Talk:Joseph Haydn/Archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Approximately 2003-April 2008


Contents

[edit] Sorting out what article is Haydn

We've got this article and one at Franz Joseph Haydn about the same person. Obviously we don't need both, and I think the article should be here rather than at Franz Joseph - both are common, but I think without the Franz is commoner generally. Google isn't much use here, because a lot of pages headed "Joseph Haydn" do have his full name in the text. In any case, I think I'm right in saying that Haydn referred to himself as Joseph (not Franz) and that's what he was known as in his lifetime. And Haydn redirects here rather than to Franz Joseph.

What I propose to do is move the old 1911 text at Franz Joseph Haydn to the bottom of this article (adding a disclaimer) and then make a redirect from there to here - is this the right procedure? I'm aware that the history of the 1911 text will get left behind, so I want to be sure. --Camembert

Well, I've moved it now anyway - anyone who disagrees can change it back. --Camembert

[edit] Haydn looked just like F. Murray Abraham (not)

I've removed:

Strangely, Haydn looked just like F. Murray Abraham as the jealous, less talented Antonio Salieri in the film Amadeus, while Salieri in reality didn't look like that at all.

It doesn't really have anything to do with Haydn. --Camembert

[edit] The swingeing cut

168.8.72.9 doesn't give reasons for the big cut. But trying to put myself in his/her shoes, I can guess that the part of the objection was that a fair amount of my earlier material was subjective; Wikipedia should largely confine itself to giving "just the facts". So, I've cut the most subjective bits, and left in material that reflects current scholarship, notably Rosen's, on Haydn.

Opus33 Sept. 19, 2003

For the record: 168.8.72.9 also made a swingeing cut at piano trio when they replaced the entire article with "Hi there!". So I'm not sure that their cut here was done on the basis of long and hard thought ;-) --Camembert

[edit] How to spell "Kapellmeister"?

Re. whether we should capitalize Kapellmeister: One could go either way here. The Oxford English Dictionary and Collins have lower case, American Heritage has upper. Random House doesn't even have the word. My own feeling is that Kapellmeister is not an English word, but rather a German word that is occasionally employed by English speakers, so it deserves to be spelled in the German way.

There are other options; Angela a while ago was using "chapelmaster". "Kapellmeister" seems appropriate for describing an occupation of long ago that no longer exists [imagine having an employee whose job is to compose and perform symphonies for you! not even Bill Gates...]. The exoticness of the word matches the exoticness of the job.

I'm just trying to articulate my reasons here and I will not be bent out of shape if someone reverts to lower case.

Opus33 18:20, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Pronunciation

Does anyone know how to pronounce "Haydn"? Is it "Hi" or "Hey"?

Gil 22:59, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

"Hi". It's an old-fashioned type of German spelling; don't be confused by the resemblance to English "hay". I will check into how this might be included in the article if someone else doesn't do it first. Opus33 23:18, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
The IPA for his name, to my knowledge, would be [frants ˈjozɛf ˈhaɪdn] in German, and something to the effect of [franz ˈdʒoʊsɛf ˈhaɪdn] in English. MrCrabby MB 04:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What did Haydn pioneer?

<In May 2003, Camembert wrote:>

I'm a bit doubtful about this:

Besides the symphony and string quartet, Haydn also pioneered the development of sonata form, and was innovative in his writing of keyboard sonatas, which are perhaps the first piano sonatas, though some may have been written for harpsichord or fortepiano.
  • I am almost certain that he was not the first composer to write piano sonatas - when I was making some notes for the piano article (still not written up), I found out that the earliest works expressly for the piano had been published by some unknown composer (an Italian, I think) in something like the 1730s. I think these pieces were sonatas - they certainly pre-date anything Haydn wrote for the instrument.
  • I think Haydn did indeed write pieces specifically for the harpsichord, but saying he wrote things for the fortepiano is a bit misleading: the fortepiano, as far as I know, isn't a distinct instrument, it's just a name that gets given to early pianos.
  • I'm also a bit doubtful about the sonata form business. In what way did he "pioneer the development of sonata form", exactly?

As I say, the classical era isn't really my area, so I'm not going to edit any of this without a spot of research to back it up. If anybody can clarify any of it, that'd be great. --Camembert

<A year later, Tdent replied:>

(... my discussion of these points is now irrelevant, has been incorporated in the edit...)

Sonata form was around from the beginning of the Classical era in the 1750's onwards. So Haydn can't really be called a pioneer of sonata form. However, he did interesting things with it which no-one else had done before and which led to a considerable evolution of the form (and so, to be brief, made the Classical style possible as an artistic movement). The quotation is misleading because any sort of music (symphony, quartet, etc.) could use sonata form.

How about this:

(... now edited into the main page... )

Tdent 19:21, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

<Opus33 replied positively; see next section>

[edit] Too much sonata form?

