Haydn's Haus

[Jo498]

Going through the Hogwood Haydn set, I have come to Symphony 54 in G: First version. With an extra Minuet/Trio in C and extra Finale in C, both parenthetically dated to 1773-74.  Symphony 54 in G: Second version appears three CDs down the road.

There are, of course, no pertinent liner notes included, so I am left befuddled. There are two or three symphonies numbered 54, and no explanation of why.

Enlighten me, please!

I think we had this already at some stage, try to search the forum or have a look at Gurn's website. I can't imagine he has not covered it.
I think I have the original volume with the liner notes but right now I do not have the leisure to look it up. They are not different symphonies (only intro and/or instrumentation changed) and I seem to recall that the fragment (minuet + finale) had nothing to do with 54 in the end.

[kishnevi]

I think we had this already at some stage, try to search the forum or have a look at Gurn's website. I can't imagine he has not covered it.
I think I have the original volume with the liner notes but right now I do not have the leisure to look it up. They are not different symphonies (only intro and/or instrumentation changed) and I seem to recall that the fragment (minuet + finale) had nothing to do with 54 in the end.

Thanks to Gurn, I have a partial answer.  Your memory is correct. (Version 2 has a larger instrumentarium.)

So we know what Haydn did here, at least.

[Gurn Blanston]

The Symphonic Repertoire; Volume 2: The First Golden Age of the Viennese Symphony by A. Peter Brown

p. 153
"Symphony #54 is transmitted in 3 versions. In its autograph first version, the slow introduction to the first movement is missing and the scoring is for 2 oboes, bassoon, 2 horns & strings. Later, the slow introduction was added (1776??) and perhaps a second bassoon and timpani parts. Landon believes that the flute and trumpet parts were added for performance in London. As a result, depending on what version of the instrumentation is used, the symphony's sound can be that of the 1770's or perhaps the 1790's."

Now, some comments about that just on my own. The second bassoon would not have been in the first version because they didn't have two bassoons then. By 1776 he did have a second bassoon, and so he added in a part. I am in the camp that goes for all the changes being made in 1776, that is, the Maestoso introduction and the added instrumentation. Landon committed to that idea sort of in reverse. "An older symphony" was played at one of the 1795 concerts, and although it was not identified, Landon worked out that it could well have been #54, especially since it had circulated in London years before. So he calculated that maybe the finishing 'dress-up' occurred then. I don't think so, I (and most others) think it was fixed up in 1776, and it served the purpose of being used in London, if indeed it was. Occam's Razor tells me so. I think he fixed it up in 1776 because he had a use for it, wanted it to be fancier and he had an idea which he effected. Simple as that.    I like vers. 1 but I have to say, I like vers. 2 better!

[kishnevi]

Thanks.  I would be hesitant to say #54 was the "older" symphony played in London, simply because I think Haydn would have preferred to give his audience something they had never heard before.

[Gurn Blanston]

Thanks.  I would be hesitant to say #54 was the "older" symphony played in London, simply because I think Haydn would have preferred to give his audience something they had never heard before.

Well, there is no doubt that an old one was played, the thing is what had they heard and what not? There were a heck of a lot of the ones from the 1770's that were published in London, most of which Haydn didn't even know about. One popular favorite was 'The Imperial' (#53 Hoboken), for example, which is from 1778 or so, and one of the others in the 50's (51??). This wasn't at a Salomon Concert, it was at a benefit, I think. Maybe the one for 'decayed musicians'. The Londoners were funny about things like 'novelty'. Some things, they never got tired of and they would last on the stage for years. Others, once was enough, even if it was a work we consider great. So I am certainly willing to accept an older symphony, I'm just not wanting to attribute this major rewrite, which would be the second one if true, to 1794-95. The situation just doesn't demand it.

[Jo498]

What about the pre-Paris batch that had been written with London in mind?

[Gurn Blanston]

What about the pre-Paris batch that had been written with London in mind?

The first 3...
The second 3.

I included the known publication history in these essays, they were published in Paris, but not officially offered to a London publisher, as far as I can see. Which doesn't mean they didn't get published anyway, only that Haydn didn't get paid for it.

I have never speculated on what that 'old symphony' may have been so I can't offer a reasonable guess, or at least, not one more reasonable than Landon's. I'm sure he had some reason for choosing that one, although it wouldn't be as simple as saying "it was in G major", since I never have seen that phrase used in relation to a symphony in London, it would make things too simple. 

