Talk:Symphony No. 94 (Haydn)

Form, please

If anyone has a detailed analysis of the form and variation of this symphony I would greatly use any information.

• • • • • ≈≈***********What kind of music, and form *****≈≈*******

I have an assignment that i need some help on.... What kind of piece is it Describe the form...

Any help is wonderful!! Thanks..

• • NIKKI**

The form of each of the four movements is clearly given in the article with links to the relevant articles. If you are unaware of what the names are:

1) Sonata 2) Theme & Variations 3) Classical Menuet (ternary) 4) Sonata Rondo

Good luck with your assignment. Eusebeus (talk) 18:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Feeble

Thanks for the compliment, Ashley, but "feeble" is correct. After 1803 the elderly Haydn evidently had heart trouble, and he felt so sick that he couldn't even perform the largely-mental work of musical composition. His legs were uncomfortably swollen due to poor circulation, and the highlight of his day was to reach the point where he was properly dressed and could receive visitors. On the question of whether the elderly Haydn was also senile, biographers seem to be ambivalent.

The point of including "feeble" is that the quotation sounds a little bit empty-headed, and it seems unlikely that Haydn would have so expressed himself during the period of his life when his powers were intact.

The information given above can be found in the Haydn bios cited in the article Joseph Haydn.

Opus33 14:56, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Bored audience?

I've moved this to the talk page:

It is said that Haydn had become fed up with his audience falling asleep during his concerts. Particularly, he was most annoyed at royalty whom would commission him to write a piece, only to fall asleep during its performance. Adding insult to injury, his pieces were often commissioned for uninteresting galas or simply dinner guests. Haydn wrote "Surprise Symphony" with this in mind.

because it's a classic instance of the "it is said" syndrome and thus violates policy. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_terms. It could legitimately be restored if there is a proper source for it. Opus33 17:15, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

How about "Many musical historians and biographers speculate that..." [1] [2]. Almost all of them at least say he wasn't fond of his audience falling alseep all the time. I'm sure there's a source for that at least.--Ben 02:35, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, if we said "Many musical historians...", we would still be in violation of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_terms, which is highly recommended reading.

As far as those Web references given by Ben, #2 appears to be incompetent--this person thinks that Prince Eszterhazy heard the Surprise Symphony, which would be quite a feat, since he was already dead when it was composed. #1 specifically labels the "bored audience" tale as speculation--"the audience may be imagined to have comfortably settled...".

The five Haydn biographies I've read make no mention of this tale, and as a result I strongly suspect it is a fiction. Everybody knows the story, of course, because it is told to children, but all sorts of nonsense is told to children. Unfortunately they don't normally check the elementary curriculum for scholarly accuracy. Opus33 19:55, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Various excisions

I removed this from the article as unverified:

Trivia: Among the symphony's detractors was Charles Ives, who labeled it "easy music for the sissies."

Can we have a context and a reference for this quote? Was Ives specifically citing this symphony, or classical symphonies of this ilk in general? Also, the quote says more about Ives than about the Surprise Symphony. --RobertG ♬ talk 12:36, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

A reference is easy enough, at least one already existed when you made that excision. A context, well, maybe someone else can provide that. If not, oh well. Willi Gers07 (talk) 18:58, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I removed this as requiring more context and discussion:

and the scherzo became the norm with Beethoven's symphonies.

This contention probably belongs on the discussion of the historical development of the symphony rather than specifically this symphony. --RobertG ♬ talk 12:36, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I removed this rhythmic discussion as subjective:

The time signature is 2/4, but rhythmically the music is likely to be felt as being "in one"; i.e. just one beat to the bar. A higher-level beat is defined by the prevalence of four-bar phrases.

It seems a bit original to me. While I see the point being made (the perception of rhythmic ambiguity in the movement as having an effective time signature of either 1/2 or 4/2), Haydn definitely wrote 2/4 and anything else is interpretation unless someone produces a reference otherwise. --RobertG ♬ talk 12:36, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

G major??