(... I asked if the bit about sonata-form was too long - I shortened it... ) Tdent

I favor both of Tdent's proposed changes and encourage Tdent to implement them. The one thing I that seems worth retaining about Haydn and sonata form, I think, is that he was the leading practitioner of the monothematic exposition. Opus33 19:21, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
I agree with Opus33. Looking forward to your edits, Tdent :) --Camembert

[edit] A Paternity Suit?

OK, having said that, I'm going to question something - is Haydn really known as the "father" of the Classical style? He's certainly often called the father of the symphony and the string quartet (whatever the accuracy of the label, it's often applied), but I've not seen it claimed that he is father of the whole style. It seems a claim too far to me - the Classical style emerged gradually, and can't be credited to any one composer. (Sorry, should've mentioned this before, I know.) --Camembert

I don't think it's very important, since this is an apocryphal saying - no specific person is attributed with calling Haydn the "father" of the symphony - without a clearly-defined meaning. Along with "Papa Haydn", it's just what generations of music historians have become accustomed to saying (Mozart being buried in a pauper's grave, etc). Since CPE Bach was writing rather good early classical symphonies around the time Haydn started on his No.1, H didn't even "father" the classical symphony in the sense of originating it as an artistic form. I'm no musicological expert, but here's my verdict for paternity of the mature classical style (as manifest in, say, 1780):
  • String quartet: Haydn 100%. No-one wrote quartets of musical interest before H got going.
  • Symphony: Haydn 50%. CPE Bach, JC Bach, Leopold Mozart etc. were also major influences on the development of the symphony.
  • Piano sonata: Haydn 50%. CPE Bach played a big role in forming Haydn's early style, there may have been other influential composers (now obscure and never played).
  • Piano trio: Haydn >75%. (Debatable, because the piano trio was just a fancied-up piano sonata. I know of no-one else writing actual piano trios in the period 1755-75.) (Of course Mozart's teenage works fall into this category, but I think they don't count as important in the development of the style.)
  • Classical mass form, divertimento, the rest: Haydn 50%, as a conservative estimate. Difficult to judge because no-one else's works in these forms from the relevant time period ever get played.

If you can find a way to encapsulate this in a couple of sentences of deathless prose, you're welcome. I tried to fix it (see latest edit.) Tdent 18:13, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

Your rewording looks good to me. I know, of course, that no specific person is attributed with calling Haydn the father of the symphony or string quartet, but I know a lot of people do call him those things, so I've no gripe with it. It was just that I don't recall anybody calling him the father of the Classical style. But anyway, it's OK for me now (I could probably gripe about some little tiny bits if I was feeling troublesome, but I'll make trouble somewhere else, I think ;). Thanks for your work on this. --Camembert

[edit] Runciman

I've deleted this external link:

  • Full text of the biography Haydn by John F. Runciman, 1908, from Project Gutenberg

I read the whole thing (in hard copy), and (if what I've read in other, more recent books is correct) it's just filled with errors, and it's not clear we're doing our readers a favor by listing it. If there's something who thinks it's worth posting because of some other merits that I don't see, I guess I wouldn't be bent out of shape if you restore it. Opus33 00:48, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] When did Haydn get his first regular job?

that is, with Count Morzin. I have:

  • 1759 according to Mary Hughes
  • 1759 according to Karl Geiringer
  • 1757 according to the New Grove

but nobody I've seen says 1755. Is there a source for this? Opus33 21:42, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Papa?

Wouldn't it make sense to at least mention the common nickname 'Papa' Haydn?

Yes, I think that it would, but it might also be somewhat irrelevant(not to be impolite).
See merge suggestion. I support a merge. Stephen B Streater 09:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My copy editing

As with some other articles concerning major composers recently, I have just done a light and restrained editing of this entire article. I fixed punctuation, worked for stylistic uniformity and clarity, and improved (as I hope!) several links. I have tried to avoid changing anything of substance in the content (which, by the way, I think is excellent). If you think I have inadvertently interfered with content, I hope you will fix it; but please be mindful to retain punctuational and related fixes that I have done – unless you really think I have not got them right. Thanks! --Noetica 12:01, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hi Noetica,
I'm happy with most of the edits. A couple raise the problem of continuity--if you put in picky details at conspicuous points it makes the article seem "jumpy" and hard to read; better, I think, to let the linked articles handle such things as the spelling of "Eszterhazy".
I'm puzzled by Stirling Newberry's removal of the joke discussion--it's a salient characteristic of the music, noticed (and condemned) in Haydn's day--and I propose to put it back in.

