Talk:String Quartets, Op. 20 (Haydn)

Biographization of Great Art Belongs in College Sophomore Essays, not Encyclopaedia

nuff said — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.232.191.16 (talk) 15:44, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, essentially what I was about to write myself.

I want to rewrite this article, to either move the criticism to a "Criticism" section or just annihilate those paragraphs altogether. Probably the latter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.232.191.16 (talk) 16:40, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Can you be more specific? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:59, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Bibliography

This is a fine article. However, I've found something wrong in the bibliography: the footnotes often refer to "Geiringer (1962)", yet there is no corresponding entry for that in the bibliography section. The same is true for "Geiringer (1961)". Is this a typo, or were other works cited that aren't mentioned in the bibliography section? Graham87 07:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I am in awe at the eagle eye. Yes, it was a goof. Geiringer revised the book in 1962, and again in 1982. I used the 1982 edition. 1961 was a typo. --Ravpapa (talk) 14:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I think James Webster has written important stuff on Haydn, especially his str. quartets. I suggest browsing through his publications. Another reference can be found in Charles Rosen's The Classical Style. Gidip (talk) 09:36, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Influence on Mozart

Just how influential were Joseph Haydn's Op.20 on Mozart? Michael Haydn wrote String Quartet in G, in 1773 (before Joseph's Op.20 was published), which resembles Symphony in C, K.551 "Jupiter" in the slow movement. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gDxnpn5vb4&t=268s Even the finale of K.387 is said to be modelled on Michael's 23rd symphony https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symphony_No._23_(Michael_Haydn). I hear more Michael Haydn in Mozart. Compare for example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=en-ekCM2Lu4&t=5m38s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITEMTfGK5-A&t=6m34s or listen to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPxOUqMwPvs&t=2m10s Michael's influence on Mozart in sacred choral music (Requiem in C minor, Missa Sancti Joannis Nepomuceni, Missa Sancti Hieronymi) was immense in a way Joseph's never was. Is it fair to give Joseph so much credit for his influence on Mozart while ignoring his brother Michael's? I think Mozart's general style of dissonance and chromaticism resembles Michael Haydn more than Joseph.

"In Salzburg, if not throughout his life, Mozart was writing in a lingua franca and many of the features of that language are to be found in Michael Haydn too." -Professor David Wyn Jones https://theresia.blog/2019/03/rediscovering-michael-haydn-an-interview-with-david-wyn-jones/

I don't think the "equality of voices" in the string ensemble was Joseph's invention either. Look at Mozart's divertimento K.334 (composed in 1779, Salzburg, independent of Joseph's "influence") https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6kUgp2amto, it shares far more linguistic similarities with Michael Haydn's divertimentos https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezsvVtNbMCQ --Wikiwickedness (talk) 26/06/2021

Great work

What an unexpectedly valuble Wikipedia page - thanks to the people involved with this! To think, in 10 years time WP will be full of such amazing articles on specific musical pieces, but at the moment they are the exception rather than the rule, and to be treasured. Antienne (talk) 04:30, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

This article with a few improvements could be GA, I think! OboeCrack (talk) 13:59, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with OboeCrack. The article exhibits a great perspective on this op. I think rough and tumble nature of the recordings are actually working in their favor, lending them a "folkish" quality that allows the listener to get a visceral sense of the music. The sheen and distance that is often found on professional recordings can be off putting at times! Kudos ravpapa. Btj (talk) 17:22, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Fuseli and the Sturm und Drang

Michael Bednarek (talk · contribs) has removed the image of Henry Fuseli's famous painting from the article, because, he says, his "connection to Sturm und Drang seems, at best, dubious." Well, I beg to differ: Fuseli is perhaps the leading exponent of Sturm und Drang in the field of the visual arts. See, for example,

http://www.nga.gov/content/ngaweb/Collection/artist-info.2513.html?artobj_artistId=2513&pageNumber=1

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/1973/jan/25/sturm-und-drang/

https://books.google.co.il/books?id=mSzuAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA49&lpg=PA49&dq=Fuselli+sturm+und+drang&source=bl&ots=c6JkmCl4dl&sig=ylsnOOXrm-hH_6ugxVvD5Oo-qr0&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CC4Q6AEwA2oVChMIoaOi2uWRyQIViFsUCh2fHAVo#v=onepage&q=Fuselli%20sturm%20und%20drang&f=false

I don't mean to be nitpicky, but I thought the picture was relevant and added a nice touch. Of course, its removal is not a major tragedy, but still... --Ravpapa (talk) 06:34, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

1) Neither the English nor the German articles on Fuseli/Füssli mention Sturm und Drang. 2) I find the application of that label to visual arts and music problematic; in Germany, it's regarded solely as a literary movement. With these considerations, I regarded an overly large (400px) decoration as distracting. Further, I would like to see some sources, particularly German ones, which confirm this label to Haydn's works. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:29, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I am afraid that I cannot provide you with German sources, as I don't speak German. The application of the term "Sturm und Drang" to music is well-established in the English literature on the subject. Landon uses 'Sturm und Drang' to describe "a curious period in Austrian music, and, in particular, the extraordinary series of works, many (but by no means a majority) written in minor keys by Haydn from about 1765 to 1775" (H. C. R. LANDON, Crisis Years: Sturm und Drang and the Austrian Musical Crisis). Rosen refers to Haydn's works from 1768 - 1772 (including the opus 20 quartets) as works from his Sturm und Drang period (The Classical Style - I'm sorry I don't have a page number, but the book doesn't have a general index, so it is hard to find). You might want to read Abigail Chantler, "The "Sturm und Drang" Style Revisited" ( International Review of the Aesthetics and Sociology of Music, Vol. 34, No. 1 (Jun., 2003), pp. 17-31), available at http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/30032113.pdf.