I've never seen the song arranged in G major; the common key I've seen is C major. The notes are:

C-C-E-E-G-G-E

F-F-D-D-B-B-G

C-C-E-E-G-G-E

C-C-F#-F#-G

Note that the F#'s are a small modulation to G, but then it returns to C after the modulation. It repeats the same notes, but then, the next note after the G of the second section is an F natural, in C, and the last few notes are:

E-E-G-G-C-C-E

D-D-C-B-A-B-C-C-C

Any clarification?? Georgia guy 01:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I have the score in front of me. The second movement is most definitely C Major. To further confirm this, the second section is in C Minor. Spamguy 20:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello Georgia guy, the article already contained the answer to your question: "Andante. This is the surprise movement, a theme and variations in 2/4 time and the subdominant key of C major." Typically, symphony composers don't write all the movements in the same key. Opus33 20:01, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Can anyone help me out with a listening guide for the first movement of the this Symphony No. 94. I am a non-music major and have this as part of an assignment. Thanks.

If some one could help me answer thies question that would be wonderful!!! What kind of piece is the susprise symphony?.....and also what is the form....

Nikki

Charles Ives's opinion

I have removed the Ives quotation. This link [3] provides a direct reference for the cite to Cowell & Cowell, 1955 which suggests this quotation refers to Debussy. Pending direct verification, this should not be restored. (The cite I removed was itself unsubstantiated in the original). Eusebeus (talk) 19:37, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Here is the closest thing to a source I've been able to find: [4] , a work by Ives from 1909 parodying the second movement of the 94th. It's not clear how much it reflects Ives's views on the symphony, and how much it reflects his unhappiness with audiences that showed unadventurous musical tastes. Perhaps there's more out there somewhere.... Opus33 (talk) 21:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

"Sissies" is a very colorful expression, but it looks like Ives used it a lot. I'm getting a lot of hits doing a google book search for "Ives sissies". You'll find lots of hits for "pansies", "lily pads" and "pussies" as well. He's got colorful things to say about Wagner ("soft-bodied sensualist -- pussy")[5][6][7] and Chopin ("one just naturally thinks of him with a skirt on")[8][9][10]. As RobertG said several years ago on this talk page, above, this does say more about Ives than it says about these other composers. But since he is famous, his most amusing quotes do get repeated often.DavidRF (talk) 22:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I hope no one here thinks he's the reincarnation of Joseph Haydn. His legacy is quite secure enough to withstand a little criticism, even if it's from Ives or Debussy. Willi Gers07 (talk) 19:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I thought the confusion was not whether Ives or Debussy said it about Haydn, but whether Ives said it about Haydn or Debussy.DavidRF (talk) 19:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

That's right. Neither of the Google books that return the quotation provide a citation. The one that does (to Cowell 1955) links it to Debussy. That said, it is perfectly believable that Ives did say this about Haydn. I'll remove it again temporarily until we can verify the quote per WP:V. (As a post scripta, I should note that this quote is generally associated with Haydn, so we should probably make reference to it in the article, even if its attribution may be spurious or dubious. We just need to find the right wording Eusebeus (talk) 19:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

"The right wording" = wording that doesn't come from Robert G or from me, but mostly that it doesn't come from me. Willi Gers07 (talk) 20:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, you come across as churlish, dilettantish, and disagreeable - I'll hand you that. But in this case the right wording refers to establishing whether this falls within the large corpus of Ivesian apocrypha or whether it can be directly sourced. Eusebeus (talk) 20:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

So, because of your assessment of me, that must mean my edits are completely invalid even if I cite a thousand Cambridge and Oxford books. You, on the other hand, are so awesome that you can cite a blog post and it's a perfectly valid source per WP:RS. Willi Gers07 (talk) 19:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, however we decide to go forward here, what you've posted on the page at the moment is obviously not correct. No one thinks Debussy said this. Ives definitely said it. "Sissy" is one of Ives favorite terms and I don't think "sissy" would come out of the translation from the French language. Could you please rephrase the section so that attributes the quote to Ives? Thanks. DavidRF (talk) 20:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