Opus33 15:09, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I didn't remove it - but moved it to the section with a short mention of Haydn's practice of making the transitions between sections of a movement a source of wit and tensions. Stirling Newberry 16:15, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Oops--sorry. Opus33 21:13, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Commentary on recent changes

Hi Opus33. I agree about the discontinuity brought about by details such as the "Eszterházy" note in the intro. I was concerned about it, but also about wavering around the spelling in the article, which I wanted to pre-empt. I'd be happy to have the note removed entirely. I certainly think that, if it is retained, it ought to be in brackets. This sort of note is exactly what brackets are for!

I have several concerns about Stirling's alterations. While detail is added, a good deal of it is excessive in the context of a general article on Haydn; much of it would be more fitting as an addition on Haydn's contribution to sonata form, in that article. Some changes are made that I would have made too if I had wanted to be bold; but some awkward grammar is added too, along with a few frank errors. Not wanting any trouble, I hesitate to alter these in the text itself. I note them here for anyone to deal with as they judge appropriate:

...Luigia Polzelli, a singer in the Eszterházy establishment with whom he carried on a long-term love affair, and often wrote to on his travels.

Only slightly ungrammatical. Should be: and to whom he often wrote on his travels

Mozart, in contrast, from 1782 to 1785 to produce a set of six string quartets that would live up to the standard of Haydn's recently completed Opus 33 set, ...

The sentence begins ungrammatically, without a finite main verb.

...Gluck and Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach, of the later Haydn wrote "without him, we know nothing".

Here we see a tendency I have noted elsewhere. This comma doesn't work. We need at least a semicolon, or an "and". A new sentence is probably best (with a correction to "latter" also): ...Bach. Of the latter....

...and carefully constructed his around countrapunctal devices, so that it could be overlayed with itself in a variety of ways, and the fragments could be worked with individually, and still retain some degree of unique character.

Apart from being generally fussy writing, this has "contrapunctal" in need of correction to "contrapuntal", and "overlayed" to the more universally accepted "overlaid".

Haydn's work became central to what was later described as the sonata form, and his work was central to taking the binary schematic of what was then called a "melodie".

Awkward, and over-specific with "melodie" (which ought to capped anyway, as a German word).

It was a form divided into sections, joined by important moments in the harmony which signalled the change. One of Haydn's important innovations, one which was adopted by Mozart and Beethoven, was to make the moment of transition the focus of tremendous creativity, instead of using stock devices to make the transition, Haydn would often find inventive ways to make the move between two expected keys.

Stylistically poor repetitions of "important" and "moment", which are rather flat words anyway. And the comma after "creativity" is again inadequate. There needs to be a semicolon or a full stop there.

+ +Later musical theorists would codify the formal organization in the following way: + +*Introduction: If present in an extended form, a slower section in the dominant, often with material not directly related to the main themes, which would then rapidly transition to the...

Too detailed in the context, and quite unclear. "If present in an extended form" is ambiguous: if present as part of an extended form, or if taking on an extended form itself? Context will not be sufficient, for many readers. "...a slower section in the dominant..." is obscure. What is or what has the slower section? Is it really in the dominant, if it is at the start of the movement? This could be what's meant, of course: but such a device would not be so common as to warrant so salient a mention here.

[Development:] If not present, the work is termed a "sonatina".

"If not present" would, in grammatical propriety, qualify "the work". This can't be right, so I assume what's intended is: "If no development is present,..." But then I think this is at best misleading. Termed by whom, anyway? One might think it is only the character, length, and form of the whole piece, with all its movements, that would decide whether the piece is a sonata or something else instead.

European concert music at this time was structed by tonality,...

Should be "art music". "Concert music" is too restrictive. And is "structed" meant to be "structured"? If "structed" is indeed intended, it is not helpful. The more standard word should be used, to help the reader.

... and the sections of a work of the Classical era were marked by cadences. The most important transitions were between the exposition and the development, and between the development and the recapitulation.

Not helpful to the neophyte. No link for "cadences", nor further discussion of them, so that what comes after seems like a non sequitur.

...or by having the occur so subtly...

Typo: "them occur".

... that it takes some time before it is established that the transition has, in fact happened.

The single comma is not good by itself. Either "has, in fact, happened" or "has in fact happened".

Perhaps paradoxically one of the ways in which Haydn did this was by reducing the number of different devices for harmonic transitions between, so that he could explore and develop the possibilities he found in the ones he regarded as most interesting.

Wordy, and ungrammatical with "between".

...in his "Surprise symphony|Surprise" symphony, No. 94, but others are perhaps funnier: ...

Needs a pair of closing square brackets, in the link.

[On Beethoven:] ...he revived and intensified Haydn's practice, joining the musical structure to tight small motifs, often by gradually reshaping both the work and the motifs so that they fit quite carefully.

Inaccurate, in the matter of joining. What exactly is joined to what? "...so that they fit quite carefully" is odd too. What fits what, "quite carefully"? The work to the motifs? The motifs to each other?

