Most scholars agree that Bach’s “St Mathew Passion” is a greater masterpiece than his “St John Passion”, but both contain stunningly beautiful music. After its premiere, Bach spent ten years revising and perfecting his “St Mathew Passion” and had gotten underway doing the same thing to his “St John Passion” before death intervened.

This DVD contains a performance of Bach’s “St John Passion” with the Munichener Bach Orchestra and Munichener Bach Choir, conducted by Karl Richter. I do not recognize any of the names of the soloists other than the tenor Peter Schrier, who sings the role of the evangelist.

When it comes to baroque music I have long preferred period instrument recordings, especially those of Nikolaus Harnoncourt, Gustav Leonhardt, and especially John Eliot Gardiner. The period instrument movement began in the 1970s and gained momentum in the 80s. It is not just the use of instruments of the baroque that distinguishes these performances. It is a whole new way of interpreting the scores of the baroque masters, stripping away (at least in theory) layer after layer of nineteenth and twentieth century performance practices that suddenly seemed so anachronistic when applied to Bach or Handel.

Karl Richter is of the old school of Bach conductors and probably the best example of such. His recordings of Bach’s cantatas and other choral music are legendary. Of all of the old-school conductors of Bach, I think he was the best. I have a CD of an old Karl Richter recording of three Bach cantatas, but this DVD has given me a new appreciation for him.

I no longer look at the old-school verses new-school performances of baroque music as a right-verses-wrong situation. They are both legitimate ways of expressing the extraordinary beauty of the great baroque masters. Close your eyes and listen to an old Karl Richter performance of Bach. Is it not sublimely beautiful?

His premise is that beneath their squawking–abetted and further legitimized by a media who loves violence and paranoid individuals flooding the internet and television with warnings of religious-inspired doomsdays–fundamentalist groups, incapable of providing real solutions to poverty, spiritual thirst, and nationalist or tribal sentiments, will soon perish in the hands of reason and the rising sense of global multiculturalism.

And here below, I list some of the observations and reflections I have of my own country in relation to his thesis:

1.   Already, we have more and more Moslem women in our part of the country wearing the black burkah, a custom adopted from fundamentalist Islam sects in other parts of the world, and certainly not a traditional practice in Mindanao.

In an international women’s conference I recently attended, I learned that the whipping and stoning to death of women (and men) as punishment for adultery are being revived in Indonesia and Iran in the name of Allah and His teachings.

2.   On the Christian front, more and more ordinary people are claiming to be Messiahs or the only son of God or the only true messenger of God, or Jesus’ medium. With enough flair for drama and some media connections, these once unknowns turn into celebrities and millionaires with a massive following in just a few years.

3.   How paradoxical, I think, that the more consumerist our world becomes, the more the longing for divine connection. One can never underestimate the power of the soul to search for its original source even as the human body is intoxicated with the chaos of stocks exchange and the bad-girl, bad-boy subcultures of the paris hiltons and chris browns of the world. Yet perhaps it is the combination of this intoxication and spiritual starvation that makes people vulnerable to mindless devotion, clinging to anything and anyone that provides an ounce of salvation.

4.   Perhaps we now live at a time when the contradictions are even sharper so that while the call for religious fundamentalism is getting louder, the consciousness to adopt a more universal spirituality is becoming more pervasive and popular.

And so it is such a relief to know that there are theories out there saying fundamentalism will not survive. At the same time, the surge of spiritual or religious consciousness of the open-minded, liberal kind is testament to the fact that we are all starting to come full circle and become one, as we, in fact, are.

When does a biologist refer to two animals as separate species, rather than calling them different breeds or subspecies of the same species? This is a gray area. There are several criteria which define whether or not two animals are of the same species, being able to produce viable offspring being one of the most important ones. A husky or a German shepherd could almost be considered a subspecies of wolf. But what about a pug or a Chihuahua? It would be ridiculous to call a Chihuahua a subspecies of wolf. In a sense, it even seems ridiculous to refer to a Chihuahua and a Great Dane as being of the same species.