• Hi David, I have fixed this for the moment. Wish we could get an actual cite though. Eusebeus (talk) 21:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. Lots of these famous quotes live on in semi-hearsay status, but this one is oft-repeated so I don't mind it staying. Cheers. DavidRF (talk) 21:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello, For what it's worth, User:Flutedude has visited my talk page to express unhappiness about this quote, in particular the sourcing. As far as I can tell, the sourcing we currently have is not literal sourcing; i.e. something like "In a letter to X, Ives said that...". Also, perhaps the "quote" was just made up by someone who saw the parody, and was trying to summarize Ives's feelings? Lastly, the quote make Ives look like something of a philistine, and might not be fair to him. So I think we ought to consider withdrawing the quote if we can't find a gold-standard source for it. Cheers, Opus33 (talk) 22:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

• Well, the one source I found did attribute it back to Cowell 1955, which is fine as a source, although I haven't bothered to check the original. However, as I noted above, the only online attribution I found made it unclear whether the quotation was about Haydn or Debussy. Upon reflection, however, it seems very unlikely that Ives was referring to Debussy. I'll remove it given the concerns we've noted above generally - it is not particularly helpful one way or the other.

One final note, I see from your talk page that this flute fellow was rather put off by the exchange here. I take exception that the discussion between three seasoned editors with a lengthy history of friendly interaction (Op, me, DRF) be derided as engaging in oneupmanship. Just shows how much the intervention of a single disagreeable and obsessed voice can poison the air. I suggest a healthy dose of WP:DFTT. Eusebeus (talk) 23:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Instead take exception to listing Opus33. The "flute fellow," in his remarks to Opus 33, blamed everyone "except you," meaning Opus33. Opus33 is in a class way above me and my boyfriend Eusebeus. Willi Gers07 (talk) 17:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Eusebeus. I feel more comfortable with this version, though of course I remain curious about whether the quote can sooner or later be nailed down... Opus33 (talk) 23:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, several famous quotes of this nature are not verifiable to the point of absolute certitude. And that goes for good quotes as well as bad quotes. The Brahms quote on Haydn's 88th is one of those. Authors are usually quick to point out that the quote is "oft repeated" or cite that "Tovey claims that" instead of claiming that its true. The same goes for Weber's famous "ripe for the madhouse" quote about Beethoven's 7th. There's considerable doubt that Weber was the one who actually said that. These quotes have taken a life of their own in program notes, though. And so what if a cranky modernist doesn't think its daring to listen to a 125-year old symphony? Anyhow, stay or go, it doesn't bother me either way, just thought I'd make the case for why it *could* be included. Cheers.DavidRF (talk) 00:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

This is the part of Flutedude's comment I would have emphasized: "I think it would be alot [sic] easier to just talk about the parody lyrics and chuck the 'sissies' quotation" (emphasis mine). If the Ives parody lyrics really are so much easier to verify, I wonder why not just talk about those instead? Don't those lyrics say more about both this symphony in particular and about Ives? James470 (talk) 01:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

There's two problems with that, Jimmy. First, it makes way too much sense. Where do you think you are, New Grove? Second, I added it, which means it will be reverted in 10, 9, 8, 7... Willi Gers07 (talk) 17:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Right on schedule. Willi Gers07 (talk) 18:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

You created the second problem. The first problem remains the same. James470 (talk) 00:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Generated audio of score

LilyPond’s MIDI output doesn’t take articulations such as staccato into account, which makes the generated audio for the score in the Nickname section sound rather odd, in my opinion. This variant uses the Articulate script to produce a somewhat more accurate version:

Unable to compile LilyPond input file:

line 2 - column 10:
include files are not allowed in safe mode
--------
line 12 - column 18:
unknown escaped string: `\articulate'

It’s not perfect – the \paper block, for instance, might be incomplete. (The LilyPond code is based on Score.php, but there may be some parts I missed.) I’m also not sure if measures 9-16 are lacking the staccato articulations because they’re supposed to be absent, or if they’re merely hidden to avoid visual repetition, in which case \omit Script should probably be employed instead so that the articulations are still available to the Articulate script. —Galaktos (talk) 22:28, 7 March 2020 (UTC)