet opus number (since that implies, eventually, about 15 links).
  2. I'm not sure that Vanhal was close enough to Haydn to be listed. All I know of is the quartet-playing episode related in Haydn and Mozart; perhaps they had other encounters...
  3. Ignaz Pleyel deserves a place among the associated.
  4. The more I read about Gottfried van Swieten the less I think he was Haydn's "friend." Perhaps change "Employers" to "Employers and patrons" and include van Swieten there.
  5. For "Associated musicians", it might be better to include the link that specifically discusses the relationship to Haydn. Thus, Haydn and Mozart, rather than the main Mozart article. For Beethoven, there's an article Beethoven and his contemporaries that discusses his associates, Haydn included.
  6. Are the modern biographers important enough to include? One might eliminate them and move Dies and Griesinger to the associates.
I hope this is helpful. Yours truly, Opus33 (talk) 16:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Opus on #1. I'd also remove the specific Paris & London links. I would move the "Hoboken catalogue" link up to lead off the list of works section.DavidRF (talk) 17:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback! All of the ideas suggested improve the template, so I altered everything accordingly. I like it that there is room for future expansion in the associated musicians section. I get the feeling that at some point there will be enough articles to warrant a section on elements of his musical style - which could then also include the Sturm und Drang and Double variation articles currently tacked on the end. I'll leave this thread here for a few days in case anybody wants to suggest more improvements before including it. Antienne (talk) 00:05, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

List of Oratorios[edit]

Just like the collection of other works, I guess Oratorios should also be collected in a list. Make sure to include "Il ritorno di Tobia", the first oratorio of Haydn. Definitely worth mentioning. There is a great recording of it with Doráti.

145.236.187.79 (talk) 20:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

We now have a brief article on it. Opus33 (talk) 18:21, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Evolution!![edit]

I have replaced "evolution" with "change" in the heading of the styles section, as the term "evolution" suggests that later works are somehow better than earlier ones, and that there was a line of progress from worse to better along his life, which is, I'm sure, not what you want to suggest. Corrado7mari (talk) 21:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello, it is what one would want to suggest. See, e.g., Charles Rosen's work, which lays out some very particular ways in which Haydn's work became gradually deeper and more sophisticated. Even James Webster (in the Grove Dictionary), who is generally hostile to conceptions that Haydn made "progress", has to concede in the end, "other things equal, a later work of Haydn will be more complex and concentrated than an earlier one". Cheers, Opus33 (talk) 21:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I know both authors you mention and a number of others. I'm afraid you misread Webster to suit your biases, though. That his later music is more "complex" (pretty factual) does not mean that it is "better" unless you want to equate complexity with quality, which is something that would hold no water with most musicologists. Is Otello better than Rigoletto, or Tristan better than Lohengrin, of Prokofiev's 7th better than his 1st? They certainly are more complex, but better?.Your words "deeper", of course, is subjective, and "sophisticated" is just another word for "complex" in the language of certain germano-centric critics. You will need to do much better than reading your opinions into the words of reputed academics to hold your claim for the superiority of Haydn's later works. You would also be hard pressed to find an academic musicologist of note who claims that making judgements of value on musical works is part of their task (not that they aren't asked to). I won't be changing the article again myself, though. I know well enough about how Wikipedia works and how its self-styled "editors" keep reverting the work of so-called "trolls" to know the futility of such effort. It is quite clear to me why academics tend to stay away from contributing to Wikipedia. But then, of course, I would be damned if Wikipedia were a musicological source for me! I'm merely concerned with readers who are not musicologists and don't have access to academic sources (and that's not Rosen's Sonata Forms nor Grove - not for me, at least; I read those at conservatoire undergraduate level) you see. Cheers.Corrado7mari (talk) 22:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you have the opinion that evolution means that something is better. Evolution, in the usage here, could be simply understood as "change". --Izno (talk) 21:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Wow! I never knew that PhDs were so different from us. --Ravpapa (talk) 04:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Izno is quite right: you can say that Haydn's style "evolved" even if you don't think he actually improved. There was really no need to get into all these other issues. Cheers, Opus33 (talk) 06:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Do "most musicologists" really hold that Haydn's long experience brought no advantages? --RobertGtalk 06:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The fact that Corrado understood evolution as a change for the good means that there is a potential and quite a large one that others will do also. This is because evolution is generarly portrayed as for the better in general speak. Therefore to prevent such a misinterpretation I believe it should be changed. Tugrul Irmak (talk) 10:45, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Guttenbrunn portrait caption should be 1791-2, not 1770. Ref help please?[edit]

