Talk:Joseph Haydn/Archive 3

"Prominent and prolific"
Should the lead say "prominent and prolific"? This is currently under debate.

"Prolific": this is simply a matter of fact, Haydn wrote a ton of stuff (see, for example, the list of works at the end of Webster's biography). Prolific is not a peacock word; there are composers (such as Czerny) who were prolific but not much admired.

"Prominent": I could go either way, but in a way I think this is factual as well; Haydn's music is performed and recorded a lot, it gets taught as part of the history of music, a fair chunk of the Penguin Guide is about him, he has a long New Grove article, etc. So it seems not unreasonable to indicate his standing in the lead. Opus33 (talk) 15:25, 27 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't have a problem with "prolific"; as you say it's pretty much a matter of fact that he composed in vast quantities. With "prominent" I'm less comfortable. Again I think it is valid in Haydn's case, but it's a word that is often used in articles on minor composers to try to give them an artificial boost, so it's a word I tend to distrust whenever I see it on Wikipedia. I'm trying to think of an alternative, less tainted word, but I haven't come up with one yet. --Deskford (talk) 18:29, 27 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't have a problem with "prominent" either, but I could see how an unfamiliar reader might think we are trying to use peacock words. What's notable about Haydn in this context is not that he's 'good' but that he's seminal and influential.  He was one fo the earliest composers of the Classical Era and his works helped to codify many of the forms that would be used for the rest of that era and much of the Romantic Era.  The next sentence in the lead paragraph spells that out with him being called the "Father" of at least two of those forms.  DavidRF (talk) 20:04, 27 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the input! I'm chucking "prominent".  The sentences that follow say why Haydn was prominent, which is more more useful. Opus33 (talk) 23:55, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I can't really argue with either word, but there is no denying that they are peacock words, and they don't change their nature just because they are considered accurate. Haydn was prolific and prominent, no doubt of it. But a reader who is unfamiliar with the topic has nothing to judge those words by. What makes someone "prominent"? How many works do they need to produce to become "prolific"? 10? 50? 100? The lead best sticks to facts that do not require the reader to interpret evaluations that have no clear measure, as the second sentence does presently. Would it be better to actually state the number of works by Haydn? Or to give examples of what makes him prominent? A quote by an authoritative source? If he is referred to as the "Father of the Symphony" and "Father of the String Quartet", isn't that enough? -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 12:17, 28 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for sharing. Opus33 (talk) 22:39, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I have long found the word "prolific" in the opening of the article to be grating. The comment is made above that "there are composers (such as Czerny) who were prolific but not much admired". That is of course correct, and it also illustrates the problem: the word takes on asteistic connotations. When used for a composer it can often imply, particularly to the sceptical reader, the presence of a B-grade composer who churns out a lot of mediocre work. Haydn has been peculiarly vulnerable to this kind of lazy characterisation (many works but of no distinction) by people who don't understand music. I think the opening of the article would be perfectly good without any adjective to describe Haydn as a composer. The principal reason is that the best writing, whether journalistic or academic, presents the facts and allows the reader to work out their own summary adjectives for what they are reading. I don't see the benefit of forcing one-word descriptions of Haydn upon the reader in the article's opening sentence.

I also concur with the separate point raised by Escape Orbit that the word "prolific" is troublesome because it lacks a yardstick. If the measure were number of minutes of music composed per year of adult life, I suspect Mozart would have been more prolific than Haydn. Yet we would never dare use the word "prolific", above all other words, to describe Mozart. Which brings us back to the earlier point. Syek88 (talk) 06:42, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Although I said above that I didn't have a problem with "prolific", I think you are right. It doesn't add anything meaningful, and can have negative implications read into it. I would support removing the word. --Deskford (talk) 14:53, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Joseph Haydn. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071010110015/http://www.gresham.ac.uk/event.asp?PageId=45&EventId=683 to http://www.gresham.ac.uk/event.asp?PageId=45&EventId=683

