Talk:Joseph Haydn/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Josef or Joseph?

Since his name is originally German, why spell it a-la English? Shouldn't it be Josef? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.51.22.212 (talk) 18:01, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Music out of tune?

Is it me, or are the cellos in the two Cello Concertos in D in the Media section hideously out of tune? I doubt Wikipedia will have much luck getting the layman interested in classical music if all the samples sound so hideously off-key. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.3.52 (talk) 18:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Joseph Haydn Gold Coin

The first three paragraphs below are copied from User talk:Opus33 but would be more useful (as clarification) on this Talk page. Opus33 (talk) 06:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. The Austrian government mints every year only one coin of 50 euro value, in very small quantities, immediately getting acquired by collectors. They started a series in 2004 called "Great Composers", in their honour, and it was decided to put Haydn on the very first coin … on top of Mozart and Beethoven! How can you say this is not interest for those that want to learn about Haydn? The fact that you have no interest in numismatics, or that your interest is in music, should not be enough to decide what should and what should not be included in an article; that is my personal opinion. Please remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia … I think that a reference to a very special coin featuring a portrait of Haydn, not only does not take too much space in the article, but it is also very valid; please reconsider it. Miguel.mateo (talk) 05:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello Miguel, I think it would be fine to discuss this commemorative coin but such discussion would belong in the numismatics articles of WP and not the Haydn article. As support for my position, I would note that neither the New Grove (the major English-language encyclopedia of music) nor any of the composer biographies I've read make any mention of commemorative coins. I think the pros are right on this point and we should follow their example. Yours sincerely, Opus33 (talk) 17:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I have to disagree, this is not a music encyclopaedia, and not allowing this simple fact in the article, that takes no more than three lines, is neglecting the fact that the coin exists; which the only thing that shows is the relevance of Haydn in contemporary society, not only in music; it simply shows the legacy he has left from a different angle. Of course the coin is in an article of numismatics, which by the link, links back to this article as well. I will change it a little bit, and will put it in the "See also" section, please be wide, and see it as a valuable piece of information. Maybe some of you, musicians, would love to have this coin (and the other two "Great Composers" coin, featuring Mozart and Beethoven) after knowing the fact that it exists, it is a very rare piece of art, of pure gold, very valuable. Did you know the coin exists? Miguel.mateo (talk) 00:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello Miguel, I'm not persuaded by your remarks. That you personally have an extreme enthusiasm for gold coins is not a good basis for editorial policy. As editors we serve a public of readers, the great majority of whom do not have such an enthusiasm. This is why I deleted your contribution again. Sincerely, Opus33 (talk) 06:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I really do not understand how come a simple reference in the see also part of the article, for some piece of information very valid and valuable, simply because you do not like it, you continue to remove it. This is an encyclopedia, not a personal book; the only thing you are doing is not allowing Wikipedia to grow, since my reference is to an internal article in Wikipedia. I will put those changes, once again, later today, with an even smaller text. This time it will be escalated to administrators if you remove it. Miguel.mateo (talk) 06:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I see no reason not to give a short mention to the fact that he has his own commemorative coin -- we usually have a section on historical people's impact in today's world, so why not include this. —Nightstallion 08:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Opus33's conclusion, but my reasoning is slightly different. I doubt that the text about the coin belongs on the article. Firstly it is information about the subject matter of a coin, and it's a stretch to argue that it adds any information about Haydn. Secondly, unless we have a source, it is original research to claim that it shows anything about Haydn's legacy: do the Austrian Mint claim that it shows any such thing? - and even if they did, would it qualify as a reliable source? Thirdly, the Austrian Mint chooses subjects for its collectors' material that will sell coins. The coins are issued to make money for the Mint, and not for general circulation: we wouldn't put information on this article about other commercial material - say a Haydn necktie, a T-shirt, a cookie or a Haydn card in a pack of Composers Top Trumps, no matter how apparently authoritative the issuing body.

The encyclopedia succeeds if it demonstrates through its Haydn article, to those who might want to find out more about the coin's subject matter, why he is so notable that the Mint chose him as suitable subject matter for a coin. It is a cop-out, and puts the cart before the horse, to document that the coin demonstrates the bare fact that Haydn is notable.

