Haydn's Haus

[71 dB]

Must have been someone else talking about the liner note booklet of a keyboard sonatas CD. No matter, suffice to say she is an eminent musicologist who knows more about Haydn than most. Sadly, her books have never been translated from German, and even at that, they are rare and expensive. Fortunately, the results have been condensed and quoted elsewhere...

Yes, I wrote all of those sidebar pages over a space of 5 or 6 years, and sadly didn't use a template to insure they matched up. The order they are listed on the side is the default order they were written; if I dig enough into the code, I can find how to change that up. Not a bad idea, really.

If you read any of my essays from that period, you will see that I was pretty excited about that music too!

Yeah the order of the links is as correct as Hoboken numbering is chronological!  anyway, here's the "cleaned up" code for the listing on the right so you can just copy and paste it into your html-file to replace the old code (take a backup copy beforehand of the old one just in case something goes wrong). As for your essays I haven't been reading them yet, but I will study your page more. 

Code Select Expand

<li class="module-list-item"><a href="https://www.fjhaydn.com/my-blog/welcome-to-haydn-seek.html">Welcome to Haydn Seek</a></li>

<li class="module-list-item"><a href="https://www.fjhaydn.com/my-blog/sunrise-over-hoboken.html">Sunrise over Hoboken...</a></li>

<li class="module-list-item"><a href="https://www.fjhaydn.com/my-blog/that-chronology-thing.html">That Chronology Thing</a></li>

<li class="module-list-item"><a href="https://www.fjhaydn.com/my-blog/chronology-of-the-symphonies-part-1-the-morzin-symphonies.html">Chronology of the Symphonies Part 1 - The Morzin Symphonies</a></li>

<li class="module-list-item"><a href="https://www.fjhaydn.com/my-blog/chronology-of-the-symphonies-part-2-the-early-esterházy-symphonies-of-.html">Chronology of the Symphonies Part 2 - The Early Esterházy Symphonies</a></li>

<li class="module-list-item"><a href="https://www.fjhaydn.com/my-blog/chronology-of-the-symphonies-part-3-1767-1774.html">Chronology of the Symphonies part 3 - 1767 - 1774</a></li>

<li class="module-list-item"><a href="https://www.fjhaydn.com/my-blog/the-chronology-of-the-symphonies-part-4-1775-1784-.html">The Chronology of the Symphonies part 4 - 1775 - 1784 </a></li>

<li class="module-list-item"><a href="https://www.fjhaydn.com/my-blog/chronology-of-the-symphonies-part-5-1782-1789.html">Chronology of the Symphonies part 5 - 1782 - 1789</a></li>

<li class="module-list-item"><a href="https://www.fjhaydn.com/my-blog/the-chronology-of-the-symphonies-part-6-1791-1795.html">The Chronology of the Symphonies part 6 - 1791 - 1795</a></li>

<li class="module-list-item"><a href="https://www.fjhaydn.com/my-blog/chronologies-sorting-out-the-keyboard-music-you-wish.html">Chronologies; Sorting out the Keyboard Music – You wish!</a></li>

<li class="module-list-item"><a href="https://www.fjhaydn.com/my-blog/building-a-library.html">Building a Library part 1</a></li>

<li class="module-list-item"><a href="https://www.fjhaydn.com/my-blog/building-a-library-part-2-anthologies.html">Building a Library part 2 - Anthologies</a></li>

                                <li class="module-list-item"><a href="https://www.fjhaydn.com/my-blog/building_your_library_part_3.html">Building a Library part 3 – More anthologies</a></li>

<li class="module-list-item"><a href="https://www.fjhaydn.com/my-blog/building-a-library-part-4.html">Building a Library part 4 - Haydn's visits to England</a></li>

<li class="module-list-item"><a href="https://www.fjhaydn.com/my-blog/musicbydecadepart11750s.html">Haydn's Music by Decade - Part 1 the 1750's</a></li>

<li class="module-list-item"><a href="https://www.fjhaydn.com/my-blog/musicbydecadepart2the1760s.html">Haydn's Music by Decade - Part 2 the 1760's</a></li>

<li class="module-list-item"><a href="https://www.fjhaydn.com/my-blog/haydns-music-by-decade-part-3-the-1770s.html">Haydn's Music by Decade - Part 3 the 1770's</a></li>