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:53, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Joseph Haydn. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090817104156/http://www.donjuanarchiv.at/archiv/bestaende/ernestea-sezzatense/oesterreich/wien/biographische-nachrichten-von-joseph-haydn.html to http://www.donjuanarchiv.at/archiv/bestaende/ernestea-sezzatense/oesterreich/wien/biographische-nachrichten-von-joseph-haydn.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:43, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Contested deletion
This page should not be speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement, because looking at the original (https://courses.lumenlearning.com/musicapp_historical/chapter/f-j-haydn/) licenses and attributions, the lumenlearning course is actually the younger of the two articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.133.46.46 (talk) 08:48, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, that page lists wikipedia as a source: CC LICENSED CONTENT, SHARED PREVIOUSLY Provided by: Wikipedia. Located at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haydn. License: CC BY-SA: Attribution-ShareAlike - 97.92.91.74 (talk) 09:03, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, not to mention that anyone who actually legitly thinks Joseph Haydn's page should be deleted probably has an IQ of 20 or so. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 12:38, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Lede
The term "Father of Anything" is of questionable import, and the author of The Classical Style unsurprisingly avoids this cringe-inducing term in the whole of his book. There are in total six mentions of the word, five relating to Mozart's letters, and one to theological aspects of Bach's Mass in b. (Free to borrow for 14 days on Archive.org for registered users. I've got it at the moment.) I intend to delete the whole sentence, not least because it doesn't deserve to be associated with Charles Rosen's interesting and thought-provoking volume. MinorProphet (talk) 22:08, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Is the Rosen (1997) citation wrong? Is the Grove citation (presumably Larsen) wrong? Are the citations in Papa Haydn wrong? Before removing this widely used sobriquet, I suggest to read the comments above and back in 2004 and 2007 in this matter. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:15, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi,. You asked, "Is the Rosen (1997) citation wrong?" No it isn't, in that it is a correctly formatted citation. On the other hand yes, it most certainly is wrong, in that neither the words "Father of the Symphony" nor "Father of the String Quartet" appear on the quoted pages and nowhere else in the book either. I defy you to find these words in this book. I've returned it, so you can check for yourself - if you hurry. Anyway, my money is on Hans Ditters von Dittersdorf. MinorProphet (talk) 00:40, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If Rosen's writing doesn't support the assertion, the citation ought to be removed. OTOH, Georg Feder and James Webster write of their article on Haydn in Grove Music Online : "He is familiarly known as the ‘father of the symphony’ and could with greater justice be thus regarded for the string quartet; no other composer approaches his combination of productivity, quality and historical importance in these genres." -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:48, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You said, "If Rosen's writing doesn't support the assertion, the citation ought to be removed." Have you actually read the quoted chapter? You are right, nevertheless. It doesn't support the assertion. I concur, it ought to be removed. But have read a read of this: and I challenge you to find a single instance of a recent reliable source where the author unequivocally states that "Haydn is the Father of the Symphony", with multiple references. I don't care "what people say". I won't have to remind you that individual works of scholarship take precedence over a mere encyclopedia, much as I love this one (and Grove, with reservations). By the way, I detest my father. MinorProphet (talk) 03:41, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand WP:RS. Grove is a reliable source. Whether they in turn cite references is irrelevant. WP just cites. If there are sources disputing this claim, they too should be mentioned. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:39, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 November 2020
LY your sugge

Haydn was born in Vienna, not Rohou! 2409:4050:D9C:5DF4:91A0:55B4:711D:2325 (talk) 05:53, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ɴᴋᴏɴ21  ❯❯❯  talk  06:11, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Joseph ethnycity part
remove that " - was Haydn Croatian? ", because is not just an improvement, but its just too an pseudo-theory, and for being disrespectful to the german austriac composer 2804:7F2:78A:1B8C:31AB:B23D:6163:6C97 (talk) 18:07, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Quietly LOL'd
Perhaps I'm going to get demoted for appreciating such a dad joke, intentional or not, but... I enjoyed the phrasing of the second sentence. He was in fact very instrumental. Evedawn99 (talk) 12:56, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Haydn Overrated?
I find the title attributed to Haydn "the Father of Classicism" pretty ridiculous cause his use of harmony was nowhere near his brother's level, and Mozart derived stuff far more from his brother than him. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v80s4yjSdQM&t=1m9s (K.466/i) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZ5zp_bH0QE&t=18m10s (K.449/iii) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v80s4yjSdQM&t=10m18s (K.345/ii) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gDxnpn5vb4&t=4m27s & https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ppTToo8lrMQ&t=745s (K.551/ii) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=en-ekCM2Lu4&t=5m38s (K.465/ii) Haydn's emotional depth with harmony is nowhere near his brother as well. (let's remember the notorious bashing of Haydn by Berlioz, Schumann, Hanslick, etc). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dzmj8lRLHh0&t=10m40s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0u_XpSjLdw&t=7m23s