As for the application of the term to the visual arts, I refer you to (one of many sources) David Hill, Literature of the Sturm und Drang (Boydell & Brewer, 2003), Volume 6, page 3, where Fuseli's painting is mentioned specifically. Incidentally, while the English article on Fuseli does not mention Sturm und Drang, the English article on Sturm und Drang mentions Fuseli. Anyway, you're not supposed to rely on Wikipedia for information, right?

You are right that the term Sturm und Drang originally referred specifically to the literary movement, but its use to refer to an aesthetic style in all the arts is well established. I'm sure that if you search, you will find sources in German, as well. --Ravpapa (talk) 13:28, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much for explaining the view in English-language sources about the wider application of Sturm und Drang. I still maintain that it's not seen that way in German texts. A particularly vehement objection is made here (in German). But that's of course largely irrelevant as this is the English Wikipedia. Nevertheless, I can't see the connection between Fuseli's The Nightmare and Haydn's Op. 20. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 23:13, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

If you feel strongly about it, we can leave it out. Damn the sources, full speed ahead! (That's a paraphrase of a quote by American captain David Farragut) --Ravpapa (talk) 05:20, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Viola solo?

The article says about the 3rd movement of No. 3: "The movement includes a haunting viola solo". Is there really one? I can't seem to find it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.25.35.125 (talk) 15:41, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Bars 45 to 48.. Ravpapa (talk) 04:45, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

'When Haydn published his opus 33 quartets, ten years after the opus 20, he wrote that they were composed in "an entirely new and particular manner".'

So perhaps we should take him seriously, like Rosen in his The Classical Style, and mention at least how the experiments in Op. 17 and Op. 20 blossom forth into the classical style proper in Op. 33 (which to my ear sounds as the main step forward in its tight organisation, not Op. 20 – and it is a good sign that Rosen appears to agree). Double sharp (talk) 09:09, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

P.S. Already Mozart's KV 173 has a fugal finale reminiscent of Haydn's Op. 20. In KV 387, though, Mozart goes further and integrates the fugue into a sonata-form movement. Double sharp (talk) 09:40, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Is there any indication anywhere that takes Haydn's remark not seriously? If not, there's no need to support a statement that is not contradicted. On a different tangent, the sentence could be rephrased to avoid confusion what "they" refers to. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 22:30, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, it's been a good while since I wrote this, so I don't have the sources at my fingertips. But, first, yes, everyone I recall reading took Haydn's remark seriously, but no one seemed to be clear exactly what was entirely new about opus 33. When I read Rosen about this I didn't really understand what he was getting at, though Doulesharp seems close. Another theory I read, which makes the most sense to me, is that what is entirely new is Haydn's use of mimesis, even to the point of being programmatic. This is, of course, most evident in the Birds quartet (number 3) and the Joke (number 2), but I think there is evidence of it in the other opus 33 quartets as well.

In any case, it seems that the proper place to discuss this is in String Quartets, Op. 33 (Haydn), or, perhaps in Chamber Music. Or maybe we need an article on String quartets by Joseph Haydn. Ravpapa (talk) 04:36, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

In the main article on Haydn, you can find a couple people cited (Webster, Larsen) who disagree with what Rosen said. Also, my amateur effort to summarize Rosen's views on what was new in Opus 33. But I agree with Ravpapa that any elaboration of this point belongs in the article about Opus 33 and not the article about Opus 20. Regards, Opus33 (talk) 05:34, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

... and who should know better than Opus 33 himself? Ravpapa (talk) 07:20, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

When was Opus 9 written?

The note on Op 20.6 quotes Drabkin (who he?) in a way which suggests he thinks the Op 9 quartets were written "the year before". That would have been, on the evidence of the main text of the article, 1771. I was a little shaken by this, and consulted Wikipedia for a date for Op 9, which it suggests appeared (not clear whether the dates are of publication or composition) in 1769. Three years is till a short period for such a rapid evolution in Haydn's musical attitudes to have taken place. I'm also a bit dubious about statements suggesting that a conventional model for quartet writing existed by 1772 from which Haydn consciously departed in Op 20. If it did, perhaps a representative composition demonstrating the model might have been mentioned?Delahays (talk) 00:19, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I was also puzzled. I've never heard of any date suggested for Opus 9 other than 1769, and when I looked at the cited page (p. 83) of Drabkin's book on Google Books, there's actually no text at all, only musical examples. Perhaps the original author might like to come by and clarify? Opus33 (talk) 00:51, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

