Haydn's Haus

[alkan]

Hi Lethe,

Sorry to contact you this way, but your PM mailbox is full and rejects incoming messages.

Just wanted to thank you for your recent PM ....

Best wishes .... A

[Sorin Eushayson]

Again, I love HIP performances too and in this forum anyway, I'm one of the few who actually loves the most radical Beethoven cycle: Norrington's LCP.

Heck yeah - I tip my hat to you, sir!  

My favourite modern recording of #101 is currently Kuijken and La Petite Bande.      The semi-HIP approach...

Huh??? La Petite Bande is HIP to the core, a Baroque Ensemble playing on guts!

This whole debate about the ordering of the Haydn symphonies is rather confusing...  At least the Hoboken catalogue is more category-based instead of trying to list everything (fallibly) like Kochel did with Mozart!

[Gurn Blanston]

Heck yeah - I tip my hat to you, sir!  

Huh??? La Petite Bande is HIP to the core, a Baroque Ensemble playing on guts!

This whole debate about the ordering of the Haydn symphonies is rather confusing...  At least the Hoboken catalogue is more category-based instead of trying to list everything (fallibly) like Kochel did with Mozart!

Yes, given Haydn's great range of genre's, even though it causes me inconveniences at times, I have to say it is a good approach. Where Hoboken could have done better would have been to try to arrange things within the category chronologically. Or perhaps he did, and the level of knowledge at the time simply wouldn't allow it.... hell, it doesn't really allow it now!



----------------
Listening to:
Haydn, Franz Joseph - Hob 01 050 Symphony in C 2nd mvmt - Andante moderato

[DavidW]

I think this whole semi-HIP business comes from people expecting that HIP = fast.  I've heard just as many modern style performances that are fast as I have period style.  Tempo is a very poor indication of whether something is a period performance or not.

[Sergeant Rock]

Can I get a witness?

I can't personally testify but can say if Jens is critical of the Buchberger, I'll stay away from their cycle. Over the last three, four years he's been, to me, an unerring guide in the string quartet repertoire. He's been a keen advocate of groups like the Ebène, Mandelring and Jerusalem, quartets I might have overlooked otherwise but which are now among my favorites. I trust the man.

Sarge

[Harry]

I think that is a rather dramatic statement, and the Buchberger's do not deserve that, for there is also critical acclaim. True this Haydn may not be for everyones taste, but that doesn't mean that those musicians are sloppy players or lacking in professional integrity. I started with this series and I enjoy them to a certain point, my only quibble being with the choice of tempi, apart from that, they can hold their own on the market, and its certainly no set to shy away from in my opinion. 

[DavidW]

I can't personally testify but can say if Jens is critical of the Buchberger, I'll stay away from their cycle. Over the last three, four years he's been, to me, an unerring guide in the string quartet repertoire. He's been a keen advocate of groups like the Ebène, Mandelring and Jerusalem, quartets I might have overlooked otherwise but which are now among my favorites. I trust the man.

Sarge

Yeah he also likes slow, sedate salon music for Haydn robbed of all vitality just like you. hehehe

I think that is a rather dramatic statement, and the Buchberger's do not deserve that, for there is also critical acclaim. True this Haydn may not be for everyones taste, but that doesn't mean that those musicians are sloppy players or lacking in professional integrity. I started with this series and I enjoy them to a certain point, my only quibble being with the choice of tempi, apart from that, they can hold there own on the market, and its certainly no set to shy away from in my opinion. 

QFT.  When Jens said that they were sloppy, technically deficient or however he put it, I did listen carefully... and well he's just flat out wrong.  I did expect a professional critic to distinguish between artistic choices he disagrees with and sloppy playing.  It's not sloppy, it's simply disagreeable to some. 

I think that Snips review was a little more honest because he said enough to reveal that he found the tempo choices distasteful.  I think that all of Jen's criticism of their playing boils down to him being put off by their rushed tempos, emphatic inflection and choppy phrasing.  Those are all a matter of taste.  Music is not correct only if played in the romantic style approach of sedate tempos and legato phrasing.  In fact it does 18th century composers a disservice.  What unifies Snips, Jens and Sarge is that they prefer these things.  Whether the performers label themselves as HIP or modern, it gets a thumbs up from those three if the tempos are on the slower side and the melodic line is long and uninterrupted.