<li class="module-list-item"><a href="https://www.fjhaydn.com/my-blog/haydns_music_by_decade_pt_4_1780s.html">Haydn's Music by Decade - Part 4 the 1780's </a></li>

<li class="module-list-item"><a href="https://www.fjhaydn.com/my-blog/haydns-music-by-decade-the-1790s-part-1.html">Haydn's Music by Decade - The 1790's - part 1</a></li>

<li class="module-list-item"><a href="https://www.fjhaydn.com/my-blog/haydns-music-by-decade-the-1790s-part-2.html">Haydn's Music by Decade - The 1790's - part 2</a></li>

<li class="module-list-item"><a href="https://www.fjhaydn.com/my-blog/100-scottish-national-airs-for-william-napier-part-1-1792.html">100 Scottish National Airs for William Napier - part 1 - 1792</a></li>

<li class="module-list-item"><a href="https://www.fjhaydn.com/my-blog/1795-50-scottish-songs-for-william-napier.html">50 Scottish National Airs for William Napier - part 2 - 1795</a></li>

[Gurn Blanston]

Yeah the order of the links is as correct as Hoboken numbering is chronological!  anyway, here's the "cleaned up" code for the listing on the right so you can just copy and paste it into your html-file to replace the old code (take a backup copy beforehand of the old one just in case something goes wrong). As for your essays I haven't been reading them yet, but I will study your page more. 

Code Select Expand

<li class="module-list-item"><a href="https://www.fjhaydn.com/my-blog/welcome-to-haydn-seek.html">Welcome to Haydn Seek</a></li>

<li class="module-list-item"><a href="https://www.fjhaydn.com/my-blog/sunrise-over-hoboken.html">Sunrise over Hoboken...</a></li>

<li class="module-list-item"><a href="https://www.fjhaydn.com/my-blog/that-chronology-thing.html">That Chronology Thing</a></li>

<li class="module-list-item"><a href="https://www.fjhaydn.com/my-blog/chronology-of-the-symphonies-part-1-the-morzin-symphonies.html">Chronology of the Symphonies Part 1 - The Morzin Symphonies</a></li>

<li class="module-list-item"><a href="https://www.fjhaydn.com/my-blog/chronology-of-the-symphonies-part-2-the-early-esterházy-symphonies-of-.html">Chronology of the Symphonies Part 2 - The Early Esterházy Symphonies</a></li>

<li class="module-list-item"><a href="https://www.fjhaydn.com/my-blog/chronology-of-the-symphonies-part-3-1767-1774.html">Chronology of the Symphonies part 3 - 1767 - 1774</a></li>

<li class="module-list-item"><a href="https://www.fjhaydn.com/my-blog/the-chronology-of-the-symphonies-part-4-1775-1784-.html">The Chronology of the Symphonies part 4 - 1775 - 1784 </a></li>

<li class="module-list-item"><a href="https://www.fjhaydn.com/my-blog/chronology-of-the-symphonies-part-5-1782-1789.html">Chronology of the Symphonies part 5 - 1782 - 1789</a></li>

<li class="module-list-item"><a href="https://www.fjhaydn.com/my-blog/the-chronology-of-the-symphonies-part-6-1791-1795.html">The Chronology of the Symphonies part 6 - 1791 - 1795</a></li>

<li class="module-list-item"><a href="https://www.fjhaydn.com/my-blog/chronologies-sorting-out-the-keyboard-music-you-wish.html">Chronologies; Sorting out the Keyboard Music – You wish!</a></li>

<li class="module-list-item"><a href="https://www.fjhaydn.com/my-blog/building-a-library.html">Building a Library part 1</a></li>

<li class="module-list-item"><a href="https://www.fjhaydn.com/my-blog/building-a-library-part-2-anthologies.html">Building a Library part 2 - Anthologies</a></li>

                                <li class="module-list-item"><a href="https://www.fjhaydn.com/my-blog/building_your_library_part_3.html">Building a Library part 3 – More anthologies</a></li>

<li class="module-list-item"><a href="https://www.fjhaydn.com/my-blog/building-a-library-part-4.html">Building a Library part 4 - Haydn's visits to England</a></li>