That passage was added by User:Ravpapa on 7 November 2008. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:30, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Verily, a mistake. The intent is certainly to opus 17 not 9. I don't have Drabkin here, but I will head out to the library in the next few days, and verify. Thanks to hawkeyed Delahays Ravpapa (talk) 03:12, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Acknowledged. Delahays (talk) 19:42, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Op. 17 itself is far beyond anything Haydn's contemporaries could have come up with, and at least Op. 9 No. 4 is too, though C. P. E. Bach does sometimes equal the level of the rest of Op. 9. I may be speaking heresy here, and I hesitate to advance this against the great Tovey, but it seems to me that the advance in technique in Haydn's quartets is bigger between Op. 9 and Op. 17 than between Op. 17 and Op. 20. What is new in Op. 20 is the independence of the inner voices, but the heightened intellectual power that chains together Haydn's dramatic effects seems much greater in Op. 17 than in the undeniable masterpiece Op. 9 No. 4, where each new effect comes as yet another isolated shock, and this effect doesn't seem to be very different in nature in Op. 20 although it certainly gains incommensurably in richness. This being said, the counterpoint in Op. 20 sometimes seems to have nothing to do with the harmonic tensions of the harmonies and melodies, and I might dare to say that it is not until Op. 50 that Haydn is able to integrate the rich textures of the Baroque era fully into his new classicism.

As for the rapid evolution of Haydn's musical attitudes: I think we can satisfactorily ascribe the first change that ends around 1768 to the results of his study of C. P. E. Bach, and the next change that ends around 1781 with the Op. 33 quartets to his work on opera buffa that permeates the symphonies written in this time. Double sharp (talk) 06:37, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

What was the model from which Opus 20 departed?

In relation to the other point, about the model from which Haydn is presented as departing, Hans Keller, in his articles on the Op 20 quartets in "The Great Haydn Quartets", while making no mention of Sturm und Drang, suggests that the first movements of Op 20 Nos 1 and 2 are in "the Boccherini rhythm"(apologies for the misquote - he says "metre", not "rhythm", though he also indicates he thinks the important feature may well be the flexibility of phrase-length Haydn uses in these quartets (it certainly wakes up the casual listener). I'd suggest adding Keller to the bibliography. Delahays (talk) 19:42, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Delahays. My general sense from my reading is that the model from which Opus 20 departed was not Boccherini but rather his own earlier Opus 9 and Opus 17 quartets. See, for instance, the rave review of Opus 20 in Richard Wigmore's recent book The Faber Pocket Guide to Haydn, which says that the promise of Op. 9 and 17 was "richly fulfilled" in Op. 20. I think the idea is that by the time Haydn had finished Opus 17, he had already written 23 quartets, was the acknowledged leader in the field, and was sufficiently experienced to try something really ambitious. I haven't checked my bookshelf but I suspect this is something like a consensus. Opus33 (talk) 17:31, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, I went back to Drabkin and checked the reference. The school year here doesn't start until next week and the library was empty. The librarian, who usually keeps the place as silent as a Capuchin monastery, was particularly garrulous.

But never mind all that. The reference to Opus 9 was on page 81, not on page 83, and it was refering only to the trio section of the minuet. I have removed it. Thanks again to Delahays for catching that.

As for the connection to Boccherini, it's interesting. I have ordered the book and do some digging. Ravpapa (talk) 09:51, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

The point, I would imagine, is that Haydn took Boccherini's rather free use of half-integer-measure phrases (because his "common time" often seems like two bars of 2/4 glued together – https://www.jstor.org/stable/3700420), and dramatised it. In Op. 9 No. 4, as not found in Boccherini and Gluck (who used similar phrases without enough rhythmic differentiation), the syncopation that results when the phrases no longer coincide with the prevailing background downbeat has become an event, instead of being glossed over. Double sharp (talk) 06:49, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

La Siciliana

A user has added the name "La Siciliana" to the heading on opus 20 number 5. This is a really nice and appropriate name, it's just that I couldn't find a single place where the quartet is referred to by that name. Does anyone know if this is really a nickname of the quartet?

Ravpapa (talk) 06:09, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

No one seems interested in this, and no one has come up with any indication that this is really the nickname of this quartet, so I am reverting. Ravpapa (talk) 07:43, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

There is a reference to this nickname in an early Artaria Edition of the work. As you say, it is an appropriate name, and in any case, nearly all existing nicknames for Haydn's string quartets developed after publication and organically, rather than due to any academic source. This seems a perfect opportunity to continue that tradition, so I am re-instating. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EuropeanMusic (talk • contribs) 16:00, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Interesting. Well thank you for setting that straight. Ravpapa (talk) 18:02, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

@EuropeanMusic: I can only interpret "...developed after publication and organically, rather than due to any academic source. This seems a perfect opportunity to continue that tradition" as meaning that you do not believe this is a well-established name, and that you are posting it here in the hope of using Wikipedia to promote the name, and help to make it an established name. If so, then what you are doing is contrary to several Wikipedia policies. We require that article content be based on what is already the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources, not on what someone who has chosen to create a Wikipedia account would like to see come about. Editing to promote anything is not permitted: that includes promoting use of a name. Wikipedia policy is also that material which has been removed from an article because of a lack of suitable sourcing must not be restored unless a reliable source is provided, so don't restore it again without such a source. In addition, if you are either the same person as Maxruisi or someone else collaborating with that person, you need to read the policy on misuse of multiple accounts before you do any more editing. JBW (talk) 00:02, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

@EuropeanMusic: - As you probably have understood by now, I am a lot more believing (you might say gullible) than JBW and take you at your word. But I would really like to know where you saw the Artaria edition of the quartets. I have looked everywhere and can't find it, not online and not in any library. Please point me to it, as I would love to see it. Ravpapa (talk) 06:39, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