I've changed the date in this caption but don't know how to reference it correctly in the style of the article: can you help please? The point is that Guttenbrunn did (at least) two Haydn portraits, and this is the (or a?) later one. It is identified in Wyn Jones, 2009, as such. Here are the facts, if some nice person could please sort it out into a proper reference. Sadly I'm not up to speed with how the notes and references work in this article.

  1. David Wyn Jones, 2009, The Life of Haydn, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-0-521-89574-3
  2. The portrait on the front of Wyn Jones is the same as that captioned here. I took the wp photo from the same original portrait as Wyn Jones did his.
  3. From the book's dust jacket: "Jacket illustration: portrait of Haydn by Ludwig Guttenbrunn, c.1791-2; private collection, London."

Is that enough for someone to cobble together a proper reference, please? (If indeed it needs a reference?) Thanks for your help, best wishes, DBaK (talk) 19:43, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello DBaK,
Thanks for pointing this out. I'll try to find Wyn Jones and other sources to help out on this.
There is a complication. Looking at the picture, it seems pretty clear to me (do you agree?) that it portrays a man in his forties--compare it to the more famous Thomas Hardy portrait at the top of the article, showing a 60 year old Haydn. I would guess that Guttenbrunn did the 1770 portrait from life, then copied it (adding detail) 20 years later, when both he and Haydn were in London and Haydn was all the rage. If the portrait is basically an image of Haydn as he looked in 1770, I would think that labeling it as being from 1791-92 is both correct and slightly misleading.
The best solution, I think, would be to find the 1770 version and substitute it. Or maybe we could just change the caption on the existing image.
Regards, Opus33 (talk) 16:04, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks very much for the reply and the very interesting point. It's nice to hear from you again. I do agree that Haydn in the picture seems younger than Haydn at the picture's date, yes! I have an odd feeling that I've seen this mentioned somewhere, that Guttenbrun had another bash or bashes. It may, I suppose, have been in Wyn Jones which is a pity as my daughter's just taken her copy off me, chiz! I don't agree, though of course I am biased, that we need to replace it with the "real" 1770 one. Why? Well, we've got it already, is one part of it, so no more effort is needed in procurement; I went to a certain amount of trouble to get that particular photo, and it's free of copyright issues (it's my pic, taken directly from the original with its owner's blessing); and some nice de. user went to a lot of trouble to correct, beautifully, my bad colours, making it much more lifelike than the rather orange cast (cheap suntan? Joseph Kilroy-Silk??) version I'd got. All of these make me more inclined to say let's stick with it. It shouldn't be beyond the wit of, er, person to come up with a caption which sorts this issue out without making it 684 words long ... I hope! I might have a go myself ... or not. Thanks again, DBaK (talk) 22:51, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Update: I have had an initial try at making the caption more helpful. Please feel free to chip in. Currently I've done nothing about a reference for it (I don't understand the system) but maybe someone will, or maybe I will get round to it. Cheers, DBaK (talk) 11:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi, this looks good to me.
I didn't mean to make light of the very useful work you had done, DBaK. It's just that we'd ideally like to get portraits spaced out in time to illustrate Haydn at all available life stages. So I was worried about "losing" the ca. 1770 period. That's all.
In the long run, there's no reason not to include (perhaps in a satellite article) every authentic portrait of Haydn. For example, right now we're missing a very nice one, the earliest I think, showing Haydn in his 30s, wearing Esterhazy livery. And it would be nice for readers to be able to compare the two Guttenbrunns. And so on. Cheers, Opus33 (talk) 15:09, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Needs an update![edit]

I'm not a regular Wiki editor, but please see this news article and update the page accordingly. Seems to be a rather important development in the story of Haydn.

