More Genres
No Artists Found
More Artists
Load All
No Albums Found
More Albums
Load All
No Tracks Found
Genre not found
Artist not found
Album not found
Search results not found
Song not found
Symphony No. 96 in D major "The Miracle": I. Adagio
Haydn Mozart Beethoven Lyrics
No lyrics text found for this track.
The lyrics are frequently found in the comments by searching or by filtering for lyric videos
The lyrics are frequently found in the comments by searching or by filtering for lyric videos
Elaine Blackhurst
@Mystic Mouse
Beethoven was referring to the counterpoint lessons - a form of musical grammar - that he took from Haydn beginning soon after his arrival in Vienna in November 1792, and lasting 14 months until Haydn’s departure for his second trip to England in January 1794.
Beethoven’s complaint was referring to having to complete hundreds of dry, academic exercises from Fux’s manual Gradus ad Parnassum - many of which were not corrected - not to Haydn as a composer in general.
When Haydn left for his second trip, Albrechtsberger carried on the lessons from Fux exactly where Haydn left off - and he found him difficult too.
To quote this well known Beethoven comment out of context is simply disingenuous.
Your spelling of ‘humor’ suggests that you are writing from the US; Haydn’s universal programming figures are not determined in one country alone.
Judging from YouTube comments generally, it seems that as your comment also indicates, Haydn is less well understood in the US than in Europe particularly but also elsewhere around the world, somewhat surprising as over the past c.75 years, some of the greatest musicologists, scholars, and biographers of Haydn have come from that country - most obviously HC Robbins Landon, but many others as well since.
Mozart died in 1791, so could not ‘...build on’ the ‘London’ symphonies - an utter absurdity; the Variations in f minor; the string quartets Opus 71/74, 76, or 77, the late piano trios; the Trumpet concerto; The Creation; The Seasons; the final six Masses; et cetera, much of which went some way beyond anything by Mozart in terms of controlled tonal experimentation, building large scale musical structures from small motifs, developments in form and structure, and so forth.
In many respects, Haydn is in fact closer to Beethoven (the piano sonata Hob.XVI:52 for example).
Haydn composed many of his most important - and innovative and developmental - works (as listed above) after the death of Mozart, so I take issue with your point about Mozart building on Haydn - a clear impossibility.
Hope that helps; in summary:
I think the greatness of Beethoven is that he successfully moved music in a different direction from Mozart and Haydn;
that Haydn both pre-dates and post-dates Mozart;
and that Mozart and Haydn are less closely related than is sometimes suggested.
Elaine Blackhurst
@Mystic Mouse
Not intended to be condescending, but using the Beethoven comment out of context for example, was misleading, and therefore open to challenge.
I do not think any of the biographies of Beethoven - whether dating back from the early/mid 19th century, to the present day - have ever properly explained what it was about Haydn that so got under Beethoven’s skin, particularly from his move to Vienna in 1792, until Haydn’s retirement in about 1804 (from which period almost all the negative comments originate).
Generally speaking, you are right that Mozart and Beethoven appear more often than Haydn in concert programmes; the degree to which this is true however varies across the world.
Certainly with projects such as Haydn 2032, the publishing work going on in Germany in particular, and the performances of rarely heard operas in many places, there is certainly much going on across Europe.
I don’t actually disagree with most of your comments - particularly in relation to Beethoven - but those points I did question, like Mozart building on Haydn - which again, I felt was both partly inaccurate and therefore misleading to the casual reader - you have not answered.
I would be genuinely interested in hearing your widely shared views in those areas that prompted my initial reply.
Elaine Blackhurst
Haydn went to work for Count Morzin (not Monzi), who had a summer palace at Lukavec in Bohemia, probably in 1757; he remained there until 1761 when Morzin disbanded his orchestra.
From 1761, Haydn was then employed - or pensioned - by the Eszterhazy family for the rest of his life until 1809.
Symphony 1 as you describe, was Haydn’s first symphony, but it was composed in 1757 (not 1759).
The question of a harpsichord continuo has been much discussed; the prevailing view is that Haydn played the violin in his symphonies - certainly at Eisenstadt and Eszterhaza - but unfortunately, almost nothing is known about his time at Lukavec.
Amongst more recent conductors, the harpsichord continuo IS used by:
Goodman, Kuijken, Pinnock, Solomons.
The harpsichord continuo IS NOT used by:
Antonini, Bruggen, Harnoncourt, Hogwood, Weil.
(Dorati in his first complete cycle from the 1970’s, rather arbitrarily uses it for about the first 40 symphonies only).