The biologist, when classifying species, has an analogous problem to that of the linguist who classifies languages. When a group of people splits off from another group and their language evolves, at what point should their language be called a separate (though related) language to the original, rather than simply calling it a dialect of the original language? There is no easy answer. Likewise, there is no easy answer to the question of when an animal should be called a separate species, rather than a subspecies of the animal from which it evolved. The dog is a perfect example of such ambiguity.

Imagine for a moment, that no one in the world has ever seen a dog before, and then suddenly some intrepid explorer discovers dogs in some remote area. Imagine that suddenly all of the modern dog breeds are discovered at once. I can assure you that biologists would classify most breeds as separate species. Referring to a Chihuahua and a German shepherd as members of the same species is purely a matter of convention.

Dogs have done so much for humans all throughout history and look how people treat them now, discarding them like they’re just an old worn out toy, or even worse, torturing them in laboratories! We owe a lot to dogs. Humans brought them into this world many thousands of years ago by breeding wolves. We have enlisted their aide in warfare, farm work, animal herding. They sniff out bombs and drugs. They rescue people in many situations. They guide the blind, they console the lonely. They are intelligent, sensitive, faithful, loving, and affectionate. The least we can do for the dog is to give it a comfortable home and provide it with food and love.

The Romans used to seal messages in a small clay vessel and then force a dog to swallow it. They would then send the dog off, knowing that it would track down the army to which it belonged. Upon its arrival an officer would kill the dog and cut it open to get the message. I am appalled by the cruelty of the Romans (not just to dogs but to many species) but we are no better today. Dogs are tortured in laboratories every day. Not just dogs, but many species of animals have to endure the most horrible tortures at the hands of humans. How sad it is that such atrocities occur!

I want to focus mainly on the differences between the three composers, but first I should briefly discuss the similarities. The classical style is a style in which form plays a more important part than earlier or later styles. The us of sonata form is almost the defining characteristic of the style .(See my blog on sonata form). Sonata form was so pervasive that it invaded every genre of music of the time, even opera and church music. The three composers under discussion here each created works that are a hybrid of other forms and sonata form. Rondo form and variation form were often blended with sonata form.

To put it simply, sonata form begins with simplicity and tonal stability, builds in tension towards a middle section, and reduces the complexity and tension in the last section. The climax is always in the middle. That is where the most complex textures are usually found, as well as the most far-ranging key changes, and the most agitated rhythmic patterns.

Haydn did not create sonata form, but he was a master of it. His grasp of form was excellent, and at the same time, he took a few liberties with his conception of it. Haydn was fond of the false recapitulation. A false recapitulation is a device that can be used near the end of the development section of a sonata form movement. It is a way of fooling the listener into thinking the recapitulation has begun, when it in fact has not begun, and the music is still in the harmonically unstable area of the development section. Of course such a thing as a false recapitulation must be brief in order to be effective. Very soon after fooling the listener, the music will be in the actual recapitulation.

Aside from a false recapitulation, Haydn was fond of surprising the listener with many unexpected turns and twists. Sudden key changes, unexpected shifts of rhythm or harmony, a phrase that leads into something totally different that what is expected; these are a few items in the bag of tricks that Haydn had up his sleeve. He was a genius at surprising the listener with unexpected things, yet still adhering to sonata form. His music is full of idiosyncrasies and eccentric ideas. He experimented constantly with new ways of surprising listeners. He liked to startle the listener with a sudden and unexpected rest, or a fermata that unexpectedly breaks the action. He liked to closely juxtapose remote keys, suddenly changing from one key to a distant one, with no preparation. Mozart was more apt to prepare the listener for the intrusion of a remote key by gradually introducing it.