See http://www.fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2009/102009/10222009/501393

173.72.225.245 (talk) 17:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Birthdate revisited[edit]

Re this edit by Antandrus:

We could handle the detail in a footnote, rather like we did with Beethoven. Digging around, I find the same things I did last time: the very recent New Grove article (James Webster and George Feder) has a definite March 31 with no detail, Slonimsky has March 31, and the Oxford Companion to Music (also online now that oxfordmusiconline.com has consolidated their different publications into a single subscription website) has, curiously, "31 March or 1 April." Perhaps I was too hasty with my rollbacks. We could say "probably born 31 March" with a footnote explaining the issue, -- and maybe an inline caution to check the talk page before changing the date or the wording. Antandrus (talk) 23:17, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Tks for the quick resp, Antandrus. Hmm, curious. I wonder if any of those authoritative sources stating he was born 31 March have unearthed any documentary evidence for it, in which case I'd love to see it, because there never was such material in days gone by, which is why decent references were cautious about being too definite about his birth date (a la Beethoven, "Shakespeare", et al). There seems to be a real human need to plug gaps in the record with what look like facts, when there's nothing to back them up except what effectively amounts to tradition. But we're not mere humans here, we're above that sort of stuff.  :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 23:29, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello,

Following Antandrus's suggestion, I've put in a footnote summarizing what my most informative reference sources say. The picture seems to be this. The Catholic Church originally caused the problem by recording baptism dates, not birth dates. Therefore, it all comes down to the recorded memories of Haydn and his family. Some of Haydn's family members said 1 April, but Haydn himself said 31 March. Many biographers simply take Haydn's word for it and report only 31 March, but others prefer to convey a sense of uncertainly.

Other trivia I found, and suppressed:

  • The monument to Haydn in his home town of Rohrau gives 1 April.
  • Albert Christoph Dies, who screwed up in so many other aspects of his biography, gives 30 March; no one else does.
  • Haydn actually told Carl Rosenbaum (the Esterhazy official who later stole his head) that he was born at 4:00 in the afternoon (of the 31st).

The first line of the article is now a bit cluttered with more footnotes but I think we should be fairly thorough in covering little fact-messes like this one. Opus33 (talk) 18:34, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Opus! Nicely done. I like the wording; it's clear and concise. Regarding first-line clutter, that may be a necessary evil in the cases where either date or nationality attract repetitive drive-by edits. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 19:29, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Opening paragraph[edit]

User Kraxler is correct in putting the "Franz" back in (somehow it got taken out earlier, which was a mistake). However, it's important to be clear that the general public (including record companies, newpapers, and music publishers) often uses the full baptismal name "Franz Joseph Haydn". In other words, there is a disconnect between the usage of Haydn experts (which we follow, since we're an encyclopedia) and the more common public usage. I've restored the rest of the original wording to make this clear. Opus33 (talk) 15:27, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