[Gurn Blanston]

I think this whole semi-HIP business comes from people expecting that HIP = fast.  I've heard just as many modern style performances that are fast as I have period style.  Tempo is a very poor indication of whether something is a period performance or not.

QFT.

I don't know about Alkan's personal preferences, so I don't include him in that group, but if, in your mind, you think that any performance that is faster than you expected is HIP; or that any performance that claims to be HIP is automatically going to be faster than you will like, then you need to learn some things. Being constantly exposed to sweeping generalization, essentially ill- informed, gets old after a while...

[alkan]

Huh??? La Petite Bande is HIP to the core, a Baroque Ensemble playing on guts!

Yes, I made a mistake.   I was thinking of Fischer and the AH Orchestra.

Now that we seem to be into a debate on HIP, here is what it means to me.

1. A new point of view compared to the "conventional" readings that I have heard before.
2. Greater transparency and leaner, thus allowing me to discover new things
3. Some original and thrilling sounds, usually in the brass/woodwind/percussion sections

I think that Haydn's symphonies are particularly fruitful for HIP ....

[Gurn Blanston]

Yes, I made a mistake.   I was thinking of Fischer and the AH Orchestra.

Now that we seem to be into a debate on HIP, here is what it means to me.

1. A new point of view compared to the "conventional" readings that I have heard before.
2. Greater transparency and leaner, thus allowing me to discover new things
3. Some original and thrilling sounds, usually in the brass/woodwind/percussion sections

I think that Haydn's symphonies are particularly fruitful for HIP ....

Yep, that would be a good example.

I agree with your 3 points, those are all attractions for me, too. It's funny to me that I can fairly easily identify any number of HIP performances by performers if I have heard them before, since they each seem to have a unique take on things. But You could play me 10 different modern instrument/interpretation performances that I was very familiar with, and I wouldn't be able to identify a single one of them. I know because I've tried it. Sad.

[Mandryka]

I have been listeningh to Haydn Symphony 39 played by David Blum and The Esterhazy Orchestra. Listening to this has prompted some thoughts about Haydn performance practice which I'll post -- though I am sure that what I have to say isn't quite right yet!

There's a generation of Haydn performers which is sandwiched between HIP and Big Band. They used modern instruments and small orchestras and were informed by the HIP movement with regard to balance, rhythms, tempos etc. There's Blum and the Esterhazy, Jones and the Little London Orchestra, Solomon and L'Estro Armonico. And I see Woldike as in this group, even though his orchestra is relatively large.

I like this style -- traditional big band Haydn hides a lot of the music because the balances favour the strings so much. And very often the result is stodge -- like in Beecham's last recording of the late Londons (he's better in the earlier Londons.) Of course some of the old school conductors were more sympathetic to Haydn than Beecham - I like Fricsay; I like Van Beinem. And Scherchen has his moments (in 80 for example). And Klemperer is amazingly transparent given the size the machine he is driving.

I need to explore real HIP Haydn more - Fey with the Heidelberger Sinfoniker seems to me to often sound brash and brassy - and mannered, with hairpin changes of tempo and pointless mammoth changes in dynamics. He captures the mad maverik genius quality of Haydn -- at the expense of the grace and style. And Fey is deadly earnest -- I find that completely repellent.

I have some Kuijken -- a set containing 88 -- but it has left no impression on me at all. I know he has his fans and I will give him another go -- recommendations appreciated.

I haven't heard Brueggen's Haydn yet - I must do that.

So who is working in this intermediate style today? Three come to mind. Mackerras (just -- he's over 80 I think); Harnoncourt (He's no spring chicken either.) And The Orpheus Chamber Orchestra.

[DavidW]

So who is working in this intermediate style today? Three come to mind. Mackerras (just -- he's over 80 I think); Harnoncourt (He's no spring chicken either.) And The Orpheus Chamber Orchestra.

Russell Davies has just finished his complete cycle and he fits in that group.  Obviously the Fischer cycle from the 90s fits in, but that's not today, that's yesterday.

