Where does The Seven Last Words rank among Haydn's string quartets?

[ShineyMcShineShine]

Is it generally considered one of his masterworks, or non-essential because a transcription?

[The new erato]

Is it generally considered one of his masterworks, or non-essential because a transcription?

It's a masterwork but because of its structure I don't think I would consider it a string quartet. Rather a one-off for string quartet ensemble.

[Jo498]

As it is more frequently recorded than many other "real" Haydn string quartets and probably also more frequently than both the original orchestral or the choral version of the 7 last words, I'd say that it is generally considered an important work, transcription or not.

Of course, it is hardly a string quartet in the usual sense (much less 7 or them, there are actually 9 movements with the Prelude and the Terremoto, so the counting is really idiotic).

[Gurn Blanston]

As has been said, it isn't a string quartet, so ranking it against actual string quartets is fruitless. Best to think of it as a Suite for String Quartet.

There is no question that the original 'Seven Last Words' for chamber orchestra is one of Haydn's masterworks, so you can say that the music itself is a masterwork. The arrangement for string quartet is a question of convenient saleability. His publisher, Artaria, wouldn't have sold enough of the original to make it worth printing. But the string quartet and (especially) the keyboard versions were big time hits throughout Europe. And Haydn didn't disdain the arrangement either; in May of 1791 we find him playing the first violin in a small private performance at the home of Dr. Charles Burney, the British music historian.

It is good to keep in mind that oftentimes the prejudices in music (and other arts) simply didn't exist back in their own time, but were things which arose in the 19th century, when the philosophy behind the reason for existence changed so totally that composers like Haydn and Mozart wouldn't have recognized it. They were perfectly fine with arrangements, and did them themselves, as Haydn did in this case.

Sorry if that is more than you want to know,

[Mandryka]

I wonder if people who say it's not a real quartet would also say that Shostakovich 15 is not a real quartet.

[ShineyMcShineShine]

I see. So, if it's not a string quartet per se, perhaps I should rephrase my question: Where does The Seven Last Words arranged for string quartet rank among Haydn's works? Essential to a collection or not?

[Karl Henning]

I wonder if people who say it's not a real quartet would also say that Shostakovich 15 is not a real quartet.

Shostakovich and Haydn lived in different musical worlds.  For only one thing, Shostakovich's musical world took Haydn's work as part of the cultural foundation.

I see. So, if it's not a string quartet per se, perhaps I should rephrase my question: Where does The Seven Last Words arranged for string quartet rank among Haydn's works? Essential to a collection or not?

I should call it essential.  It is a signally interesting work because it is so obviously exceptional, as a piece for string quartet which is not (broadly) organized as a sonata-cycle, although of course each of the numbers is internally governed by the sonata principle.

[The new erato]

I wonder if people who say it's not a real quartet would also say that Shostakovich 15 is not a real quartet.

At least that was written for a quartet, not arranged for it. Whether Shostakovich thinking it was a quartet was wrong, is a not for me to say. My string quartet composing abilities pales besides his.

[Jo498]

I think the 7 last words are really unique, almost a "one-of-a-kind"-work (There is "spiritual" or even "liturgical" instrumental music long before, like the "organ masses" of the 17th and 18th century or Biber's rosary sonatas, but Haydn's piece is still quite unique.)
As there IS an original version, I'd probably say that the orchestral version is essential, rather than the quartet version, but this is not something I would want to quarrel about, although I think that for a beginner the more colorful original version is somewhat easier to grasp.

As for Shostakovich: He might have been the first composer since Haydn to write a quartet consisting of only slow movements. But it was almost 200 years later and not particularly daring for ca. 1970, so not quite as unusual within the genre.
On the other hand, the 7 last words apparently also hit a nerve in the 1780s despite? their strange and unique form, otherwise the pieces would have caught mould in the archives of the Cadiz Cathedral and not have been transcribed for different ensembles

[ShineyMcShineShine]

What should I make of the Wikipedia entry, which says its authenticity is suspect?

At the request of his publisher, Artaria, the composer in 1787 produced a reduced version for string quartet: Haydn's Opus 51. This is the form in which the music is most often heard today: a group of seven works (Hoboken-Verzeichnis III/50–56), with the Introduction abutting Sonata I and Sonata VII joined by the Earthquake. The first violin part includes the Latin text directly under the notes, which "speak" the words musically.

This version has come under suspicion of authenticity due to an occasionally careless manner of transcription, with crucial wind passages left out and only the accompanimental figures in the strings retained. As a result, some quartets make their own adaptation, working from the orchestral original.

[Turner]

I tried and tried and tried again, including orchestral and choral versions by spectacular conductors like Scherchen and Harnoncourt, and I am great fan of say, Shosty´s 15th Quartet and Pettersson´s 6th Symphony ... but that Haydn piece does not seem to be a work I´m able to really connect to.