By the way, I am even more certain that the use of the image of the coin on the Joseph Haydn article would not qualify as fair use. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Hayden is a famous person, whose life is commemorated in many ways. As is Neil Armstrong. That Hayden has been chosen as the subject for a commemorative coin is very much a part of the topic of Hayden. This is not a biography of Musicians- it is an encyclopedia. Is there another article which is related to Hayden, within which contains information about how his life is commemorated in today's world? If that is the case, mention of a commemorative coin should go there. Since no article exists that meet this criteria, the short mention that he is honored with a commemorative coin should be included in this article. See Neil Armstrong for precedent; Armstrong is commemorated on a stamp in that article.

RobertG: Firstly, the information about the coin's subject under scrutiny is Hayden, the very title of this article. How is it a stretch to argue that the short mention will add information about Hayden? Secondly, if the Austrian mint- the actual producer of the content in question- is not a reliable source, what would qualify in this matter? Thirdly, The coin in question is legal tender in Austria and can be spent with the value of 50 euro; refer to the precedent regarding Neil Armstrong about what worth it is to mention a commemorative coin/stamp honoring historical persons. All images of euro coins can qualify as fair-use and if not, there is a license which allows the coin to be used in Wikipedia- I helped to author it. I'm not sure how mentioning this coin is putting the cart before the horse.

Wikipedia often refers to this sort of thing in other articles, not just Neil Armstrong's. What is the roadblock about? Cheers. The € • ^T/_C 09:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

RobertG: your comments are partially valid, but nobody had offered to change the texts, instead my contributions are constantly reverted just because (and quoting) "neither the New Grove (the major English-language encyclopedia of music) nor any of the composer biographies I've read make any mention of commemorative coins" and " ... as editors we serve a public of readers, the great majority of whom do not have such an enthusiasm (for coins)". Well, this is not the New Grove, this is not an encyclopedia of biographies, and the fact that the coin existed, minted by one of the most prestigious mints in Europe, honoring this great composer in the very first issue of a high value trilogy, is very notable and relevant to the article. Please read WP:REL and WP:NOTE.

I am simply asking for a short mention to the coin in the "See also" section, I do not believe this does not fit the article. I am planning to do the same thing for Mozart and Beethoven, since they were the other two great composers selected to finish the trilogy. But I wanted to finish this discussion first, not to have the same trouble in the other articles as well.

Please check the article Vienna Philharmonic, see "Popularity", and you will see a reference to one of the most famous bullions coins, in honor to that great orchestra. What difference does it make here? Check also Ferdinand I, Holy Roman Emperor (father of the Austrian line of the Habsburg dynasty), Prince Eugene of Savoy (one of the most prominent generals serving the previous dynasty), Georg Rafael Donner (one of the most prolific Austrian sculptors of the 18th century), Gustav Klimt (an Austrian Symbolist painter and one of the most prominent members of the Vienna Art Nouveau movement), Robert Schuman, Paul-Henri Spaak and Konrad Adenauer (three pioneers of European unification) ... just to cite some samples. The fact that all of these great men have commemorative coins, of unique high value and very low mintage, means something.

Once again, I will add the reference to the coin later, will shorten the text to make it more compact, right under exactly the same "See Also" section. This time, if reverted, I will escalate to a neutral administrator, since Opus33 is showing nothing but lack of appreciation of what this coins means, for Haydn and for the people that want to learn about him. Miguel.mateo (talk) 10:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I have presented my reasoning. Sorry you didn't engage with it, Theeuro. I did not intend to build "a roadblock".

About fair use, which is the only aspect that seems to me vaguely important: the image is a picture of a copyrighted design. Perhaps I am wrong, and the image's use on the Haydn article could be viewed as being [from the text of the license] "for the purposes of commentary or criticism relating to the image of the currency". But if you are commenting on or criticising the coin's image, you aren't writing about Haydn. --RobertG ♬ talk 11:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that the text/link Joseph Haydn Gold Coin should be added under the 'see also' section 'Other topics' header as this is where the information fits in the article,

My opinion that it should not contain a paragraph of its own as opposed to the Neil Armstrong article is that the stamp depicts the event of landing on the moon which was an important part of Neil's life wer'as the coin only depicts Joseph Haydn in question.Kevin hipwell (talk) 11:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

In case people have not seen it, this is what I added to the article, exactly under the 'See Also', 'Other Topics' section: "Joseph Haydn has left such a legacy behind that he was recently selected to be the main motive for the famous 50 euro Joseph Haydn Gold Coin issued in March 20 2004. The reverse side of the coin shows his portrait together with his signature and the years of his life (1732- 1809)." ... as can be seen, it is a very short message.