[Joe Barron]

Great story, Joe, thanks for the link. If I lived in Philadelphia, I would most certainly be there. Your story does clarify the point that I brought up in my post the other night; dating some of these works is more than a little difficult.

With some of the pieces, the best you can say is that it was written before such and such a date. Grove gives the year for for one of the work in the program as "by 1781," although the style suggests it could have been written 10 to 20 years earlier.

[not edward]

QFT.

I don't know about Alkan's personal preferences, so I don't include him in that group, but if, in your mind, you think that any performance that is faster than you expected is HIP; or that any performance that claims to be HIP is automatically going to be faster than you will like, then you need to learn some things. Being constantly exposed to sweeping generalization, essentially ill- informed, gets old after a while...

Yeah, and if you believe that I've got some HIP performances from the 1950s conducted by Hermann Scherchen.

After all, his 1958 Eroica uses hard timpani sticks!

[jlaurson]

I think that Snips review was a little more honest because he said enough to reveal that he found the tempo choices distasteful.  I think that all of Jen's criticism of their playing boils down to him being put off by their rushed tempos, emphatic inflection and choppy phrasing.  Those are all a matter of taste.  Music is not correct only if played in the romantic style approach of sedate tempos and legato phrasing.  In fact it does 18th century composers a disservice.  What unifies Snips, Jens and Sarge is that they prefer these things.  Whether the performers label themselves as HIP or modern, it gets a thumbs up from those three if the tempos are on the slower side and the melodic line is long and uninterrupted.

I should hope that my criticism of the Buchbergers be considered a little more carefully than through out-of-context paraphrases from another poster in this forum or your own presumptions. I've stated in my reviews of the bit of the Haydn Quartets that I have reviewed so far (http://www.weta.org/fmblog/?p=592 & http://www.weta.org/fmblog/?p=558) that I like the tempo choices of the Buchbergers... but not always their playing. True, in op.17 I find them rather (more?) unsatisfactory... the review of op.17 isn't up yet, though. I think the little quote below shows that I operate at least with some modicum of temperateness when making judgments on these matters:

The Buchberger Quartet (Brilliant) tend to open the quartets with a very fast first movement (especially no.1, no.5, no.6); we get a much more deliberate Moderato from the Kodály Quartet (Naxos)—befitting the intermittent 'pedal point' in no.1, lavish in no.5, sensuous in no.6, but notably less nippy. That trend continues throughout most movements of op.9, even where the timings don't indicate that: the Buchbergers, unlike their Hungarian colleagues, don't skip any repeats . Occasionally the Naxos players have at little glue on their soles compared to the Brilliant band. The sound is comparable: well caught but in neither case the last word in quartet-refinement. The Buchberger's tone is a little more direct and rough, the Kodály's rounder. Wherever the tempos are similar or the Kodály faster, the considerably greater refinement of the latter wins out to my ears. In short: Buchberger for buoyancy, Kodály for caring phrasing.

Cheers & best regards,

jfl

[Gurn Blanston]

Yeah, and if you believe that I've got some HIP performances from the 1950s conducted by Hermann Scherchen.

After all, his 1958 Eroica uses hard timpani sticks!

Case in point.I haven't heard his Haydn, but everything else I've heard by him just flies! Point being, not too many will say that he was attempting a HIP performance, at least I haven't ever read so.



Hard sticks? Travesty!    

[Mandryka]

That Haydn series by Scherchen is quite extraordinary in its way. Maybe not so interesting in the London symphonies -- but I would be very curious to know if anyone thinks he is surpassed in 80 -- HIP or not. And same in 88 -- which is strange but powerful.

Scherchen's 80, by the way, is, at the moment, most favourite symphony recording in the world. At the moment.

Part of the challenge is that there are so many interesting Haydn symphonies and so few really interesting performances on record.

[snyprrr]

salon music?



Sorry, I didn't mean to bring Jens into it (wasn't that in the META-4 Op.55 post?), but I just felt that strongly about what I heard: caffeinated tempos, readthrough passion (read: none), phrasing???, sorry, but what I heard in 54/55 waaas slopppy in the really fast ornamental stuff (keep in mind that Haydn had started utilizing the Mozart slither... that chromatic up and down that it so characteristic of the era- and these guys are just not up to the Kodaly in sheer basic terms.