To say that "scholars avoid" the Franz is beside the point, the truth is that Haydn himself avoided it. There is something in German called the "Rufname" (i.e. that one of many baptismal names which a person is, almost exclusively, called by; the other names appear only in legal documents and encyclopedias). This is not easy to understand sometimes, but it is made sure for people with an ordinary level of comprehension by seeing that the name of the article is just "Joseph Haydn". That should be enough to leave the Franz out of any mention in the media, but as it is not so in practice, the difference should be mentioned in the opening paragraph, not in a footnote (which is appparently not read by the occasional, hurried reader). It is the pattern for people who used pseudonyms, or otherwise a name different from their full baptismal names (see Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart.) Also, the general rule for pronunciations is to be added right after the name, in the parantheses before the birthdate. I'm not sure if there is a general guideline about this, but I propose to follow the standard pattern, for the time being. In this case, the pronunciation referring to the shorter name, it should be added there, not in a footnote anyway. (I had never seen before a pronunciation added in a footnote.) Kraxler (talk) 15:11, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I just wanted to second this motion: I'm a violin professor, putting together a studio recital program, and wanted to use the "right" name. I wondered, "What's the deal--is 'Joseph Haydn' an anglicized version that he used in London? Should I use Josef vs. Joseph based on where he wrote the work?" I scanned the article to no avail, and figured "I'll bet it will be mentioned in the talk page." It was—but perhaps not all users will be as persistent. —Andy Bonner 69.174.87.52 (talk) 23:08, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing this up. I've tried to improve matters by putting back a footnote removed earlier that addresses the "Franz" problem. Non-use of the (merely baptismal) name Franz really does reflect the practice followed by Haydn and the people who knew him; all modern biographies are clear on this point.
Concerning "Josef" vs. "Joseph", I've had a harder time finding relevant reference sources. What I think is true is that Haydn spelled his name "Joseph"; and that where we see "Josef", this is the result of modern German speakers substituting the current standard German spelling of the name, much as English speakers might respell "Iames" as "James". If anyone has seen reference sources that address this point I would like know. Opus33 (talk) 18:04, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Just an update: the article Haydn's name, written since the above discussion, tries to cover this stuff in full. Opus33 (talk) 18:24, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Haydn's publication name[edit]

It seems that Haydn did not always publish under the name Joseph. He signed most of his manuscripts "Giuseppe" (the Italian version of his name). Although "Joseph" probably was most common on his publications, some of Haydn's works were published under "Giuseppe". My searching on Google Books (try "Giuseppe Haydn") found examples published by Hummel, by Longman and Broderip, and by Breitkopf and Haertel.

See

So I tweaked the intro so it would no longer claim that Haydn always published under "Joseph". Opus33 (talk) 16:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

He signed his scores as Giuseppe? Can you post a copy of any one of these here? It appears, foreign editors translated his name (a very common practice, still today in Brazil you can get books by "Júlio Verne" which does not mean that Jules Verne himself signed any manuscripts as such). Can you give me a link to anything published in the German-speaking areas which has "Giuseppe"? Kraxler (talk) 14:55, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

1) Karl Geiringer's biography of Haydn (p. 202, cited in main article) calls the inscription "di me Giuseppe Haydn" ("by me, Joseph Haydn") "typical".

2) Searching Google Books on "di me Giuseppe Haydn", Haydn's usual inscription, for ten minutes, gives:

Look -- it is you who put an unchecked, inaccurate statement in the WP, but you're asking me to do the research to check it. This seems totally backwards. Opus33 (talk) 02:29, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Very interesting, I always saw "Joseph Haydn" written on the record covers, but the record companies are certainly inaccurate there, they should print "giuseppe". Kraxler (talk) 02:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Needs a list of works[edit]

The sub-lists for the main genres are a good idea, but Haydn wrote so many other works besides that not being able to find a good list of them is a little frustrating. The sub-lists can be linked from the main one to go into detail on more specific genres.

If somebody knows enough about his output, or is any good with Wikipedia-format lists, perhaps beginning List of compositions by Joseph Haydn may be in order 88.105.0.218 (talk) 06:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

BBC Radio 4 programme "Hunting Haydn's Head"[edit]

BBC Radio 4 programme "Hunting Haydn's Head" details here 81.129.133.227 (talk) 11:52, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

See Haydn's head, which cites this program. Opus33 (talk) 16:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Freemasonry[edit]

I find it rather surprising that no mention is made of Haydn's induction as a freemason in a Viennese lodge. He was sponsored by Mozart. Everybody got to be somewhere! (talk) 23:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

You can find this topic discussed in Haydn and Mozart. It 's not clear to me that it is worth including in the main Haydn article because according to the sources I've read, Haydn attended only one meeting. Opus33 (talk) 02:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Removing old reference source[edit]