Also, as shown in the description of the image, under the license section, there is no copyright infringement, since the coin is being described in the last sentence of the previous paragraph. Miguel.mateo (talk) 13:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Having had a chance to sleep on this, I now think it doesn't hurt the article to include the image. The article had a long stretch (discussion of style and history) that had no images and looked rather plain. It seems harmless to include the coin there, and so I did. I'm still opposed to including an actual paragraph discussing the coin, for the reason I gave earlier; readers who want to know about the coin can click on the link. Cheers, Opus33 (talk) 15:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Opus33 I think you integrated the information in a very presentable way Good Job!Kevin hipwell (talk) 19:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I also think this is a good compromise. The image adds to the article. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 19:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Opus33, I am very pleased with the final result. To have consistency (and to avoid similar conflicts) I promise to do exactly the same for Mozart and Beethoven very soon. Thanks again! Miguel.mateo (talk) 22:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Amazing what some sleep can do! Good job on the compromise- it really does look very nice. Cheers. The € • ^T/_C 02:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Speaking from a purely aesthetic point of view, I find this image ugly, rather garish and visually jarring: more Liberace than Haydn. Can we somehow tone it down? Eusebeus (talk) 19:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Eusebeus, I think you have good taste. But what do you mean by "toning it down"? Cheers, Opus33 (talk) 02:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Opus! I think removing it altogether would be best since it is so hideous, but since there seems to be a determined view to keeping it (above), perhaps we can greyscale it? Eusebeus (talk) 04:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Eusebeus, I notice you've also gotten involved elsewhere on WP in dealing with Miguel.Mateo's troublesome edits. Thank you for this. Re. greyscaling, it might make the coin less obtrusive, but on the other hand it isn't 100% scholarly, since the image does come straight from the Austrian mint, so in a sense the original color is a fact we're obliged to report. For the long term, I think the right approach to finding images for this section of the article would be to provide illustrative examples in music notation, which I think I can do, sooner or later. Yours truly, Opus33 (talk) 21:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I agree with that. Given the consensus at the admins noticeboard that these coin images are largely inappropriate for Wikipedia, I suggest we remove it from this and the other articles. Eusebeus (talk) 21:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Haydn's country of birth

Minor clarification here. In 1732, what is now Rohrau in Niederösterreich was part of a state called the Archduchy of Austria in the Holy Roman Empire. The country of Austria as we know it didn't come into existence until the 20th Century. Hence my edit to the "Childhood" subsection. --TrustTruth (talk) 03:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Biographical infobox

A new (albeit minimal) biographical infobox now appears on this article. I disagree with having it here - and especially without a notification here on the talk page first. This may look innocuous but it will cause a lot of problems and disrupt editing. --Kleinzach (talk) 00:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Kleinzach, I did just put a message on your talk page about this, but I didn't notice this posting.

Could you go into more detail about what problems might be caused by such minimal infoboxes? Thanks, Opus33 (talk) 01:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I've given my opinion. If you want more information on why this approach was rejected by the Composers Project, please see the archives. It's all there - in considerable detail. A large number of editors participated. (I note your box is now being changed and is getting larger.) --Kleinzach (talk) 02:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Piano Sonatas

Might someone like to start a page for a list of his piano sonatas? I'm having a hard time even finding such a list elsewhere online. --MM (talk) 16:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Misattributions

Haydn has probably suffered more than most composers in terms of works attributed to him that he did not write. Two immediate examples (I'm sure there are others):

• the famous little Serenade (now known to be by Hofstetter ?sp.). This still gets trotted out as "Serenade in D, attrib. Haydn". They know exactly who wrote it now, so why they still connect it to Haydn at all, let alone ignoring the name of the real author, mystifies me.
• the "St Anthony Chorale" used by Brahms in his Variations on a Theme by Joseph Haydn. This came from the 2nd movement of a "Divertimento in B flat", which we now know was not by Haydn. Does anyone know who did write it? Grove V says it "may be by Pleyel", but that info is probably seriously out of date.

Maybe we should make some statements about these and other misatttributions. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Explaining reverts

Hello, "wealthiest in the Austrian Empire" is stronger than "in Hungary" and therefore is more informative. Hungary was, for better or worse, part of the Austrian Empire at the time.