Haydn was fond of taking a simple motif or germ in one of the themes of a movement and using it as sort of a springboard from which emerges many different musical ideas throughout the movement. Many of his movements are monothematic. In fact one French critic wrote that Haydn only needs one theme to create a symphonic movement while lesser composers needed several. Mozart was certainly not a “lesser composer,” yet he was fond of using more than one or two themes in a movement. Mozart had a knack of using several themes in one movement, yet at the same time, creating a movement that in no way lacks in unity. Monothematic movements are rare in Mozart, the beautiful opening movement of Symphony no. 40 being a notable exception. The first movement of his so-called Paris Symphony (no.32) has a wealth of themes, yet never sounds diffuse or lacking in unity.

It has been pointed out in many books that Beethoven liked to combine Haydn’s monothematic technique with Mozart’s use of multiple themes, and that he achieved this by way of creating a second theme that sounds like a variation or outgrowth of the first theme. There is some truth in this statement, though like all sweeping generalities, it is an inadequate statement. Some of Beethoven’s movements can be analyzed in that manner, such as the opening movement of Symphony no 5, but Beethoven’s methods were quite varied and diverse.

Mozart is a contradiction in that he was more conservative and followed the “rules” much more than Haydn, yet his music is incomparable. Haydn was very much given to surprising, and even shocking the listener, yet Mozart rarely did this. His music is more regular and well behaved. Yet within the confines of the boundaries he seemingly imposed on himself, Mozart left us many incomparable masterpieces.

Haydn was apt to present his themes in the recapitulation in a different order than they were presented in the exposition, and sometimes did not present his themes verbatim in the recapitulation. Mozart rarely reordered his themes, and almost always repeated them verbatim. Mozart could afford a more unaltered repetition of his themes because his themes tended to be full-blown lyrical melodies.

When it comes to piano trios, string quartets, and symphonies, Haydn left us more great masterpieces than Mozart, though the last three symphonies by Mozart are exquisite masterpieces, equal to or surpassing any symphony of Haydn.. Of course it isn’t fair to compare the oeuvre of a man who died just before his 36th birthday with that of a man who lived to be 77.

In opera Mozart was unsurpassed. Haydn openly admitted that Mozart’s operas were far greater than his own. The classical concerto being so close in style to the classical opera, composers who were successful in one were usually successful in the other. This goes a long way toward explaining why Mozart was a composer of such great concertos, while Haydn’s concertos, for the most part, are mediocre works like his operas. The one concerto by Haydn, by the way, that I find to be a great masterpiece is his trumpet concerto. Though more, conservative than the usual work of Haydn, his trumpet concerto is a wonderful piece and can easily take its place beside the great trumpet concerto by Hummel.

In church music Mozart was far greater than Joseph Haydn. Haydn once said that his brother Michael was a better composer of church music than he himself was. If you listen to Haydn’s masses for the Catholic Church you will see that they are really symphonies with choir. There are no stylistic differences between his masses and his symphonies. He did not have a grasp of the baroque ecclesiastic style, though Mozart had a deep understanding of Bach, Handel, and other masters of baroque church music. During his two trips to London after his retirement from Esterhazy, Haydn became familiar with the great oratorios of Handel. Out of this new understanding of Handel, Haydn gave us his two great oratorios, “Creation” and “Seasons,” both of which, in my opinion, far surpass the greatness of his masses, though in his very last mass, he finally achieved a satisfactory unification of symphonic and choral styles.

Beethoven was influenced a great deal by both Haydn and Mozart. He took a touch of this and a touch of that from both of them, and infused his own unique personality into his music. To my ear, it seems that Beethoven was influenced much more by Haydn than Mozart, though a few of his works are obviously modeled after works by Mozart. From Haydn, Beethoven got his love of the false recapitulation.. Also from Haydn, comes Beethoven’s love of the sudden and unexpected pause and the unexpected fermata. Beethoven was even more fond of sudden surprises than was Haydn. And Haydn’s high-spirited wit was certainly not lost on him. Musical humor in the style of Haydn is found in almost every genre of music that Beethoven composed in, from piano sonatas, to string quartets and symphonies, he is sometimes deadly serious, and sometimes overtly comic. His symphony no 4 and symphony no. 8 are replete with Haydnesque humor and wit.