Hello, I removed a big box that referred the reader to a sister project giving the following paragraph on Haydn:

Haydn (hā'd’n), Joseph, a German composer, was born in the village of Rohrau, on the borders of Hungary and Austria, March 31, 1732. He was the son of a poor wheelwright, but early developed decided musical genius. At the age of eight he was received into the choir of the cathedral of St. Stephen in Vienna, but ten years afterward his voice broke and he lost his position. Thereafter, for some time, he lived in great poverty, earning a small sum by street-playing and serenading, until he hoarded enough to hire an attic and a piano, when his most strenuous studies began. The first recognition he received was from Herr Kurz, a theatrical manager, who heard him playing one of his own compositions under his window and commissioned him to write an opera. His musical theory was directly opposed to that of J. S. Bach and Handel. His first quartet for stringed instruments was written in 1750 and his Creation and The Seasons in 1795-96. He died on May 31, 1809. His compositions are exceedingly numerous, comprising over 600 in number. See Miss Townsend's Life of Haydn.

The reason is that this is filled with errors. The pronunciation of Haydn is wrong, his father was not poor, his attic had a clavichord not a piano, he was not a musical theorist, his first quartet is now considered to have been written several years later than 1750, and The Seasons was written ca. 1800, not 1795-1796. The biography is also very unbalanced, overemphasizing the first 20 years or so--I guess the author had fulfilled quota and got tired of continuing. There is much better material available on Haydn these days and it's no favor to our readers to refer them to out-of-date, inaccurate material. Opus33 (talk) 00:23, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Struggles As a Freelancer section[edit]

First paragraph ends with "he opened a sex shop". Can someone please delete?

75.61.132.233 (talk) 16:40, 24 April 2012 (UTC)Daniel Baedeker

It had already been deleted at the time of your posting. --Toccata quarta (talk) 16:46, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Papa Haydn[edit]

I've checked out the Papa Haydn page and I think that article should be part of the Joseph Haydn article. Should we? 209.141.176.116 (talk) 21:38, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I personally don't think it should. Joseph Haydn is already massive as is. 27KB's! If anything I think the article (Joseph Haydn), should be split up a bit. I say no if this were to get any further. Lighthead...KILLS!! 01:20, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose – The subject of the Papa Haydn article is not essential to the main article and is best kept separate. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:32, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Make it official. Lighthead...KILLS!! 05:09, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Agreeing with both Lighthead's and Michael's arguments. Opus33 (talk) 20:03, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Clarify: The issue is not really whether the articles should be merged, but rather whether the article Papa Haydn should be there at all. The article speculates that the name "Papa Haydn" arose because of Haydn's supportive attitude toward his court musicians - something already appearing in this article - and that it arose as a sort of corruption of "Father of the string quartet/symphony" - a speculation that is almost certainly incorrect. It also includes a quote about why "Papa Haydn" is an inappropriate nickname, and a doggerel meant to be sung to the tune of the Surprise Symphony, of dubious encyclopedia-ness. So I say, why not simply delete Papa Haydn? --Ravpapa (talk) 05:59, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
"Papa Haydn" is a widely used moniker. Grove and other works cover the term, so it is notable and deserves an article. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:17, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
okay. whatever. --Ravpapa (talk) 07:46, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Clarify: I think the main problem is sourcing; obviously opinions off-the-top-of-one's-head about why Haydn was called "Papa Haydn" don't belong in WP. But I was encouraged in this respect by noticing the coverage on this topic given in Oxford Composer Companions: Haydn. This is the best reference source on Haydn I have seen and it appears that most of the leading experts on Haydn contributed to it. The brief article on "Papa Haydn" by Clemens Hoeslinger singles out precisely the three items we have covered in the Papa Haydn article: "Papa" as term of affection, "Papa" as father of symphony/quartet, and "Papa" as patronizing term. I'll fill in a few other details from Hoeslinger shortly. I think that with this sourcing, there should not be a problem with "encyclopedia-ness". Thanks for listening, Opus33 (talk) 20:03, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Haydn and contemporary Jewish contexts[edit]