And, sonically, I thought the recording sounded a bit Iron Curtain era,... mmm, just bright and not so flattering, I dunno,... someone out there has it, you tell me.

As far as tempos, puh-leez,... the Lindsays can be counted upon to deliver the crispest, cleanest, and spot on super fast finales (despite their reputation in other matters), and the Endellions are reliable...you're just not allowed to go faster than this, it's true, I'm not making this up . There are rules to playing this stuff, no? I'm not arguing.

If ANYONE thinks their 54/1, first mvmt., is not cartoonishly fast, I would say, a recital group channeling the Emersons on acid, haha,...all the great moments on these sets are ruined, in one way or another, especially the LvB bit in 54/2, and the f-minor slow intro of the "Razor" (that's? passion???). I DID like some things they did, but it is all quite irrelevant in the balance.

but, tempo aside, I'm sorry, but I heard, was it bad playing, or just bad Haydn playing? The lead violinist? Since others feel differently, I won't go on, but on this particular issue, 54/55, a very demanding set, and one that haaas already super great interpretations by most everyone, the Buchberger can't compete at all. My money's on that.

Perhaps they do other Haydn "phases" better. Still, I guess if you guys like them, ok, but for anyone coming new to this group, I will stand out as a great big WARNING. I'd steer ya towards the Kodaly for the cheap option, or, selectively, the Lindsays (read some reviews; there cheap, too); however, my personal recommendation is to get a different group for each opus!, based on research, and then some!!! and then keep going...what's Haydn worth ya?

I'm so glad we're all friends again!

[Que]

Still no Festetics, snyprrr?

Enjoying the journey and saving the best for last, are you?

Anyway, I can't wait for your comments on them sizzling and shooting across this thread.

Q

[Sergeant Rock]

Yeah he also likes slow, sedate salon music for Haydn robbed of all vitality just like you. hehehe

I do? I didn't realize the Quatuor Mosaiques' Haydn or the Jerusalem's (my favorite Haydn groups) are slow and sedate. I think you are confusing speed with vitality. They aren't the same. But anyway, better slow and sedate than frenetic and unfeeling. But I understand you have that little ADD problem, David   Apparently you need performances that get the music over with as quickly as possible because you're always in danger of losing interest and falling asleep  But the slow pace of the 18th century combined with mostly amateur playing make it highly unlikely these quartets were played terribly fast. HIP=rushed speeds? I don't think so.

As for the accusation that the speeds I like turn Haydn into salon music: I think fast speeds actually do that. Haydn is often accused of being minor league because his music is perceived as light-weight and essentially "happy." The speed demon condutors and quartets just reinforce that perception. The music is played so fast there's little room for emotional inflection; no plumbing the depths. Listen to the way Weil, for example, plays a slow movement compared to Bernstein or Klemperer. Who's taking Haydn seriously? Who's bringing out the deep emotions? A perfect example of this in the quartets was posted a few weeks ago by Antoine: clips from op.9 by the Festetics and London Haydn. The Festetics make the music sound like it was written by Papa Haydn: insignificant music for the parlor; nothing to take seriously. Just slam bam, get it over with as quickly as possible. The London Haydn, though, at a far slower tempo, realize the profound depths that are inherent in the music. Suddenly we're hearing the Haydn that could have influenced Beethoven.

That you couldn't hear that is astonishing to me. In fact, you heard the exact opposite. You wrote: The Festetics Quartet plays passionately [speed equals passion to you   I feel sorry for your significant other ], and the London Haydn Quartet is dull as dishwater. The latter makes Haydn sound pretty and that's it, the former found the emotional heart of the piece."

I'm flabbergasted (yes, my flabbers are gasted). The London Haydn, merely pretty? The Festetics found the emotional heart? Unreal. To my ears they just played it fast, completely missing not only the heart of the music, but the emotional depths. Que mentioned the London Haydn missed the wit. Is there even supposed to be wit in that first movement? Can't Haydn ever be taken seriously? Must he always be a joke? I guess you all want easy listening Haydn, a composer to put a smile on your face while not thinking too hard about life. A Haydn that doesn't disturb...which is perfectly okay. Enough groups cater to that taste. To each his own. Me, I'll take "slow and sedate"  

Sarge