@Ravpapa: I am at a loss to understand what aspect of what I wrote gave you the impression that I am less "believing" than you, or that I don't take the editor at their word. I have no reason whatever to doubt that they are acting in perfectly good faith. Can you clarify? JBW (talk) 14:13, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorry if you took offense. None intended. Ravpapa (talk) 06:34, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

@Ravpapa: I didn't take offence; I just wondered what gave you that impression. JBW (talk) 11:24, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Order of the quartets

User @Aesthetic Writer: has reordered the descriptions of the quartets as their numbers appear in the Peters edition. It has been a long time since I researched the article, but, to the best of my recollection, the original order, as they appear in Haydn's own catalogue, is 5,6,2,3,4,1 and not as it appears in Peters. Can anyone confirm this? Ravpapa (talk) 15:12, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Later: I checked Henle, and the order as it appeared is correct. If no one objects in the next day or two, I will revert. Ravpapa (talk) 13:16, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Impact of the quartets

@Wikiwickedness: has removed a sound bit comparing the opening of opus20 number 5 to Mozart's D minor quartet. I am wondering why you removed this? It seemed relevant and interesting to me. Ravpapa (talk) 05:36, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

@Ravpapa:, about the opening of opus20 number 5 and that of Mozart's D minor quartet, the similarity is rather superficial (aside from the generic 4-note gesture in the accompaniment, typical of the Classical era). And btw, I don't consider the claims by the 20th century critics, Charles Rosen and Tovey that "Haydn's contribution to the genre (through Op.20) cannot be overstated" to be very reliable either. They completely ignore Michael Haydn's MH187, MH188, MH189, which were composed in 1773 in Salzburg (before the publication of Joseph's Op.20 quartets (1774)), and MH367, which was composed in 1784 (and Michael's influence on Mozart). Compare Michael Haydn's works with Mozart's; the similarities are far more striking (also in terms of chromaticism and dissonance https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gDxnpn5vb4&t=4m27s). "In Salzburg, if not throughout his life, Mozart was writing in a lingua franca and many of the features of that language are to be found in Michael Haydn too." -David Wyn Jones. https://theresia.blog/2019/03/rediscovering-michael-haydn-an-interview-with-david-wyn-jones/

// M. Haydn string quintet in G (MH187): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXdyX7nj2tA&t=5s , Mozart string quartet No.14 in G: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9JVtqdgziw&t=1s // M. Haydn string quintet in G (MH187): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXdyX7nj2tA&t=49s , Mozart string quartet No.16 in E flat: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rf9GI-6Kn8&t=49s // M. Haydn string quintet in F (MH367): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=en-ekCM2Lu4&t=5m40s , Mozart string quartet No.19 in C: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITEMTfGK5-A&t=6m40s // M. Haydn symphony No.22 in F: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ppTToo8lrMQ&t=6m6s , Mozart string quartet No.19 in C: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yoFDucdQlsA&t=7m38s //

Donald Tovey's claims about the Renaissance style in Beethoven's Missa Solemnis makes me wonder he had any knowledge of Michael Haydn. And let's not forget the 20th century was a time a bunch of works by the obscure composers (such as Michael Haydn's MH187) were misattributed to the few famous composers such as Joseph Haydn and Mozart. The 20th century critics couldn't have had accurate view of the stuff. I find the excessive reliance on their views, and the "appeal to authority" in this article rather puzzling. Wikiwickedness (talk) 14:36, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Haydn Op.20 Overrated?

So, what this wikipedia article on Haydn Op.20 is basically saying is; 'because a few well known critics of the 20th century, including the author of the Classical Style, Charles Rosen claimed Haydn's Op.20 "forever changed the genre", so we must believe them'. But, did the critics (including Rosen, who explicitly says in his book that he would ignore composers other than Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven in discussing the style) really know what they were talking about? When we look at Joseph Haydn's use of harmony and counterpoint in these works, isn't it quite "banal"? (Compared to Michael Haydn's in MH187, MH189 from 1773 or with Mozart's works such as K.334 from his Salzburg period, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6kUgp2amto).

// Op.20/2/iv: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vX_hZPRRERA&t=24m20s , Op.20/2/ii: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vX_hZPRRERA&t=11m10s , https://i.imgur.com/EKOodMO.png , https://i.imgur.com/twCshUj.png //

If Haydn was such a great innovator in his time, how come there's absolutely NO case of any other contemporary composers or musicians (in the 1770s~1780s) praising his "innovations" in their correspondence? It's doubtful if Mozart really did care about Haydn Op.20 as much as the dubious 20th century critics have claimed. Look at this article by Ulrich Konrad http://mrc.hanyang.ac.kr/wp-content/jspm/20/jspm_2006_20_10.pdf#page=4 , Joseph Haydn was not in the list of composers Mozart studied in 1783 ("the composers Mozart and his colleagues studied in these sessions is mentioned in the Mozart correspondence by name: Johann Ernst Eberlin, for instance, or Georg Friedrich Handel, or J.S. Bach and his sons Wilhelm Friedemann and Carl Phillip Emmanuel, or Michael Haydn."")