I'm moving this section to the talk page:

By the mid eighteenth century, Jewish stereotypes were engrained in European culture, and frequently caricatured in a comedic manner in the theatre. Haydn incorporated coded Jewish caricatures in two works for the stage: Der (neue) krumme Teufel (The [new] limping devil, 1752; rev. 1759) for the German Theatre in Vienna; and the comic opera Lo speziale (The apothecary, 1768) for Eszterháza. Haydn had many occasions to observe and possibly interact with Jews near his places of employment in both Vienna and Eisenstadt, where he worked with the well-known Viennese comic actor Joseph Felix von Kurz (de) (known as Bernardon), who specialized in Jewish portrayals. Leopoldstadt in Vienna, which was home to the Judenstadt (Jewish ghetto), was located directly across from the church of the Barmherzige Brüder(de) (Brothers Hospitallers) where Haydn worked in the 1750s, and in the small town of Eisenstadt Jews lived a protected ghetto just west of the Esterházy palace.[1]
Haydn's setting of the Missa brevis Sancti Joannis de Deo (c. 1775), honouring St. John of God, the patron saint of the Brothers Hospitallers, has been interpreted as a Mass modified to accommodate congregants in the process of transitioning to the Catholic faith. In the setting of the Credo in this Mass, the second article of faith (describing Jesus Christ as the only Son of God) is omitted. Its absence is disguised by the mellifluous texture created by the missa brevis style, whereby different lines of text are delivered simultaneously by the soprano, alto, tenor, and bass parts. While textual omissions in this and other Mass settings have traditionally been attributed to Haydn’s absentmindedness, the consistency of the omissions suggests they were intentional: the omissions likely acted as a symbol of the composer's discontent with the rigidity and authoritarian nature of the religious institution, revealing his sociopolitical ideals, empathetic enlightened views, and efforts toward easing the process of conversion.[2]
  1. ^ Clark, Caryl (2012). Haydn's Jews: Representation and Reception on the Operatic Stage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9781107404496.  "Introduction"; and Caryl Clark, "Haydn's Judaizing of the Apothecary", Studia musicologica, 51/1–2 (2010): 41–60.
  2. ^ Caryl Clark, "Haydn's Conversion Masses", Journal of Musicological Research 28/2–3(2009): 189–211.

The problems I see are as follows:

  • The claim that the characters in Der Krumme Teufel and Lo Speziale are specifically Jewish stereotypes is quite speculative (I've read the Clark article). It's just not reasonable or fair to say something bad about Haydn (i.e. that he was an anti-Jewish bigot) on the basis of mere speculation.
  • It's not clear why it's relevant that Haydn lived in proximity to Jewish ghettos; it hardly distinguishes him from a great number of other Austrian gentiles.
  • It's possible that the Missa brevis Sancti Joannis de Deo is a "conversion mass" but not proven. At any rate, this particular paragraph might better be incorporated into the article on the mass itself; it's too much detail for the main Haydn article.

Opus33 (talk) 23:53, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for moving the section here and for your thoughts. I concur. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:59, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Several reviews of Clark's book by prominent scholars (Bruce A. Brown, Jeanne Swack) have stated that most of her theories are untenable and that none of the presented evidence is compelling. The book is fraught with embarrassing errors and countless mistranslations. It should not be the basis of a paragraph on Wikipedia.--Suessmayr (talk) 12:49, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Op.64/6[edit]

there's no page for the op.64 quartets yet, but I am curious if someone might know when Haydn's quartet op.64/6 in E- whose first movement appears in its first (I think) edition (published by Bland of London...) of c.1792, with a clear Allegro marking (these parts can be seen over @ IMSLP scanned) - first started being given the Allegretto marking it is without exception given today? Rather changes the character of the movement (now described as "serene" in books on Haydn's quartets, etc.) Schissel | Sound the Note! 19:20, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