The idea of using a small germ or motif to generate the musical energy of an entire movement is something that Beethoven learned from Haydn. The opening movement of Symphony no. 5 is a good example, but many examples of such a thing can be found in his late works.

Essentially Beethoven used the forms that he inherited from Haydn and Mozart, ie sonata form, rondo, variation form, and expanded these forms. He increased the length and intensity of the development section. Beethoven had a tremendous variety of ways of creating a sonata-form movement.     He would sometimes be rather terse, going quickly from his first theme to his second theme, and then closing the exposition soon after presenting the second theme. Sometimes, like Mozart, he would use a group of first themes in the tonic key, and then present a group of themes in another key, usually the dominant. Sometimes his sonata-form movements are very tightly argued. Other times they are somewhat looser in conception. The variety Beethoven created within the context of sonata form is astounding!

Late in his life Beethoven became much more interested in counterpoint. He especially became much more interested in fugues. He also became more interested in variation form, using it sometimes in movements to piano sonatas and string quartets. Indeed the finale of his Symphony no. 9 can be thought of as a sort of combination of sonata form and theme and variations.

It is hard to describe the music of Beethoven. For me, I would say he had essentially three main modes of expression. There is his playful and humorous side. There is his dramatic side. His music could sometimes be so dramatic and powerful that is makes your skin crawl. And there is his dreamy, introspective side. I realize that breaking down Beethoven’s variety of expression into three categories is rather facile, even faulty, yet I can’t help but do it. Sorry about that.

First, a word about the scoring. Those were the days of a leaner sound, before the symphony orchestra had acquired a larger assortment of instruments. This symphony is scored for the following instrumentation: 1 flute, two oboes, two bassoons, 2 horns, two trumpets, two kettle drums, and the normal string section, ie first and second violins, viola, cellos, and basses. It is my opinion that this symphony sounds best with a small orchestra, ie, one with a reduced string section. With too large a string section some of the notes of the solo flute will be drowned out. They orchestras of Haydn’s day had a smaller string section, and furthermore, the violins of his day were not as loud as modern violins.

As is typical for Haydn, his Oxford symphony is full of wit and humor, with only a touch of the dramatic. After a slow introduction, the first movement, marked allegro spiritoso, begins. The first theme is ostensibly dramatic, but the drama is not real. It is a farce. In no way do I mean that as a criticism. In fact I think it is absolutely ingenious the way Haydn could be so playful, while at the same time, sounding quasi-dramatic. The first theme begins with strings alone for four measures, then the entire orchestra joins in. After playing around with the first theme for a while, Haydn gives us the second theme, in the key of  D, and with strings only for three and half measures, oboes and bassoons join in, and the flute  punctuates the them with a couple of delightful scale passages.

After a rather playful development section, Haydn gives us a rather expansive recapitulation in which he continues to develop  the motifs of the main theme. The second movement, marked adagio cantabile, is rather pretty. It is in the key of D, with a central section in D-minor. The third movement is a minuet in which the wit and humor of Haydn shine forth unabashedly.

The finale of this wonderful symphony, is for me, one of the very best symphonic finales by Haydn. The first theme is given out by strings alone in the first sixteen measures. Haydn plays around with that theme for a while before a second theme is added to the discussion. This finale is full of playful effects and is a thoroughly delightful movement. Near the end, in measures 318 and 319, there is a passage that moves downward in this sequence of notes : D B G D and then leaps back up and plays the downward sequence : G E C A. If you listen carefully you will hear that every note is followed by a note an octave lower. It is very easy not to hear the lower notes in this sequence, but very delightful if you do hear them. Whether or not you hear the lower notes of this passage depends on the particular recording you are listening to, the fidelity of your sound system, and most of all, just knowing it is there.

I urge anyone reading this to obtain a recording of Haydn’s Oxford symphony and sit back and listen to it a few times. In Haydn you will not find the extreme drama and tension of Beethoven, but Haydn’s wit, charm, and playfulness are absolutely delightful.