--Noetica 22:31, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Haydn's Birthdate

According to Haydn's birth register he was born on 1 April, not 31 March. A quote from Haydn: "I was born on 1 April, and that is the date found in my father's Hausbuch - but my brother Michael maintains I was born on the 31st of March because he doesn't want it said that I came into the world as an April fool." Is there any evidence suggesting that he wasn't born on 1 April? I would like to know before I change it. --Berserk798 01:41, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi Berserk,
This seems to be a vexed scholarly question.
The New Grove gives March 31 (without saying why). Their article is pretty recent and is written by two top Haydn experts, so I would tend to trust it.
Also, when Haydn made the remark you quote (to his biographer Dies), he was very old and possibly a bit senile. He is also known to have been fond of facetious humor.
A Google search gives both dates in about equal proportions.
My preference would be to give both dates in the main article, and perhaps produce at some point a satellite article to give the evidence for both possibilities. I'd hate to interrupt the main article with what is, after all, a pretty trivial matter.
Cheers,
Opus33 15:36, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Looking in my other sources, I don't find anything better either. I have both the 1980 and the recent Grove, and it is as Opus says; Slonimsky, in Baker's Biographical Dictionary of Musicians, says "probably born March 31, baptized April 1." Britannica also gives March 31 without further explanation. I concur that both dates should be in the article; perhaps it could say "Born either March 31 or April 1." Antandrus 15:49, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sounds fair enough. Although I doubt that statement was a biproduct of senility, it seems plausible that he was joking. I'll include both and maybe make an article about his birthdate. --Berserk798 21:53, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Issue of Haydn's Portraiture

In the article it says, "The various portraitists who drew or painted Haydn during his lifetime each took a different path in attempting to portray the attractive personality instead of the ugly face; hence no two surviving portraits of Haydn are alike." I would like to point out that when you see two portraits of any figure predating photography, each portrait differs at least slightly. Is it not unfair to say that his "ugliness" is the cause of dissimilarity between his portraits? July 14, 2005 Berserk798

It is apparent that no one has objections. I'm going to remove the statement; if anyone disagrees, please make you discontent known on the talkpage before reverting my edit. --Berserk798 02:15, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Recent changes

  • Thanks, Berserk, for spotting the inappropriate sentimental passage, which was my fault. I put back in the fact that the portraits looked different from each other, which, if one leaves out the question of cause, seems uncontroversial to me; our readers will be better informed if we tell them not to trust the portraits. I also took the opportunity to put in a bit about baldness/wigs.
  • I reverted "reached an impasse" to "got stuck", because the latter term avoids the implication of writer's block, existential angst, etc., which would be unlikely in Haydn's case. Given how productive Haydn was, I doubt these episodes could have lasted more than a couple minutes. If "got stuck" seems too colloquial to you (it doesn't, to me), please find a milder substitute. My source for this tale is the Mary Hughes biography, cited at the end of the article; if I remember right, the words "got stuck" are taken from her.
  • I moved the reference to Papa Haydn from the top to the section dealing with his relations to subordinates; I believe this reflects current scholarship (and that the "kindly personality" theory of the Papa Haydn label reflects old 19th century scholarship). Here's what the Grove says about it:
"The traditional image of Haydn's personality has been that of ‘Papa Haydn’: pious, good-humoured, concerned for the welfare of others, proud of his students, regular in habits, conservative. Although not inaccurate, it is one-sided; it reflects the elderly and increasingly frail man his first biographers knew." ...
"A more appropriate sense of ‘Papa’ would be that of ‘patriarch’, as in the resolution making him a life member of the Tonkünstler-Societät in 1797, ‘by virtue of his extraordinary merit as the father and reformer of the noble art of music’. The many younger musicians who benefited from his teaching and advice, as well as the court performers whom he directed, seem to have regarded him as a father-figure, or kindly uncle; he was well disposed towards them and helped them as he could."
  • I toned down the bit about Mozart and Haydn playing quartets together; the Grove thinks this may be an unreliable memory from Stephen Storace.
  • I took out the speculative bit Haydn not composing operas and piano concerti after he met Mozart. It seemed speculative and also somewhat inaccurate: one of Haydn's most important operas, "L'anima del filosofo', is from after the meeting. (I also identified this opera where it is mentioned later in the text.)
  • I put in a bit on Marianne von Genzinger, one of Haydn's closest friends.