So this image of 'Joseph Haydn being in the center of all innovations and source of all musical wisdom in the late 18th century, and all the other composers working in all other regions focusing their attention on Haydn, seeking guidance' is what the 20th century critics, Rosen, Tovey, would have had us believe. But was this the true image of Joseph Haydn seen by his contemporaries in the 1770s~1780s? I think the critics have excessively tried to promote Haydn to the public in their time and have overrated the historical significance of his Op.20 with exaggerated claims in the process. Wikiwickedness (talk) 14:36, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

@Wikiwickedness: - You are certainly entitled to your opinions in this matter, bur for the time being, the sources quoted in the article are considered reliable, and they are the ones who say that Haydn's opus 20 quartets are a milestone in the history of composition. The one source you quote on this talk pageRavpapa (talk) 16:06, 17 March 2022 (UTC) - the article by Konrad - offers a partial list of composers studied in a particular group of sessions with Mozart and van Swieten, and in no way contradicts that statement. And the fact that you found many recordings of Michael Haydn's works on Youtube does not prove anything.

If you find reliable sources that contest the historic importance of Haydn and, specifically, these quartets, you are welcome to add this to the article. Ravpapa (talk) 16:04, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Sure, I've found one, I'll add it soon. Wikiwickedness (talk) 16:58, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Equality of voices

What proof is there this is entirely Haydn's invention? Is Charles Rosen really an authentic source? What evidence is there he knew about Michael Haydn's works from 1773, such as MH 187, MH 189? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXdyX7nj2tA (They were attributed to Joseph Haydn in Rosen's time). Wikiwickedness (talk) 01:18, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I have restored the sentence you removed in the lead, and have added references. Please do not remove referenced material from the article.

The paragraph you added is certainly interesting and adds and important facet to the article.

If you feel that Rosen is an unreliable source, the place to challenge that is on the reliable sources noticeboard. Ravpapa (talk) 05:37, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Recent edits

This article has, until now, reflected the consensus of a fairly large number of leading scholars of musicology - Rosen, Tovey, Cobbett, Geiringer, Betti, Drummond, to mention a few - that the opus 20 string quartets are, as the lead stated (supported by a number of references) "considered a milestone in the history of composition; in them, Haydn develops compositional techniques that were to define the medium for the next 200 years." Editor Wikiwickedness has challenged this widely held view, based, as far as I can tell, on a single reference, and has introduced considerable revisions and a great deal of polemic into the lead of the article.

There is, of course, no question that Haydn was not composing in a vacuum, and that other composers deserve credit for advancing the string quartet form, and that credit deserves mention in the article. I ask, however, if it deserves such prominence as to be included in the lead of the article. The article, after all, is not about the development of the string quartet in general, but specifically about the Haydn opus 20 quartets. And the lead, as I say, previously reflected the wide consensus of musicologists, something it no longer does. Ravpapa (talk) 05:33, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

I share your concern about these edits (and similar edits by the same person to the Chamber Music and String Quartet articles. In the last, there is an attempt to equate to Haydn's legacy on the string quartet as a genre with a relatively minor composer, who happened to write a set of quartets. In this article, the edits are problematic for a number of reasons. A huge section explaining the importance of op.20 has been deleted, because "it seemed dubious" [emphasis added]. The speculation about Beecke's influence on Mozart is unsourced, has nothing to do with op.20, and in any case belongs in Beecke. The Hickman quote is from a book review where he discusses at length merits of another author viewing (or not) string quartets as evolution from related earlier forms (e.g. divertimenti). While it would be reasonable to put the old "father of the string quartet" moniker in better perspective — and probably not in an article on a specific set but one where opp. 9, 17, 20, are considered together — there seems to be an attempt to downplay Haydn's influence, which is generally recognized as outsize in making the string quartet a genre. Furthermore, the Parker book used as source takes the Hickman quote out of context and is generally a very poor book: a laudable effort of unearthing many obscure 18c string quartets but little analysis of their musical significance marred by an umbrella thesis centered on four vaguely subjective "types", an approach of which reviewers have been left unconvinced. On the other hand, some of the editor's cleanup work is worthwhile and welcome and I'm happy lesser-known composers like Franz Richter get recognition, but I feel we need to restore the balance and focus of an article that is about a single set of works. The entire discussion of Haydn's influence in creating a string quartet genre properly belongs in his namesake article and in the History section of the String Quartet article. Material not about op.20 belongs elsewhere. The section Opus 20 and the development of the string quartet was valuable, well sourced, and should be restored. jmsofia (talk) 23:20, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that sources such as Rosen, Tovey, are all from the 20th century, (Pohl is from the 19th century) when the revival of Classical period music wasn't as active as it is now. Would it be blasphemy to point out their outdatedness? The one source, in its latest edition, I quoted (The String Quartet, 1750–1797: Four Types of Musical Conversation by Mara Parker) was from 2018. --Wikiwickedness (talk) 15:22, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

RFC: Importance of the Haydn Opus 20 quartets

There is a disagreement over the importance of Opus 20 to the development of the string quartet form. The lead presented the opus as "a milestone in the history of composition". An editor has revised that lead to suggest that Haydn's contribution to string quartet development is exaggerated, and that a number of other, far less known, composers were equally responsible for advancement of the form.