Scholarly works on Haydn written in English generally use the German words for Eisenstadt and Esterhaza. At Wikipedia, it's not our job to go around changing standard terminology -- we're supposed to go with what accepted scholarship says. Opus33 (talk) 16:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

This I doubt. If you read the article what you referred that existed not this time Haydn lived. Actually Austria was created only in 1920. That was a Hapsburg empire, who were Hungarian kings, Austrian Erzherzogs (Austria = today Niederösterreich) Herzogs / Dukes of Carintia, Grafs of Tirol, etc. Kismarton became Eisenstadt only in 1920. I doubt Haydn lived that long. You just create a false Austrian glory. That is a style of some Romanian/Slovakian writers, who try to built heroic past for their less famous one. But you can be caught easily red handed, would not recommend for serios writer. You should discuss and accept if any new fact comes up. Whether you like it or not based on facts. I do not think you will be less or more. But if you lie/falsify you become much less... Haydn will not declared Hungarian if he lived large part of his life in Hungary. But funny for the guy who wrote the German athemn..--Vargatamas (talk) 20:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• I highly doubt that you will find Opus 33 intervening on the finer nuances of Habsburg history or the tricky issue of the Niederöstereichischidentitätsfrage. However, you may find that Opus is upholding the general standard found in scholarly and authoritative sources such as Groves; the reverts are hence appropriate. Eusebeus (talk) 04:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• ok, but to highlight the issue his statement is like you would tell a Montreal French guy that "I do not understand your problem Montreal was always English, what you want with your Frenchness?? all culture is here from Viktoria.. "etc very roughly. And Montreal is English since 178x. This part was Hungarian from 900-1920 and Austrian from 1920. Hungarian official language in Burgenland etc. Maybe Groves was not aware and concentrated on more on the real topic, Haydn himself...--Vargatamas (talk) 08:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Aiming high?

"The change in Haydn's approach was important in the history of music, as other composers soon were following his lead. Notably, Beethoven adopted the practice of taking his time and aiming high.[46]"

I query this sententious statement: Beethoven was quite exceptional in doing this, and only did it when (like Haydn) he could be sure of patronage which would mean he would not starve. The citation deals only with Beethoven. 'Other composers' were not in so happy a position, unless (like Meyerbeer and Mendelssohn) they had access to family fortunes. I think this contentious statement should be deleted unless other composers (apart from these) can be clearly identified who refused to write or publish until they believed they had found perfection. Virtually all composers continued servile to their publics throughout the 19th century, with the notable exception of Richard Wagner.--Smerus (talk) 20:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I would have to disagree. Berlioz wrote pieces with preposterously large forces, which were difficult to find the resources to perform. Brahms destroyed much of what he wrote, judging it imperfect and unworthy. Schumann revised the works of his youth, to little profit but in (probably vain) hopes of perfection. Mahler wrote huge symphonies, also difficult to staff, and forecast great festivals of the future that would honor his music. The idea of the composer as impractical idealist pervades the nineteenth century and continues to be part of our cultural baggage to this day.

To my knowledge, Haydn is the first composer who is quoted on record as having written for posterity (i.e., his comment that he meant "The Creation" to last). This is an important theme in the history of classical music and I think it would be a mistake to delete it. Opus33 (talk) 07:23, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Vandals

Papa Haydn would no doubt be amused at the thought that his Encyclopedia entry is being vandalised with things like Epic Lulz. however, I wonder if we might not consider semi-protection considering the rising activity of vandals we've seen this month? Thoughts? Eusebeus (talk) 16:37, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I would be quite happy if this were done. The other side of the coin is that the article is fairly stable and is not attracting very many legitimate edits. So the *proportion* of vandalism edits is very large. Opus33 (talk) 17:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

200th anniversary of his death

Image of €5 2009 Commemorative Coin

FYI, in the year 2009, commemorating the 200th anniversary of his death, the Austrian goverment will mint 450,000 coins for circulation with a face value of €5, with his effigy on it. It is expected, due to the amount of coins to be minted, that they will circulate within Austria (these coins are only legal tender within Austria). An image attached. I thought it is cool information to add to the article, but given the previous frictions with my edits in this article I will not do it; it is up to you to decide to add it or not.

Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 07:10, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Miguel, to repeat, please do not put coin images on articles where they do not serve to illustrate some crucial aspect of the subject matter. Articles where coin images are inappropriate include this article, and all other classical composer articles. This request reflects not just my own opinion, but (as you are aware) that of other editors working in the classical music area. Sincerely, Opus33 (talk) 16:47, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Just to confirm, consensus at the classical project is against using these coins for illustrative purposes in these articles. Eusebeus (talk) 17:11, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Guys, as clearly written, this was just for your info, and this a talk page; I have not put this information in the article and I am not even planning to place it. I am just letting you know that this will happen and that the coin is expected to circulate. So some of you might want to find it in Austria and get it, nothing else. Miguel.mateo (talk) 03:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Fair use images are not allowed on talk pages; this is why the bot keeps removing it. WP:NFCC, point 9. Magic♪piano 15:44, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Magicpiano, I was just looking why, and could not find anything specific. I have written to the programmer of the bot using this talk page as a sample, but I think you just answered my question.

Opus33, stop taking this personaly, I have clearly said that I have no intention of adding it to the article. So you stop the harrasing! I was just wondering why the bot continues to remove the image, nothing else.

Best regards, Miguel.mateo (talk) 23:00, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

My bad, I thought you had put the coin back into the article. B.t.w. I don't take any of this personally. Opus33 (talk) 20:05, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Composer project review

I've reviewed this article as part of the Composers project review of its B-class articles. This article is a fine B-class article, needing some arguable minor things for an A rating, and improved inline citations for GA consideration. Read about my nit-picking on the comments page; questions and comments should be left here or on my talk page. Magic♪piano 20:36, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Haydn's Croatian Roots

There is quite a bit of writing regarding Haydn's Croat ancestry and the influence this had on his music. It is something that should be explored though it is understandable why there might be resistance. Just the mention that the Haydn penned German National anthem bears striking similarity to the Croatian folk song "Stal se jesem" can easily cause antagonism amongst some.

• Joseph Haydn (1738-1803) was born in a Croatian ethnic enclave in Burgenland (Gradisce) in Austria. Parents of Franz Joseph Haydn are Mathias Haiden and Anna Maria Haidin, as can be seen on their grave in the Rohrau cemetery even today.Haydn is a common Croatian family name. In the Croatian telephone book you can see the names of Hajdin, Hajdina, Hajdinjak, Hajdinac, Hajdinovic: 63 families in the Zagreb county, 91 families in Medimurje and Varazdin counties, 65 families in Primorsko-Goranska county; and altogether 320 families in the whole Croatia (1999). There is a village of Hajdine near Vrbovsko in Croatia, on the main road to Rijeka, and the village of Hajdin near Vojnic. The name Hajdin (= hajda's) is derived from hajda = buckwheat.

• Until 1954, the well known Grove's Dictionary of Music and Musicians, London, accepted the opinion of Haiden (Haydn) as the Croat (and since that year accepted the opinion of Schmid about his alledged German roots)
• Dutch historian of art Henrik van Loon (in 1937) and Canadian historian Murray Gibbon (in 1938) pointed out to the political motivations in these questions, and that it should not be alowed to "Teutons" to deny Croatian roots of Haiden
• Larousse Musique in 1957 considers the Slavic - Croatian roots of Haydn possible.
• Sir Kenneth Clark, in his TV presentation The Civilisation (famous for his book having the same title), shown by Swiss - Italian TV in 1970s, claims Haiden to be the Croat
• Anthony Hodgson in his book The Music of Joseph Haydn (London, 1976) considers Hayden to be the Croat born in Trstenik (Rohrau), and stresses notable presence of Croatian folk melodies in Heidens's famous symphonies
• A Croatian Composer;Notes towards the study of Joseph Haydn by Sir William H. Hadow (First edition in 1897, London,Seely and co. limited, reprinted in 1972, New York Books for Libraries Press, Freeport, New York)
• Hayden included in his music about 30 Croatian folk melodies!
• Haydn's melody Gott erhalte (German National Anthem) is evidenced from Croatian Littoral and environs of Zagreb to Medjimurje on the North, and to Gradisce (Burgenland) in Austria

From MusicaClassica:

A distinguishing trait of Haydn's works was his frequent use of Croatian folk music for his melodic material. Wrote W. H. Hadow: "The Croatian melodies are bright, sensitive, piquant, but they seldom rise to any high level of dignity or earnestness. They belong to a temper which is marked rather by feeling and imagination than by any sustained breadth of thought, and hence, while they enrich their own field of art with great beauty, there are certain frontiers which they rarely cross, and from which, if crossed, they soon return." Even many of Haydn's original melodies are characterized by typical rhythmic and melodic qualities to be found in the Croatian folk songs. However, as Franze Bellinger has added, "Haydn's speech, like that of every genius, was not only that of his race, but of the world." To these Croatian characteristics, Haydn added his high inspiration and sensitivity, and produced a type of melody which, for the most part, is unmistakably his

-- User:Kadoma

Hello, this material is already covered in WP. Please consult Joseph Haydn's ethnicity, Haydn and folk music, and Gott erhalte Franz den Kaiser, all of them linked from the main article.