Opus33 15:59, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Your edits are fair enough, but I would still like to find a less vulgar way to say "got stuck". In my opinion it makes the article seem less credible. Maybe we could say "found himself in a predicament"? I'll try to come up with something suitable. --Berserk798 20:18, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
I tried "had trouble" instead of "got stuck"; it's slightly less colloquial without being stuffy. Hope that works! Antandrus (talk) 20:57, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, Antandrus, for a suitable resolution. To Berserk, I would say that I'm very impressed with your exquisite verbal sensitivity! Yet, on the other hand, some prose writers I admire (Charles Rosen, Shelby Foote, Daniel Dennett) make their prose more vivid by occasionally skirting the edges of colloquialism. I hope you don't cultivate refinement to the point of not being able to enjoy the work of such authors. Cheers, Opus33 17:47, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The list of works

The list of symphonies currently a) has many missing, and b) groups others together (e.g. Symphonies No. 76-78). Is there any particular reason? Markyour words 20:57, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi MarkA, perhaps the original idea had been to list for convenience all of the works that actually have articles about them. But then people started to install red links as well. I would be happy with any attempt to make the list more rational.
Surely a complete list would have to be a separate article, because it would be enormous. Opus33 17:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

In that case if no-one objects, I'll remove the red-linked ones, then we can re-add them as we create articles for them. Hopefully at some point we'll have too many works with articles for this page, at which point we can remove the less important ones again. Markyour words 10:33, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Why not get rid of all the symphonies on this page and leave the link to the list of symphonies page? As it is now, its just cluttering up the bottom of the page. 172.193.197.223 02:38, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach 2nd or 3rd son of Johann Sebastian Bach?

In the Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach page it sates him to be the 2nd son of Bach, whereas on this page under "Evolution of Haydn's Style" it says "...Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach, the third son of Johann Sebastian." Which one is it actually? (White Beard 21:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC))

I suspect that either he was the second surviving son, or that he was the third child but second son. But since I don't know which, and since the point is hardly relevant to this article, I've taken that bit out. HenryFlower 21:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Separate Articles for Works

I suggest that given the large body of works and their importance, that a set of grouping articles be created in order to act as a clearing house for individual compositions, as well as provide a synthetic overview (per mark's 7 172.193.197.223 comments above). I think that at a minimum, the quartets, trios, and symphonies each deserve their own individual article given the potential within each form for thematic and stylistic analysis. Thoughts? Eusebeus 17:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I also like the ideas of moving the works into a number of lists, with just the link to the list in the main article. The list entries can link to articles (where present). Some lists might be: Symphonies, String Quartets, Piano sonatas, Misc Chamber music, Concertos, Choral, Masses, Operas. Stephen B Streater 18:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Are we talking about actual articles, or just lists? Lists we already have; articles would be nice, but do we have a volunteer to write them? HenryFlower 18:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think the best thing would be to have articles that dicusses the symphonies, string quartets, etc..., generally, and then link to any works for which there are distinct articles. With respect to the full list of Haydn compositions, the corresponding model at JS Bach (see the admirably extensive list of compositions page) would work for Haydn as well and be an improvement over lists such as [List of symphonies by Joseph Haydn]]. I am not volunteering to cut and paste from the Hoboken catalogue, but it is a strong organisational solution and could be happily applied here, even if in embryonic form.

The structure would then be:

I Haydn (Main Article)

II Works Articles (e.g. Symphonies by Joseph Haydn)

III List of Works, subdivided (presumably by Hoboken Grouping)

IV Distinct Works (e.g. Symphony No. 22 "Der Philosoph")

I can probably create a stub for the symphonies & maybe the string quartets. Eusebeus 08:44, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] And nothing about what happened to his head?

Okay, maybe the story is apocryphal, but it was always told to me by my music teachers as true. The story goes that Haydn's skull was stolen two days after his funeral and not reunited with his body until 1954.

I'm not too sure about the specifics, so I won't add it right now, but as I understand, the story is in his Grove's entry so it shouldn't be to difficult to look up. Granted, its nothing more than an interesting footnote, and wouldn't take up more than a sentence or two. Any thoughts? Gershwinrb 05:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Done. Opus33 21:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Was he German-born?

The current text states:

"Haydn was a German-born leading composer..."

but

"Joseph Haydn was born in 1732 in the Austrian village of Rohrau near the Hungarian border."

I presume the first quote should read "Austrian-born"?


--- Haydn was born in Lower Austria, which was then - like many other Habsburg countries - part of the Holy Roman Empire. Therefore it`s not incorrect to call him german-born, though it is definitely misleading, since most people have will have the territory of the current Federal republic in mind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.171.168.80 (talk) 12:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pronunciation (again)

Someone inserted a comment in the article (that is, a normally invisible annotation) asking for the pronunciation of Joseph Haydn. Someone removed that comment, saying that it's pronounced the way it looks. I restored that comment, making the following observation: saying "Joseph Haydn" is "pronounced the way it looks" gives very little useful information; there are alternatives for j, s, and ay, at the very least. ILike2BeAnonymous then removed the comment, and suggested that I should either put in a punctuation guide, or post to the discussion page. Setting aside the thought that it might equally naturally have fallen to ILike2BeAnonymous to deal with this (Image:smile-tpvgames.gif), I am posting something here as suggested.