A more detailed description of the disagreement appears in the previous section. Ravpapa (talk) 06:13, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

• Some thoughts:

1. So anything before 2000 is old hat? Perhaps Wikiwickedness would like to explain why s/he prays Roger Hickman in aid when his material dates from 1975.
2. It is disingenuous to say "scholars today such as Roger Hickman argue so-and-so" – all scholars? If not, which other scholars?
3. "today" – 1975 happened some time ago, and "today" changes: see WP:DATED
4. The book by Mara Parker – no comment on the author's notability, but there is no Wikipedia article – was first published in 2002. Grove, a year earlier, says of Haydn "He is familiarly known as the 'father of the symphony' and could with greater justice be thus regarded for the string quartet … Opp.9, 17 and 20 established the four-movement form with two outer fast movements, a slow movement and a minuet (although in this period the minuet usually precedes the slow movement). They also – op.20 in particular – established the larger dimensions, higher aesthetic pretensions and greater emotional range that were to characterize the genre from this point onwards". I think we'd need more than an outlier from 1975 to justify Wikiwickedness's contrary contention.

I think we ought to restore the 12 November 2022 version of the lead unless and until a consensus in favour of the recent change is established. – Tim riley talk 09:57, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

• Restore earlier version as per User:Tim riley. This seems to be just one editor pushing his WP:OR attitude.--Smerus (talk) 13:35, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

  I disagree. The other editors are using https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum Wikiwickedness (talk) 07:54, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

• Restore per Ravpapa's, jmsofia's, Tim's and Smerus's arguments to this version. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 23:24, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Grove, which you quoted, quotes C. F. Pohl, a critic of the 19th century. (Pohl, in Grove's (1946), p. 583.) Wikiwickedness (talk) 07:52, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

@Wikiwickedness:, do you want to contribute to the discussion? I don't want to make any changes before hearing your opinion. Ravpapa (talk) 05:43, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

• Restore per everyone saying so. While being bold is touted as an important atribute for Wikipedia editors, the deletion and changes go way too far, in my view, and should have been discussed on this Talk page first. I am tempted to revert now seeing as consensus is clear but will let this play out. Jusdafax (talk) 21:57, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Entirely concur. Perhaps leave the thread open for a couple of days before restoring the earlier lead. Tim riley talk 22:06, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Worth noting: the editor introducing these changes has made similar changes to the String quartet article, which in my view invite similar scrutiny. Jusdafax (talk) 22:40, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

As compromise, I suggest that in the article the discussion of various scholars' claims about Haydn's innovations of the string quartet genre (as well as opposing claims by Hickman, Webster, Parker) should be restricted to one section only (maybe the section "Impact of the quartets"). Wikiwickedness (talk) 08:17, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't get the obsession with the "historical importance", why not just talk about the work (Haydn Op. 20) itself and not about what they are in history, which is largely speculative anyway (since the focus is only on composers of the past who are famous today), even from the perspective of the academia (as Roger Hickman revealed to the public). Does any of Mozart's piano concertos and his use of double expositions get this kind of lavish unjustifiable glorification in their wikipedia articles? I can't think of another classical music composer where there is this much "fanboyism" about how much he "innovated" and "invented" based on some hyperbolic claims by 20th century academics. Speaking of "notability"- Where is the evidence Rosen and Tovey knew about Franz Xaver Richter's Op. 5 set? Maybe it's because of the very "doctrines" of Rosen and Tovey, and their constant promotion as the "absolute authorities" on the subject, people aren't exposed or encouraged to know about works by composers such as Franz Xaver Richter and Franz Ignaz von Beecke, and hence new studies and discoveries on the subject have been delayed.

The latest edition of Mara Parker's book was made in 2018. And she says in the foreword of her book: "As so much scholarship is devoted to Mozart and Haydn at the expense of other composers, I wanted to avoid this pitfall as much as possible." "The string quartet of the second half of the eighteenth century is often presented as a medium which underwent a logical progression from first-violin dominated homophony to the conversation among four equal participants. To a certain extent, this holds true if one restricts oneself to the works of Haydn and Mozart, and some of their contemporaries. My own research initially led to me believe this be to a provable and convincing argument. Once I began examining the actual works, however, I realized my assumptions were continuously being challenged, and that things were not nearly as nice and tidy as I had expected. Increasingly, I found numerous exceptions to my model and it was not long before I realized that my hypothesis was simply wrong." --Wikiwickedness (talk) 07:21, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

From Page. 5~6 of Parker's book: "Webster cautions against viewing the quartet as a unified genre. He contends that the whole concept of a classical string quartet was really a creation of the 1790s and early 1800s, due to the glorification of Mozart (after his death) and late Haydn: "Haydn did not synthesize the elements of preclassical chamber music to create the quartet; rather his individual solution to a local problem later became the central element in a historical aesthetic model of the rise of the genre." --Wikiwickedness (talk) 07:43, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

I think that @Wikiwickedness: has a point, though his rather aggressive and scorched-earth method of expressing it may have rubbed some of us the wrong way. It is true that there has been a kind of renaissance of obscure composers in the last 20 years, and the scholars that Wikiwickedness quotes do indeed believe that some of the credit for advancing the string quartet form should be shared. I admit, even I have played a string quartet by Richter. While I didn't analyze it but just played it, and though I found it excruciatingly boring, it is possible that it contributed something to musical development. As for Beecke, I must admit total ignorance.

So I think there is justification for adding these quotes to the article. An appropriate place would be, perhaps, at the end of the (now deleted) section on "Opus 20 and the development of the string quartet."