[ritter]

Only tangetially related to Haydn, but this might be of interest to haydnians (if not, I apolgize for the intrusion  ). Today I've revisited a recording I've owned for decades, and hadn't listened to in a long time:



In 1909, to celebrate the centennial of Haydn's death, the French music periodical S.I.M. commissioned 6 leading French composers of the day to produce short piano hommages to the Austrian composer, using a theme based on his name (which, by repeating the sequence A-H [for B]-C-D-E-F-G along the alphabet, turns out to be B-A-D-D-G). The composers who contributed were Debussy, Dukas, Hahn, d'Indy, Ravel and Widor. The resulting Hommage à Joseph Haydn is a quite charming set. Probably the best known piece is Ravel's (a small gem IMHO), and the only one who actually tries to emulate Haydn is Reynaldo Hahn, with a rather quaint pastiche. Widor's fugue sounds more bachian than anything else (and very academic, at that), but Dukas's Prélude élégiaque is exactly that, very elegiac (disarmingly so).

Regards,

[Gurn Blanston]

Only tangetially related to Haydn, but this might be of interest to Haydnians (if not, I apolgize for the intrusion  ). Today I've revisited a recording I've owned for decades, and hadn't listened to in a long time:



In 1909, to celebrate the centennial of Haydn's death, the French music periodical S.I.M. commissioned 6 leading French composers of the day to produce short piano hommages to the Austrian composer, using a theme based on his name (which, by repeating the sequence A-H [for B]-C-D-E-F-G along the alphabet, turns out to be B-A-D-D-G). The composers who contributed were Debussy, Dukas, Hahn, d'Indy, Ravel and Widor. The resulting Hommage à Joseph Haydn is a quite charming set. Probably the best known piece is Ravel's (a small gem IMHO), and the only who actually  tries to emulate Haydn is Reynaldo Hahn, with a rather quaint pastiche. Widor's fugue sounds more bachian than anything else (and very academic, at that), but Dukas's Prélude élégiaque is exactly that, very elegiac (disarmingly so).

Regards,

Cool, thanks!  I have heard the Ravel, but not the others. You're right, it IS a little gem!  Looks interesting, thanks for the recommendation.

[Old Listener]

The first 3...
The second 3.

I included the known publication history in these essays, they were published in Paris, but not officially offered to a London publisher, as far as I can see. Which doesn't mean they didn't get published anyway, only that Haydn didn't get paid for it.

I have never speculated on what that 'old symphony' may have been so I can't offer a reasonable guess, or at least, not one more reasonable than Landon's. I'm sure he had some reason for choosing that one, although it wouldn't be as simple as saying "it was in G major", since I never have seen that phrase used in relation to a symphony in London, it would make things too simple. 

Thanks for the links to your articles.  I read them again and played the Fischer recordings of 76 and 77.  76-81 are all favorites of mine.

Your comments on these symphonies made me think about Haydn's sustaining his creativity over his long career.

[Gurn Blanston]

Thanks for the links to your articles.  I read them again and played the Fischer recordings of 76 and 77.  76-81 are all favorites of mine.

Your comments on these symphonies made me think about Haydn's sustaining his creativity over his long career.

Thanks for reading them. I really like those works, and so I tried to make their stories interesting, but it was challenging because not only are they not played often, they are also not written about very much either! That period in Haydn's life was one of his most creative, as he was switching his focus from pleasing the Prince to pleasing the world at large. I would say he was successful with that...

[Jo498]

So do I correctly understand that there is no indication that Haydn played any of 76-81 in London and we simply have no real clue which one the unknown symphony some take to have been #54 was?

[Gurn Blanston]

So do I correctly understand that there is no indication that Haydn played any of 76-81 in London and we simply have no real clue which one the unknown symphony some take to have been #54 was?

Yes. As for 54, Landon says "I believe it was...", which is hedging his bets, I'm sure. He is pretty damn good at tracking things down, but sometimes there just isn't enough evidence to be sure. IIRC, this one came from a newspaper review, which only said that "the band played an old symphony of Haydn...". Landon may be making a circular argument. He knows they played an old symphony, he knows that #54 was updated in a style that would have made it playable in London, and that Haydn did update some works in just that way, and so he inserts #54 in that spot. It isn't the sort of scholarship he normally employed, but he does make sure to say "could have been...". 