If Haydn was really the Father of Classical genres, how come Mozart never talked about it in his letters? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiwickedness (talk • contribs) 05:03, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

== Franz Joseph Haydn[a] (/ˈhaɪdən/; German: [ˈfʁants ˈjoːzɛf ˈhaɪdn̩] (About this soundlisten); 31 March[b] 1732 – 31 May 1809) was an Austrian composer of the Classical period. He was instrumental in the development of chamber music such as the piano trio.[2] His contributions to musical form have earned him the epithets "Father of the Symphony" and "Father of the String Quartet".[3][4] ==

Franz Joseph Haydn[a] (/ˈhaɪdən/; German: [ˈfʁants ˈjoːzɛf ˈhaɪdn̩] (About this soundlisten); 31 March[b] 1732 – 31 May 1809) was an Austrian composer of the Classical period. He was instrumental in the development of chamber music such as the piano trio.[2] His contributions to musical form have earned him the epithets "Father of the Symphony" and "Father of the String Quartet".[3][4] 103.167.66.46 (talk) 12:22, 5 January 2022 (UTC)


 * It is unclear to me why user 103.167.66.46 posted this, but perhaps he wanted to point out that "epithet" is definitely the wrong word here. An epithet has a strong negative connotation - an insult. I think the word we want is "sobriquet". I will wait a few days for comments before making the change. Ravpapa (talk) 15:06, 5 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't really agree that 'epithet' has a strongly negative connotation. It is defined in the OED as 'An adjective indicating some quality or attribute which the speaker or writer regards as characteristic of the person or thing described.'. Obviously a particular person may have a negatively worded epithet attached, but it could equally well be positive. However, it is true that the examples given are not adjectives at all, and so in this case the term epithet might be better replaced by rewording the text as something like '....musical form have led him to be called 'Father....'

Sbishop (talk) 16:14, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Infobox proposal
What should I propose the infobox for classical composers? --Aesthetic Writer (talk) 22:49, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Your comment is unintelligible so I don't know how you expect anyone to respond. Aza24 (talk) 00:09, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:07, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 20 Schilling Joseph Haydn obverse.JPG

Where do we put where Haydn music been played?
Is there a page where we can put down the influence of Haydn on modern music, what movies and tv shows his concertos and symphonies have been used in. E.g. I want to put in that Haydn's Trumpet Concerto in E flat major was chosen by Jung Jae-il to be used in Squid Game tv-show, but don't think there is anywhere on the page for this to be mentioned. It is only the third and final movement of the concerto used but still think what if people find it interesting. Is there already a seperate page for this?@Yeon Hyun-woo Yeon Hyun-woo (talk) 07:57, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

what is this?
What is this notation on the IMSLP pages for Haydn and where is it discussed in this article? "Hob.II:23" 108.51.169.236 (talk) 16:23, 17 November 2022 (UTC)


 * It's here -- Joseph_Haydn -- follow the link to the article on Hoboken and his catalogue. Each of Haydn's works is assigned a number. Additionally, if you look at List of compositions by Joseph Haydn you can see that the number you gave as an example (Hob.II.23) is the Feldparthie for two oboes, two bassoons, two horns. Antandrus (talk) 16:35, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Infobox
Is there any reason as to why this article does not have an infobox? AustinRedd007 (talk) 17:08, 22 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes. It's not a good reason, but there's a reason. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 13:29, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Infobox addition
Nearly all wikipedia biographical pages have an infobox, for consistency this page should have one too. Ecrm87 (talk) 18:45, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

It seems like a glaring omission that this article makes no mention of his work, Messiah
Why is the very important work Messiah not mentioned? 2600:1011:B331:6BD1:B8D2:649F:931F:1131 (talk) 18:05, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I would be surprised if he wrote one. Do you perhaps mean Handel's work, Messiah? Do you know how searching works on Wikipedia? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:42, 20 February 2024 (UTC)