Wholesale deletions and dramatic changes in the lead of the article are not, in my opinion, an appropriate way to proceed. Perhaps, WikiWicked, in another 20 years Rosen and Drummond and Tovey will be forgotten. But for the time being, they are still the people who write the rules. Ravpapa (talk) 15:13, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

And, I might add, @Wikiwickedness:, a productive contribution that you might want to make would be to expand the articles on Franz Xaver Richter and Franz Ignaz von Beecke, neither of which mention anything about their contributions to the string quartet genre. The Beecke article is little more than a stub, and could use considerable fleshing-out. Ravpapa (talk) 15:54, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

There is a recording of the 1757 Richter quartets by casalQuartett that enlivens the counterpoint and interplay of voices. And it's an objective fact the 1780 Beecke C major quartet (recording by Diogenes Quartett on youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eyspv0f_lD8) contains a dissonant slow introduction, a feature of Mozart's C major K. 465, and none of Haydn's Op. 20 and Op. 33 quartets. Why hype Haydn's influence so much when it is apparent there were contemporaries of Haydn doing similar things as him and there's no evidence they all learned from Haydn how to do them? Where did Rosen and Tovey prove that they knew the contemporaries?

I think whether or not their works are "boring" is a subjective matter. It's not like Haydn is exciting all the time either; he has sections of clumsily repetitive sequences; for example, the ones in the ending of of the fugue of the Op.20 No.2 C major quartet, which arguably shows his skills as an instrumentalist (skills in improvising or playing instruments; or maybe as a self-taught contrapuntist) to be mundane compared to those of Beecke, Michael Haydn, Mozart. One could argue "the emperor has no clothes" whenever Haydn is like that. But backed up by some 20th century scholars, people are shouting "Papa Haydn is just being carefree and funny; you just have to understand."

Remember, the general evaluation of Haydn in the 19th century was far more critical.

An excerpt from "Reviving Haydn: New Appreciations in the Twentieth Century" by Bryan Proksch, page 25:

"It is unclear exactly what about Haydn’s music the Schumanns found “monotonous,” since they never offered a detailed description. However, a section of an 1843 biography of Mozart by Alexander Dmitryevich Ulïbïshev, a German-educated Russian, might provide just such insights from almost the same point in time. Writing in 1843 on Mozart’s opus 10 “Haydn” quartets, which he favored over Haydn’s own works at every turn through direct comparison, Ulïbïshev criticized Haydn on two accounts:

[First,] in the majority of Haydn’s quartets, cantabile sections and decorative passage-work alternate with a regularity that simply cannot be tolerated in the genre, an effect which gives to thematically constructed works a false air of concertante music and enfeebles the work of the composer in the interests of the first violinist. . . . Secondly, in many places, the melodic style of Haydn’s quartets comes distinctly close to vocal music. He harks back [sic] to the The Creation and The Seasons even when he is not actually working with such archaic melodic forms. Many of Haydn’s adagios and andantes are veritable cavatinas from beginning to end, the first violin reduced to being a substitute for a singer. The only thing missing is the text.

To be sure, there is a certain irony in Ulïbïshev calling Haydn an operatic composer while promoting Mozart as an instrumental composer. His chronology of Haydn’s compositions shows the degree to which Haydn’s biography became meaningless in the nineteenth century, as well (again ironically, even in a biography of Mozart). However, if the Schumanns heard Haydn’s instrumental works in similar operatic terms it might explain how a disdain for the oratorios could have tainted their opinion of his entire output. In that sense, length might have influenced these 1830s and 1840s listeners’ boredom less than the perception of a treble-dominated texture." Wikiwickedness (talk) 16:17, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

• I briefly lost the will to live while wading through Wikiwickedness's oceans of words (none of which answer my questions, above, to him/her) but have survived the experience and would like to remind colleagues that the question under consideration is whether to restore the earlier lead that s/he has deleted. I continue to think we should. Tim riley talk 21:41, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

  Losing the will to live seems a rather extreme response to prolixity. I hope you have fully recovered.

  I, on the other hand, read with considerable interest what Wikiwickedness had to say. I listened to Beecke's quartet on YouTube, and was quite blown away - it really is extraordinary! And I listened to the Richter, played by the Casals Quartet, and thought it wasn't as bad as my first impression. I must say I was predisposed to like it, because I am a fan of the Casals quartet, they are the only ones who play the Haydn Joke quartet the way I think it should be played.

  Anyway, I think that Wikiwickedness has a point. He is obviously knowledgeable, and has found a good number of sources that support his contention that other composers, some of them drowned in the wash of history, also had a significant role in developing the string quartet genre. And I think that view does have a place in the article. But not in the lead, and not instead of the section on Opus 20's impact on the development of the string quartet. It deserves to be added to that (now missing) section, and perhaps deserves a larger exposition in the history section of the String Quartet article. And certainly, the articles on Beecke and Richter could use some fleshing out. Ravpapa (talk) 07:10, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

• Butting in, and coming from a non-specialist POV, I find that the changes confuse the issue. For me Wikiwickedness changes seem to overly complicate, in a torturously and wordy manner. To use a simile am familiar with, they are shoehorning into the lead in way that might be comparable to saying in the Stones article how Keif popularised 12 bar blues, but this this and this artist(s) used in these ways in xyz years. Ceoil (talk) 22:25, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

I have now restored the original lead; and added two paragraphs of text in the body of the article, both properly cited, one setting out Hickman's point of view, another giving Cliff Eisen's opinion as a tertium quid.--Smerus (talk) 13:33, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Just How Reliable Was Sir Donald Francis Tovey in His Knowledge of the Music of the Classical Period?