I have found it quite frustrating to try and sort some of this stuff out. There really doesn't exist enough information to be sure of a lot of it. That is one of the reasons it takes me so long to get out a new essay these days; I spend a lot of time trying to verify things.

[Karl Henning]

Yes. As for 54, Landon says "I believe it was...", which is hedging his bets, I'm sure. He is pretty damn good at tracking things down, but sometimes there just isn't enough evidence to be sure. IIRC, this one came from a newspaper review, which only said that "the band played an old symphony of Haydn...". Landon may be making a circular argument. He knows they played an old symphony, he knows that #54 was updated in a style that would have made it playable in London, and that Haydn did update some works in just that way, and so he inserts #54 in that spot. It isn't the sort of scholarship he normally employed, but he does make sure to say "could have been...". 

I have found it quite frustrating to try and sort some of this stuff out. There really doesn't exist enough information to be sure of a lot of it. That is one of the reasons it takes me so long to get out a new essay these days; I spend a lot of time trying to verify things.

Aye, and we appreciate your researches.

[Gurn Blanston]

Aye, and we appreciate your researches.

Thank you, kind sir.

[Florestan]

Aye, and we appreciate your researches.

+ 1

[Mandryka]

Anyone else interested in the new Chiaroscuro Quartet op 20?

[Gurn Blanston]

1796 was a huge year for Haydn. One thing he discovered was among the disadvantages of living long and spending time away: everyone he knew was pretty much dead or gone, except his beloved Missus. I'm just starting out on the year, trying to get a grip, so to say. Here's what I'v learned so far.

Pretty much starting over...

Thanks,

[Karl Henning]

If we Haydnistas listen to only one of the 17 Weinberg string quartets, that quartet is the Eighth (1959) one of whose recurring motives is (I cannot help feeling) a subtle, haunting echo of "Papa's" 94^th Symphony.  Give it a try, and tell me if you think I'm bonkers (I mean, in terms of this claim):

http://www.youtube.com/v/TX0iyydibqg

[Wakefield]

Where to recommend some excellent Haydn played on a fortepiano (copy) that sounds like a true fortepiano, played by an obscure Dutch keyboardist (now dead) and recorded on a tiny label? 

[asin]B004FNC484[/asin]

An appealing new Haydn recording by the Dutch fortepiano specialist Leen de Broekert. This CD includes:

Capriccio in G (Hob. XVII: 1)
The Capriccio in G major dates from 1765. The piece is written in rondo form and, like C. Ph. E. Bach's rondos, it evolves from a single motif. This theme is the folksong Acht Sauschneider müssen seyn: "If you have to geld a boar you need eight people. Two in front, two at the back, two to hold the beast, one to tie him up, one to handle the knife." The piece starts in a simple and naïve way, but in due course it takes the form of a brilliant, compelling improvisation, culminating towards the end in a dramatic fermata, which leads to an inevitable cadenza. The many sequences lend an undeniably baroque flavor to the whole of it.

Andante con Variazioni (Hob. XVII:6)
In 1793 Marianne von Genzinger dies. It is very well possible that Haydn wrote the Andante con Variazioni in reaction to the loss of the woman for whom he felt such an extremely deep sympathy. In the autograph the work is described as Sonata, which probably indicates that the composer planned to write other movements as well. Haydn uses for this piece his favourite double variation formula: two themes – one in the minor, one in the major key – undergo a parallel metamorphosis. Towards the end Haydn drops the caesura marks that separate the minor theme from the major one. Focusing on the dotted  rhythm of the initial motif the composer works, as if in the development section of a sonata, towards an exciting climax.

Leen de Broekert (1949-2009) studied Piano and Organ at the Royal Academy of Music in The Hague. He graduated in both subjects. He also qualified as a harpsichord player and fortepianist with Jos van Immerseel. In 1979 he was one of the laureates of the International Contest for Organ in Bruges, with an honourable citation for his Interpretation of Bach.  As a fortepianist  and organist he was frequently asked for concerts in Germany as well as in Holland. He also performed in England, France, Belgium, Sweden, Austria, Italy and Switzerland and recorded several CDs both on pianoforte and organ. Leen de Broekert was the organist of the Koorkerk (Abbey church) in Middelburg. He died, at the age of sixty, after a short illness, in Middelburg on 29 July 2009.

http://www.zefirrecords.nl/album/5f8b4bbc5e7b1381774/leen-de-broekert_haydn-pianoworks.html

http://www.leendebroekert.nl/cd1.html