I hope you will not consider editing these articles to enhance the now-discredited "Haydn-as-Croatian" hypothesis. The references you cite generally are either not by Haydn experts or are out of date, not reflecting current scholarship. WP has a pretty firm policy against advocating fringe theories; see WP:FRINGE.

Opus33 (talk) 21:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Potential for a general "Haydn" template

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)

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

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!

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

Re this edit by Antandrus:

• The last time there was any discussion of the issue, it was not absolutely certain he was born on 31 March, the only certain fact being that he was baptised on 1 April.
• What's the current scholarly position on his birth/baptism dates? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 22:52, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

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)

Haydn's publication name

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

• http://books.google.com/books?id=tx-GuG3ZwEEC&pg=PA67&dq=giuseppe+haydn&lr=&as_brr=3&cd=66#v=onepage&q=giuseppe%20haydn&f=false, p. 97
• http://books.google.com/books?id=39ghAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA265&dq=giuseppe+haydn&lr=&as_brr=3&cd=80#v=onepage&q=giuseppe%20haydn&f=false, p. 265
• http://books.google.com/books?id=WIEYjK2mU-oC&pg=PA149&dq=giuseppe+haydn&lr=&as_brr=3&cd=82#v=onepage&q=giuseppe%20haydn&f=false, p. 149
• http://books.google.com/books?id=d0kjq-hxllwC&pg=PA81&dq=giuseppe+haydn&lr=&as_brr=3&cd=98#v=onepage&q=giuseppe%20haydn&f=false, p. 81

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:

• Symphony 91 (http://books.google.com/books?id=UX9eok-q2o8C&pg=PA287&lpg=PA287&dq=%22di+me+giuseppe+Haydn%22&source=bl&ots=V3mLvh0wpX&sig=TGEzCuKnuEHGb2XaznhmER1vCVg&hl=en&ei=1Y_-S7njDIbYM8z05Ds&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22di%20me%20giuseppe%20Haydn%22&f=false), p. 287.
• Piano sonata 52, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piano_Sonata_No._52_in_E-flat_major_(Haydn)
• F minor variations for piano, Hob. XVII:6: http://www.nonesuch.com/albums/joseph-haydn-piano-music-volume-ii
• Symphony 103, "Drumroll", http://www.jstor.org/stable/726746
• Cello concerto (1783) http://openpdf.com/ebook/violoncello-haydn-pdf.html
• String quartets, Opus 33: http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/961851.pdf
• Mariazell Mass: http://oe1.orf.at/artikel/213539
• The Seven Last Words: http://www.events.at/die_sieben_letzten_worte_unseres_erloesers_am_2/?st=9350892

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

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"

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

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

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

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)

Evolution!!

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? --RobertG ♬ talk 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)

Papa Haydn

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)

List of Oratorios

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)

Op.64/6

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)

Haydn and contemporary Jewish contexts

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 (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.

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.

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)

Merge Joseph Haydn's ethnicity into this article?

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)

Long sequence of edits from Cancina5645

This article is not long enough. Cancina5645 (talk) 17:51, 22 September 2014 (UTC) I want all my text back. He did resign in 1804. Its on the naxos website. The information about the Paris Symphonies is true. Cancina5645 (talk) 21:08, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we cannot accept original research. I see that you have had problems with the OR guideline in the past, and I urge you to reread what others have told you about combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Feel free to add back any material for which you are able to cite a specific, reliable source. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 23:14, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

In my edit summary I mentioned the lack of reference sources in User:Cancina's edits but there seem to be other problems too.

• "Every choral work of the period (1796-1802) has purity of sound and are more sublime and dynamic than what the public had seen before." -- this is just flat out opinion, without a supporting citation.

• "Shopfungmesse". This is a very inaccurate spelling (indeed, humorously, though probably not intentionally).

• "He retired at the age of 72, with his arms and limbs failing him." No biography I've ever read mentions arm trouble; though they repeatedly mention painful swelling of his legs.