This is an interesting point and also a hard (at least for me) data question. I only own the cheapo Dover reprint of Eulenberg, which of course has Allegretto for the movement you mention. The same edition has a mutilated opening of Op. 33 no. 1 and omits the cute glissandi in the minuet of Op. 33 no 2. I don't know how such unfaithful renderings arose; though I do know that Pleyel's early edition was influential. Opus33 (talk) 00:03, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

That's useful in itself, thank you. I can also add that the first trio of Op.64/6 is left out of the Eulenburg/Dover edition - in the "Bland" parts the minuet has a more interesting, double-trio structure of sorts (A-B-A-enhanced variant of B-A (the performance available via the Gardner Museum does seem to go by the original menuet/trio/etc. I'm glad to say- I quite like what Haydn did there, in fact. A whole learn-something-new-every-day feeling, here. :) Eulenburg only retains the enhanced variant of the trio, which loses the evolution/contrast/whatever.) Schissel | Sound the Note! 04:23, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Argh! Argh! Who are these editors? Why are they doing this to Haydn? (just venting :=) ).
I now remember that somewhere, James Webster has said that musicians should not trust any editions of Haydn at all and should use facsimiles instead. And it's not just Haydn: Charles Rosen, in his book The Romantic Generation, gives instances where Chopin has similarly been badly served. Sorry to go off topic -- though perhaps worth thinking about: maybe someday long term WP will be able to provide musicians with good information about what editions to trust and what not to. Opus33 (talk) 05:48, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think I've met him, but he (Prof. Webster) works over "up the hill" from me. Anyhow, I can't quite agree- I agree about the legions of bad editors, but IMSLP is filled with scans of messy autographs and holographs that could use, but will probably never receive, superb editorial attention (whether or not they are themselves autographs of superb works...) Schissel | Sound the Note! 10:03, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I did a brief listen-to of recordings at YouTube. Some of the recordings list the movement as "Allegro", some as "Allegretto" but everyone - including the classic recording by the Quartetto Italiano plays it within one or two metronome notches of each other, at a tempo which is definitely allegro, not allegretto. Interesting. Ravpapa (talk) 16:13, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Later: I just realized that the movement is in cut time. So, counting it in two, the tempo is allegretto. Counted in four, it is allegro. this might be the source of the confusion.Ravpapa (talk) 08:02, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Merge Joseph Haydn's ethnicity into this article?[edit]

Someone wants to do this, and put a banner on Joseph Haydn's ethnicity to this effect. I think this would actually not be a good idea at all. Here is background and argument.

  • In brief, Haydn's ethnicity is something that no responsible modern scholars ever disagree about (as you might expect, he was Austrian/German). You can read about this if you care to at Joseph Haydn's ethnicity.
  • But there are web crackpots, to this day, who insist that Haydn was Croatian. See, for instance, this site .
  • Random readers encounter this Croatian stuff and want to know if it is correct. WP serves the public by providing them with material sourced from reputable modern reference works.
  • However, among serious scholars Haydn's ethnicity is an old, dead issue. Most modern reference sources don't even bother to address the question because they have limited space and it's not their job to address every crackpot theory. We have unlimited space and can do this, at least for the more common crackpot theories.

The upshot is that Haydn's ethnicity is just the sort of thing that a satellite article is for: we satisfy the curious with the satellite, and avoid stuffing the main article with trivia. Opus33 (talk) 03:04, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the 3 articles suggested to be merged here should stay where there are. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:55, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree with the same, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:10, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree that things are best left as they are. William Avery (talk) 07:50, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree also that these articles are best left separate. They cover trivial or tangential aspects that would constitute clutter and excessive detail if merged into the main article, but are fine as separate articles. Did the editor proposing merges explain their rationale anywhere? If so, I can't find their explanation. --Deskford (talk) 11:02, 17 June 2014 (UTC)