I would have inserted something on pronunciation, as I have in other articles. There are problems, though. Joseph is an anglicised version of the name. Do we want simply to give the pronunciation of the anglicised version (which most readers already know), or the standard German pronunciation: /z/ for the s, a non-English variant of o, and a /j/ (like English y) for the j? It's comparatively clear how the surname should be pronounced; but we still have the problem of whether to use IPA (and with what level of detail) or some other representation. Personally I think that IPA is often wrongly implemented in Wikipedia, and is unfamiliar to most readers.

That's why I haven't simply done it myself. Any ideas for meeting the needs of the person who originally requested this information? – Noetica 08:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Page move

Someone has moved the page from "Franz Joseph Haydn" to "Joseph Hayden." As they did not provide an edit summary or a talk page discussion, is it okay if I move it back? I feel it should be moved back since he is more well known with the Franz. bibliomaniac15 01:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I just moved it back (it wasn't a real page move, it was a copy-and paste). The current scholarly consensus is not to use the Franz in his name, but to call him "Joseph Haydn" as he did himself. I quote from the current article on the New Grove, "Neither he nor his contemporaries used the name Franz, and there is no reason to do so today." (Btw I think you meant it the other way: the page was copied from Joseph Haydn to Franz Joseph Haydn.) Such moves really should be discussed on the talk page first: they're quite significant. Thanks all, Antandrus (talk) 02:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Antandrus. It's quite rare, among speakers of English at least, to use the form with Franz in it. I firmly believe things should stay as they are. – Noetica 02:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Me three; I think things should stay as they are. After all, there is already a redirect from Franz Joseph Haydn to this page, so no problemo. +ILike2BeAnonymous 04:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox

Recently, the inclusion of an infobox was reverted. I have reverted it back. I believe that the infobox is a good way to fit in barebones facts. Haydn might not be "rivers or Pokémon," but as I said in my edit summary, he is a famous human, and incorporating facts into a chart is a good way to put in basic information. bibliomaniac15 00:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Biblio. With all respect I'm deleting it again. The problem is that the info that goes in the box is not, as you are saying, "basic information"; it's peripheral information. For instance, it hardly matters that Haydn was born in Rohrau. Or more precisely, it does matter, but only when you know further facts, like Rohrau being a very obscure rural location, which had major consequences for Haydn's early life and training. But these are matters that don't fit into a box; there's really no choice but to put them into the prose of the article.
The way to orient the reader best, I think, is to have a good opening paragraph, and minimize the visual distractions that might prevent the reader from focusing on it. Such a paragraph, not limited by a predetermined format, can put up front what is truly important. I think our current opening paragraph is not bad for this purpose.
Please ponder this message carefully before you revert again - I'm sure you would agree with me that clarity and scholarly quality, not visual appearance, should be our top goals. Sincerely, Opus33 16:14, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

The question is, how much information is in the opening paragraph? An infobox would not make much difference. bibliomaniac15 02:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citing sources

Hey folks, I'm noting that this article isn't looking so good on sources. I've added the unreferenced tag to the article and am going through it adding cite tags where I think we'll need them. It's looking to me like lots needs to be done here. Heimstern Läufer 08:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I have now checked out of my library the collection of biographies I used a few years ago in writing a fair amount of this, and should be able to add the citations soon. In other words, it was written with sources, but before the era of inline citations. Opus33 22:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Ah, good. I was going to get to it myself (and may do some eventually), but it's good to have one of the earlier authors involved, too. :-) Heimstern Läufer 22:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I have mixed feelings about inserting very many citations, especially into a biography of someone who is the subject of so very very many books and articles (and whose life is therefore not a mystery or a secret, but rather, by and large, a matter of available record). The current locations of "citation needed" notes appear to tell us more about the reader(s) who put them there (and what they don't know) than establishing any meaningful context or criteria as to what kinds of (mostly unusual) information should most appropriately be given citations in Wikipedia, vs. what can stand as "givens" of knowledge/facts accepted generally by humanity. (QwertyUSA 17:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC))

Well, it's not really our choice, you know. The Wikipedia has a strict policy against editing without sources. Heimstern was quite right to complain that the article was undersourced. I anticipate that as I continue, I will ultimately have to remove some material as unsourceable or outright wrong, thanks to Heimstern having flagged it.
I sympathize more with your view that the citations are too many and focus on some, but not all, of the facts. As I continue, I'll work towards a more flexible style, for instance trying to give sources for whole paragraphs rather than particular sentences.
P.S. Haydn biography is by no means as cut and dried as your comment suggests. See this link for an illustration of the difficulties that biographers face in interpreting the available records. Opus33 21:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I am well aware of the inconsistencies, unknowns, and contradictions in Haydn's life (and those of many others in the past), although your particular illustration is nevertheless quite interesting. That said, I still think we've peppered the Haydn article here with more "citation needed" burrs than are necessary. And there really is, by the way, no steadfast requirement for citation in the Wikipedia policies whatsoever. It's all a matter of judgement and of pre-defending against what may or may not be challenged for removal, especially in the case of someone long dead. Every statement or fact does NOT require a citation. (QwertyUSA 10:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC))
I disagree. When I went through this article adding {{citeneeded}} templates, I specifically attached them to things that need citations, such as quotations and tidbits that are likely to be challenged. I'm not exactly sure what you mean by saying "there really is... no steadfast requirement for citation in the Wikipedia policies whatsoever". It's all there at WP:CITE, which is in turn based on WP:NOR and WP:V. Heimstern Läufer 20:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] list of compositions