• "By 1790 Haydn was in the paradoxical, if not renewing position of being Europe's leading composer, " 'Renewing' is nonsensical as far as I can tell.

• "This is because he composed more full-length symphonies and more string quartets than any other composer of his time." I've read quite a few reference sources and none of them say this. Rather, it was the quality and influentialness of these works, not their quantity, that is repeatedly mentioned.

• "He was done learning from Porpora by 1757, and from him he had learned Neopolitan composition" Neopolitan composition is a red link (no Wikipedia article), I suspect for good reason, because I doubt that it exists as a technical term of music history. Same for Neapolitan composition, which is the correct spelling.

I don't want to edit-war, but I also don't want this article to decline in quality as a result of what seems to be a whole river of added mistakes. Maybe other editors could weigh in? Opus33 (talk) 23:40, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the complete removal. Cancina, please review some of the basic Wikipedia policies and guidelines as given above in links. You must write in a manner free from personal opinion, expressing only in your own words what others have already published in reliable sources. In a mature, stable article such as this one, this is a difficult job, because it's attained a state of equilibrium -- different stylistic periods, different parts of his life, are all appropriately balanced and written at a professional level. I suggest you focus on one particular area that you feel is deficient, and suggest an improvement here on the talk page, giving a reference source. Antandrus (talk) 00:01, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Moving an item to talk page

I'm moving one other contribution of User:Cancina to this talk page:

One of his last compositions was the Harmoniemesse, performed and written in September 1802. He submitted a resignation to the Esterhazy family in 1804.

It completely interrupts the discussion of the elderly Haydn's disease, rendering it hard to follow. Also, I just don't think it's true that Haydn ever submitted his resignation. The source given is not peer-reviewed scholarship, and checking up, I'm getting different "resignation" dates from different web sources. Indeed, if I am remembering my reading correctly, Haydn never resigned at all. Just like his predecessor Werner, he got to keep the title of Kapellmeister until he died, and the people who were actually running the Esterhazy musical establishment after his departure (e.g. Hummel) were employed under other titles. I could see mentioning that the Harmoniemesse was Haydn's last major composition, but not in this interruptive location. Opus33 (talk) 22:21, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Yup, never resigned (Jones 2009). More on the unwinding of his career in new para. Opus33 (talk) 21:15, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

References

Name in the opening paragraph

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)

As of now, the opening is awkward: If you read the text in parentheses, it currently reads "F.J.H., J.H., J.H., known as J.H.", which is repetitive and somewhat silly. If you skip them, it reads "J.H., known as J.H.", which doesn't make any sense. I am therefore deleting the "known as J.H." part. Maybe we want the article Haydn's name a bit more visible; to be honest I didn't notice the first footnote until I edited the article, and I'm a bit concerned it may become less visible after the removal. — Sebastian 05:35, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

The Last Post

When I was searching for the composer of 'The Last Post' bugle call, a contributor to 'Yahoo Answers' claimed that the current standard score is 'generally' attributed to Haydn. If that's correct, it would be his most famous and least-heralded work. Can anyone elucidate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.167.92.111 (talk) 18:05, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

It sounds a bit unlikely. On a quick look around I don't see anything that looks like a reliable source for this, just a lot of pages saying "some people believe ...", "it is widely thought ..." etc. But none of the pages I've seen look anything like a WP:RS and none of them give a reference for even this vague assertion. I'd be very very interested to see a reliable source for this but without that I think it's just a legend. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 08:08, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Image

Looking for an image of younger Haydn, I came across this one, unfortunately without date and artist. Any help? Use it anyway? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:34, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

You might want to consider the caption of that image as shown in Papa Haydn, added there in September 2006 by User:Opus33. A larger version can be seen at here and here. This page suggests its a 1870 painting by de:Karl Jäger (Maler). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:07, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Gerda, for suggesting, and Michael, for the reference.

Unfortunately Haydn was wasn't wealthy enough to have his portrait painted until he was close to 40. As far as I know, any picture purporting to show him any younger is likely to be a posthumous artistic fantasy. There's a nice article by Robbins Landon in Oxford Composer Companions: Haydn on Haydn "iconography", which is where I'm getting this from. Opus33 (talk) 17:04, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, helped. (Famous Mozart image - on the Mozartkugeln - was also done well after his death.) Alternative: image of a keyboard instrument for which he would have composed a sonata in 1771. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:39, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Cleveland Steamer

Why does "The Cleveland Steamer" redirect here? megamalx (talk) 18:28, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

From the edit history it would seem to be the consequence of some old page move vandalism. I'll try to rectify it. Favonian (talk) 18:36, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Shame, I was thinking it was maybe Haydn's CB handle or something. DBaK (talk) 18:38, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

You read it here first. Opus33 (talk) 15:50, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Which year?