Tovey claimed about Beethoven's Missa Solemnis. "There is no earlier choral writing that comes so near to recovering some of the lost secrets of the style of Palestrina." (Tovey, Donald Francis (1937). Essays in Musical Analysis, Volume V. London: Oxford University Press. p. 165.)

But it seems he could be proven to have been wrong or mistaken.

Michael Spitzer in pages 123 and 124 of his book, "Beethoven" (2015) says: "Gregorian melodies, of course, continued to be used in the Mass throughout the eighteenth century; but by Beethoven's time they were relatively rare, especially in orchestral Masses. The one composer who still used them extensively is Michael Haydn, in his a cappella Masses for Advent and Lent. It is significant that in some of these he limits the borrowed melody to the Incarnatus and expressly labels it "Corale." In the Missa dolorum B. M. V. (1762) it is set in the style of a harmonized chorale, in the Missa tempore Qudragesima of 1794 note against note, with the Gregorian melody (Credo IV of the Liber Usualis) appearing in the soprano. I have little doubt that Beethoven knew such works of Michael Haydn, at that time the most popular composer of sacred music in Austria." Ave Regina, MH 140 (Michael Haydn): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoh9g1CsAOM Missa in Dominica Palmarum secundum cantum choralem (1794, Michael Haydn) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QapQznTl2xU

Likewise, the reliability of his similar claims about Haydn's Op. 20 string quartets being "the first of something" can be debatable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiwickedness (talk • contribs) 08:49, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Utterly irrelevant to this page.--Smerus (talk) 08:48, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Conflict between this page and the "Sturm und Drang" page

This page credits the burgeoning Romantic ideals and the literary "Sturm und Drang" movement with a significant influence on Haydn's work during this period. However, the page on "Sturm und Drang" suggests any influence on Haydn was negligible, and any influence that was there was merely passive absorption of the ideas of the time period. Furthermore, while Haydn's work during this period is in line with Sturm und Drang ideals and foreshadows the coming Romanticism, it still very much conforms to the classical form.

I'm not very knowledgeable about classical music and don't profess to know the answer, but just wanted to bring this to attention, that these two pages give two very different ideas about Haydn's relation to Sturm und Drang. They should be brought in line with each other. Rj1255 (talk) 22:23, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated Claims in the Section "Equality of voices"

There is this section (without having a single source to back up): [ "Prior to opus 20, the first violin, or, sometimes, the two violins, dominated the quartet. The melody was carried by the leader, with the lower voices (viola and cello) accompanying. In opus 20, Haydn gives each instrument, and particularly the cello, its own voice. An outstanding example of this is the second quartet in C major. The quartet opens with a cello solo, accompanied by the viola and second violin. This was virtually unheard of in Haydn's time." ], including a file of the score (of Op.20 No.4) showing interplay of the voices.

But Haydn wasn't the first or the only one to do such a kind of interplay between instruments in his time. (And in my opinion, wasn't the best in terms of fluency. Albeit having a keen sense for "musical humor", Haydn sounds like someone who self-taught counterpoint without being good at playing an instrument himself, especially in the final sequences of the fugue of Op.20 No.2, or the development section of its first movement. I think there's a reason why there was consistent negative reception of Haydn throughout the 19th century. See the book "Reviving Haydn: New Appreciations in the Twentieth Century" by Bryan Proksch.) There's plenty of evidence to refute the claim given in this section; instrumental ensemble works of Franz Xaver Richter, Franz Ignaz von Beecke (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eyspv0f_lD8&t=3m), and Michael Haydn (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRRBSS5-MVg&t=17m), etc.

In fact, Richter's Op.5 No.1 from 1756 has just such a kind of interplay of voices between the instruments. Here's score of the first movement, the parts where the first violin leads are colored in blue, the second violin in yellow, the viola in red, the cello in green. Here's link to the recording on youtube by casalQuartett: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PhEA7Ecd_s&t=3m

Plus, there's a source to back up my claim: H. Schick's article < "Did Franz Xaver Richter invent the string quartet?" >(https://www.researchgate.net/publication/296864720_Did_Franz_Xaver_Richter_invent_the_string_quartet_Reflections_on_the_300th_birthday_of_the_composer_including_a_theory_about_Boccherini) says (in the abstract) about Richter's Op.5 (1756): [ "It is still unclear ... how they should be evaluated with respect to the history of the genre." "the musical texture with its concertante style in all parts exhibits remarkably "modern" traits" "it appears that Richter should be considered the inventor of the string quartet-the quartet with a genuine cello part-and as a composer who definitively inspired the development of the genre." ]

I'll have this entire section deleted until someone comes up with something reliable to back it up. "Prior to opus 20"? "This was virtually unheard of in Haydn's time." What do these mean exactly? Wikiwickedness (talk) 09:31, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

I have restored the deleted section and added a quote and references to support it. We have had this discussion before. I am aware of your opinion and even tend to agree with it to some extent. But you cannot simply ignore the vast body of scholarship which regards opus 20 as a watershed work of art. Once again, if you have diverging views, you are welcome to add them, with suitable documentation. Wholesale deletion of documented material is not the way we do things at Wikipedia.

Incidentally, scores of works that in your opinion contradict statements in this article would be considered original research and not acceptable as a reference. You have to find quotes from recognized musicologists to support your view.

Thanks for making constructive additions to the article.