rather than having many small lists, can we have a single list of Haydn compositions? this would, at the very least, help pinpoint the entirety (or near entirety) of his works. AlexOvShaolin 03:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, someone could start by translating m:de:Hoboken-Verzeichnis der Werke von Joseph Haydn and compiling its parts together, consulting the relevant books and links also, build from there. It's a needed project, not yet finished on the de: server either, but more begun there than here I think. (And there are lists on other Wikipedia servers of Haydn works - ja: I think has a good list of sonatas - that complement. Schissel | Sound the Note! 04:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Cool Hoboken lists! It certainly will still be many lists (as most Hoboken Categories are not small), but a top-level index of Hoboken Categories would be a great addition to the english language wikipedia. DavidRF 15:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Hoboken-Verzeichnis -- Here is an english language start!DavidRF 16:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
See Talk:Hoboken-Verzeichnis. Should we rename the article? I think its fine the way it is, but I'm flexible.DavidRF 16:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Settling in England

The article says "Haydn actually considered becoming an English citizen and settling permanently...". I have found information in Grove that seems to contradict this statement: "Whether he seriously contemplated staying [in England] is not known..." (From Grove online, Haydn, Joseph, 4. London, 1791-5.) I don't know if there are other sources that argue Haydn did in fact consider settling, in which case we might reflect that it is possible that he considered it. But at any rate, we need to find such a source or else delete this material as unverified and even contradicted. Heimstern Läufer 04:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I've removed it until a source can be found. Heimstern Läufer 00:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] absolute pitch possessor

was Haydn an absolute pitch possessor? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.113.79.25 (talk) 09:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Bald portrait

All but one of the portraits show Haydn wearing the grey powdered wig fashionable for men in the 18th century, and from that one exception we learn that he was bald in adulthood.[citation needed]

I've not been able to find any evidence of this portrait, so I'm removing this fact until it can be sourced. Heimstern Läufer 00:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Paragraph removed

Earlier today, Opus33 removed a paragraph from this article, replacing it with a new, shorter one. Hers is the removed material:

Haydn is often described as the "father" of the classical symphony and the classical string quartet. In fact, the symphony was already a well-established form before Haydn began his compositional career, with distinguished examples by Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach among others, but Haydn's symphonies are the earliest that remain in the "standard" repertoire. His role in the early development of the string quartet, however, is beyond doubt: he essentially invented this medium single-handedly.{{citeneeded}} He also wrote many piano sonatas, piano trios, divertimentos, and masses, which became the foundation for the Classical style in these compositional types. He also wrote other types of chamber music, as well as operas and concerti, although such compositions are now less known. Although other composers were prominent in the earlier Classical period, notably C.P.E. Bach in the field of the keyboard sonata (the harpsichord and clavichord were equally popular with the piano in this era) and J.C. Bach and Leopold Mozart in the symphony, Haydn was undoubtedly the strongest overall influence on musical style in this era.{{citeneeded}}

Later, User:ILike2BeAnonymous reverted this change, saying that it removed "a lot of valid material". The reason I've chosen to revert back to Opus33's version is that most of this material is uncited. As it has been tagged since December, I think it's definitely fair to remove it now. I do not think this material should be returned to the article until citations are included. I have brought it here to the talk page so that it's easily accessible for anyone who wishes to work with it. Heimstern Läufer 02:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Remove fradulent quote

I took out

Despite his increasing age, Haydn looked to the future, exclaiming once in a letter, "how much remains to be done in this glorious art!"

having read (on JSTOR) Anthony van Hoboken's review of Geiringer's biography (Musical Times, 1965, 351-352). Hoboken tells us that the original letter does not contain this passage, and that it was inserted by Haydn's biographer Griesinger.