This latest reversion thrilled my curiosity. Who is right? 1992 or 1991? In Commons it is shown as 1991 (commons:File:Joseph Haydn.jpg). Carlotm (talk) 20:10, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I've checked in Jones's biography, which tends to be really careful, and it gives 1791. (I assume your "19"s are typos...) Opus33 (talk) 21:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Oops. Carlotm (talk) 21:34, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

No problem. A bit more: some sources give 1792, but the Royal College of Music, which owns the painting, gives 1791 on their website. Opus33 (talk) 21:47, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

So 1791 seems to be the best choice, also because it is endorsed by Alan Davison's Thomas Hardy's portrait of Haydn (1791), where it can be read that the oil on canvas was exibited only in 1792, and that in this same year Thomas Hardy realized an engraving after Haydn's portrait. Changes eventually made in Haydn's page should be reiterated in Thomas Hardy page also. Carlotm (talk) 03:43, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Lead image

Old image, currently in the article

New image, currently removed from the article

I was surprised to see that the new image I've added was replaced with the old one. Let's talk about this. The old image, currently used in the article, can be seen in full here. It is very obvious to anyone who ever tried their hand at oil painting that the image is abhorrent. Luckily, we now have a new image available at Commons, and for those who have no experience with the medium, it would be enough to compare the two. The new version is available here. I strongly recommend looking at both pictures in full resolution, not just the thumbnails I've given here.

One thing to observe is that in real life, and in most paintings, objects have different colors, and painters, especially of the earlier eras, tend to attempt to render a green book using green, and a red curtain using red. If you look at the new image, you can see that the curtain is red, Haydn's hand is the color of human skin with some pink hues, and the tome he's holding is a mixture of green (cover), gold (cover), yellow (page edges), and grey (pages themselves, visible in the upper portion). Haydn's suit is very dark, black almost, becoming lighter grey where there is much light – just like black suits do in real life, light is reflected and dispersed on the surface.

In the old image, it is plain to see that none of these color differences are present. The pages of the book are all dull yellow. The cover of the book is still green, but a different shade, and that shade is the same as Haydn's suit in this picture. The entire suit appears to be dark green, with a white spot at the top, as if chalk was put there. In real life, a green suit exposed to soft light as here, would of course appear to have a brighter shade of green, perhaps mixed with yellow (artificial light, sun) or blue (natural light). The hand is mostly seen in shades of yellow, and the fingers are delineated with just dark borders, whereas in the new picture you can see how those pinkish brushstrokes also play a part in showing invidivual fingers. Observe also how in the new picture you can see that the chair has two shades of brown - one all-brown, at the right, and one with a reddish tint, at the left, reflecting light from the red curtain. In the old picture these nuances are gone, everything is a shade of brown. I could go on.

Some of you may do a little experiment: open the image in your image viewing software of choice, find the color balance setting in the menu, and try to shift the yellow-blue balance a bit to the blue side. You will immediately see that those original color differences become more apparent, because the entire image is doused with yellow. (Unfortunately, you can't just de-yellow it, because there are other problems as well.) No painter in their right mind would mix yellow into every color they use. Even if in this case the painter did such an insane thing, the new image would only exist is somebody took a lot of time to add nonexistent colors to the painting. So this kind of thing is only possible in two situations: (a) the image itself is bad, taken with a bad camera, bad light, etc., or (b) the varnish layer got yellow with age, as they always do, and the painting hasn't been restored.

The new image is not ideal, as the surface of the painting reflects some light, and the resolution isn't great. But at least it captures the colors of the original. Opus33 reverted with "the image makes Haydn look pale and sickly". I can't agree - look at all the pale pink and pale red hues! - but even if it does, surely a 59-year old person from the 18th century isn't expected to be particularly healthy? And why does it matter if the portrait "makes Haydn look [something something]" in someone's opinion, if the old image is demonstrably inferior, lacking in so much color information? --Jashiin (talk) 17:47, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

What would you think of zooming the image you like into greater detail? Opus33 (talk) 21:35, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I have no objection to that. --Jashiin (talk) 22:57, 21 March 2016 (UTC)