It’s interesting to hear the earlier symphonies both with and without continuo; from about 1774 - ie post-sturm und drang - with works such as Symphonies 54, 55, 56, 57, and 60 which were all composed around that time, the harpsichord really begins to sound anachronistic.
The only other thing I would mention about your summary of the symphony, is that this is clearly a very modern early Classical symphony; I would suggest that any slight vestiges of the old Baroque are almost non-existent.
Elaine Blackhurst
@José Lopes
Thank you for your reply covering some interesting topics.
Regarding the dating of the first symphony, the work of the great HC Robbins Landon* - whom I met for a day in 1982 at the University of Bristol - has now been superseded by others, in particular Sonja Gerlach whose work on the dating of the symphonies is now widely accepted as the most accurate list - it can be found for example on the Haydn 2032 project website.
HCRL himself accepted Symphony 1 probably was the first, but could not date it precisely;
Haydn himself was adamant that Symphony 1 was the first, but got the date wrong - the origin of the 1759 dating;
Sonja Gerlach has - as far as it is possible to do - established that Symphony 1 was the first in 1757;
and the universally accepted date amongst scholars is now as I stated - 1757.
You will only find the 1759 date now in much older texts; the problem with the 1759 date is that it means Symphony 1 cannot be the first as there is an extant manuscript of Symphony 37 dated 1758.**
The rest of my comment -apart from the point about the harpsichord sounding anachronistic after about 1773 - was not really opinions, but a balanced summary of current scholarship.
For example I listed both sides of the continuo or not debate with a comprehensive list of conductors, if you want to know more, then another
American scholar James Webster is one of the leading authorities on this subject, and my ‘opinion’ was actually based on scholarly evidence.
Regarding the harpsichord continuo debate, in the comments on YouTube under the Haydn 2032 performance on Symphony 12 conducted by Giovanni Antonini, I have summarised the main points of the argument, and listed Webster’s reasons suggesting that Haydn did not use the continuo at Eszterhaza.
Hope that is all of some interest, and use.
* I possess all five volumes of his Haydn: Chronicle and Works - a bible for anyone interested in the composer.
** I will post separately - below - Sonja Gerlach’s dating of the earliest symphonies: the main work is unfortunately only available in German, but the lists are easy to read in any language.
Elaine Blackhurst
@José Lopes
Haydn’s first symphonies composed at Lukavec.
The work of Sonja Gerlach - building on the work of previous scholars such as Larsen and Robbins Landon - has established the following:
Symphony 1 1757
Symphony 37 1757/58
Symphony 18 1757/59
Symphony 2 1757/59
Symphony 4 1757/60
Symphony 27 1757/60
Brain Smoothie
I've heard of a story where Haydn was playing this piece and everyone was so mesmerized that they rose from their seats and dance. Then, a chandelier just fell and crashed onto the floor. Because the people liked the music so much that they managed to avoid death by leaving their seats, they began to shout "miracle!" over and over again. So Haydn literally saved everyone because he was a really good musician.
qfcbv
But in fact, scholars now think this event that gives the symphony 96 its name actually happened at the premiere of the symphony 102.
Brain Smoothie
@qfcbv That's very interesting!
Boutman
@qfcbv exactly, read about this in a book about coincidence & synchronicity (name of the book escapes me for the moment ;-) )
Luca R
This symphony truly is a “miracle”!
Timothy Thorne
Luca R this symphony is nice and inoffensive. Like classical period works in general, it's light-hearted, trivial and inconsequential. Better than Bach and baroque music, however, which tends to be thick, academic, mathematical and dull.
Real music as art begin with Beethoven. His works are pure poetry. They're potboiler novels: at once melodramatic, then temperamental. In short, he was the best composer of them all. Haydn or Mozart would have no doubt been perplexed by Beethoven's Ninth Symphony, or Missa Solemnis.
Elaine Blackhurst
Timothy Thorne
Wow Timothy...found 11 (sic) points in your comment with which I absolutely and fundamentally disagree, and that’s just in your first paragraph!
Relating to Luca R’s point above: this is not the real ‘Miracle’ symphony; the chandelier actually fell at a performance of the rather noisier Symphony 102.
Elaine Blackhurst
Luca R See my comment above which might be of interest.
Elaine Blackhurst
Charlemagne It does matter, because if the nonsense contained in the original comment is not challenged, then it is read, repeated, believed and propagated - many of the points made are simply wrong.
CI Craft
Timothy Thorne What are you talking about? That’s absolutely false.