Opus33 18:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Missing Head

It should be noted in the article about the theft and recovery of his head. --Lincoln F. Stern 20:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I've always found this tale kind of yucky and am not eager to take it on. If anyone else wants to, the complete (and smelly) details can be found in the biography by Geiringer cited in the article. I recommend that Haydn's head, if it is ever written, should be made a linked satellite article, not a part of this article, since it would tell us nothing about Haydn as a composer. Opus33 01:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
(Later:) Done. (I can't believe I wrote this.) Interestingly, it's not all that easy to find good reference sources on this topic, since most Haydn biographers seem to find the story too yucky/irrelevant to include. But hey, Wikipedia has everything. Opus33 21:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Haydn was a Roman Catholic

This is an established fact. I thus ask whoever is removing the category "Roman Catholics" from Haydn's profile to stop doing so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Schlier22 (talk • contribs) 00:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but it's just not important enough. Virtually everybody in Haydn's country, in his day, was Catholic, so the category is quite uninformative.
Opus33 03:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
That`s not true. During Haydns childhood protestants had to leave the western parts of Austria and settled down in Hungary (see Transylvanian_Landler), since Hungary was a Habsburg-country with more liberal religious politics. btw The western Hungarian region where Haydn lived during his Esterhazy time, has the highest percentage of protestants in modern Austria, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.171.168.80 (talk) 12:46, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I think that entire category should be removed. +ILike2BeAnonymous 03:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Opus33: According to the wikipedia.org guidelines for categorization of people, it is perfectly permissible to categorize persons according to religion, especially if they are "people for whom their religious association was or is a defining characteristic or related to their notability" (cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:People_by_religion). Now it is certainly the case that Haydn was a devout Catholic, and it is certainly evident--and indeed, he himself professed-- that his Catholic faith acted as a creative influence on his musical composition. Thus, the category "Roman Catholic" is an appropriate one for his person. (It is also informative for those who are unfamiliar with Haydn's nationality, place of residence, and historical situatedness.)

Well, there's a big difference, as has no doubt previously been pointed out to you, between including those facts in the article (nobody's arguing against that here, so far as I can tell), and including the subject of the article in an overly-broad category. Please keep in mind that this is what this little conflict is over. Like most other editors here, I don't think Haydn should be placed in this category; in fact, the category itself should be abolished. But of course his religion, so far as it is part of his life story, should be (and is, I believe) part of this article. +ILike2BeAnonymous 05:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually, people should read that link that Schlier22 gave above. Among other things it says are:
Disclaimer: This category may inappropriately label persons.
and, at the top of the section discussing categorization by "religion, race or ethnicity, and sexuality":
Currently, the Wikipedia also supports categorizing People by religion and People by race or ethnicity. The placement of people in these categories may be problematic.
So even this guideline contains much in the way of cautionary but-on-the-other-hands. +ILike2BeAnonymous 05:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

ILike2BeAnonymous: I think you ought to actually support your opinion. Otherwise, no one has any reason to accept it.-Schlier22 04:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

ILike2BeAnonymous: I'm fully aware that the categories of religion may inappropriately label persons, but I do not believe that labelling Haydn Roman Catholic in this case is inappropriate. You've admitted that Catholicism influenced Haydn and his work significantly, and this much ought to be sufficient justification for categorizing him as Roman Catholic. As to the charge that this category is "too broad," I should only point out that "The Enlightenment" and "1809 deaths" are similarly broad.-Schlier22 23:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

... which only serves to remind us that there's a lot of useless cruft, as they say, floating around here (I like to refer to it as "flotsam and jetsam"). +ILike2BeAnonymous 23:55, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
having a category exist that is useless to you in no way impacts whether or not it may be of use to others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.15 (talk) 02:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Date of first London journey

Hello, Haydn crossed the English channel, arriving in England, on New Year's Day, 1791 (ref: Robbins Landon and Jones, cited in main article). As a result, all the biographies I've seen describe the England visit as being "1791-1792". I think we should go what established scholarship has done, and not go out on a limb on our own. Sincerely, Opus33 16:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] life long Austrian resident

During his Esterhazy years Haydn lived in Hungary. Until 1804 the term "Austria" officially only referred to two arch-duchies among the Habsburg holdings but nothing more. Especially Hungary can only be called a part of "Austria" when referring to the time from 1804 - 1867 since it was always a special case among the Habsburg territories. (and certainly not a part of "Austria" before 1804 and after 1867). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.171.168.80 (talk) 12:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removing external link

Hello, I appreciate the good intentions in adding external links, but the Essentials of Music page on Haydn (link just added, which I then removed) is not accurate, and it wouldn't be helping our readers to refer them to it. What I have in mind is: (a) It gets his name wrong (no music scholar uses "Franz"); (b) It implies Haydn visited Paris, which he never did; (c) It implies Mozart heard the London Symphonies, which he couldn't because he was dead by the time they were written; (d) it misspells of "Rohrau" and "Jahreszeiten".

Also, the page is quite short and has virtually nothing that our article doesn't already have.

I suspect that the Essentials of Music site may be the work of amateurs, just like ours is, and we may be better off not using it. Sincerely, Opus33 (talk) 05:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)