<li class="module-list-item"><a href="https://www.fjhaydn.com/my-blog/musicbydecadepart11750s.html">Haydn's Music by Decade - Part 1 the 1750's</a></li>

<li class="module-list-item"><a href="https://www.fjhaydn.com/my-blog/musicbydecadepart2the1760s.html">Haydn's Music by Decade - Part 2 the 1760's</a></li>

<li class="module-list-item"><a href="https://www.fjhaydn.com/my-blog/haydns-music-by-decade-part-3-the-1770s.html">Haydn's Music by Decade - Part 3 the 1770's</a></li>

<li class="module-list-item"><a href="https://www.fjhaydn.com/my-blog/haydns_music_by_decade_pt_4_1780s.html">Haydn's Music by Decade - Part 4 the 1780's </a></li>

<li class="module-list-item"><a href="https://www.fjhaydn.com/my-blog/haydns-music-by-decade-the-1790s-part-1.html">Haydn's Music by Decade - The 1790's - part 1</a></li>

<li class="module-list-item"><a href="https://www.fjhaydn.com/my-blog/haydns-music-by-decade-the-1790s-part-2.html">Haydn's Music by Decade - The 1790's - part 2</a></li>

<li class="module-list-item"><a href="https://www.fjhaydn.com/my-blog/100-scottish-national-airs-for-william-napier-part-1-1792.html">100 Scottish National Airs for William Napier - part 1 - 1792</a></li>

<li class="module-list-item"><a href="https://www.fjhaydn.com/my-blog/1795-50-scottish-songs-for-william-napier.html">50 Scottish National Airs for William Napier - part 2 - 1795</a></li>

Cool, thanks!   

[Gurn Blanston]

Cool, thanks!   

You would have thought with all that coding done beforehand it would have been a snap, but no, not the case. The blog site software only allows me to choose a page listing module, and choose to arrange it by either title or creation date. I went for title this time because I was fairly consistent in titling the pages, and it does look better, however, it isn't what I would have chosen to do. Going with Typepad has limited what I can do to what IT can do, and at this point, rolling 240 essays and pages over to Wordpress or one of the others would be prohibitively time consuming (all you can do is roll over text, no formatting, no pictures, no tables &c.). Still, playing around with it to improve the presentation is worthwhile, and I still have about 20 essays to write. My next blog I will do differently.

[Jo498]

Madiel, you are playing dumb and I am not going to play along. I realize that there are some people with obsessive traits that I might not be able to understand. I never denied that some numberings (or most, actually) are "wrong" if one tries to read off an exact chronology. But I still deny that this is a problem for the musical practice. (Clearing up chronologies might be an interesting task for some musicologistq although I'd suspect that in many cases it is not a very interesting and hardly a worthwhile research goal).
For me as a listener it is far more annoying to have to consult catalogues and concordances if I want to know which Scarlatti sonatas are on an older disc that has only Longo-Numbers, not Kirkpatrick. Or double check Haydn's Trios and Piano sonatas because of non-Hoboken numberings that are sometimes used. If Haydn's symphonies would be re-numbered according to Huss we would have two numbers all the time, or in practice would still use Hoboken anyway, or most likely and worst, several systems would be used and there would be a lot of confusion.

[SurprisedByBeauty]

Ditto.

Maybe he'll start doing youtube reviews like Hurwitz. That'd be cool.

I could ask him. 

[Madiel]

Madiel, you are playing dumb and I am not going to play along.

I am not playing dumb. You're just being a real jerk.

If you don't think there's any significance to Haydn's last 12 symphonies being the ones numbered from 92-104, representing two sets of 6 from each of his 2 London visits, then you're going against pretty well all of the musical profession as well as every damn composer who numbered their works, every film series where film number 2 followed film number 1, and in fact pretty well every person on the planet who comprehends that numbers are SEQUENCES. Did you not learn how to count in order as a child? It's a basic skill, and you're trying to tell me it doesn't matter that Symphony 72 was written way, way before Symphony 71... even though you managed to faintly acknowledge this was misleading.

You're basically saying that it's perfectly fine that people have to learn random facts like when symphonies 32, 37 and 72 were written rather than having a numbering system meet the standard expectations they've had since childhood of inherently providing sequence information. You don't see a problem in a person who wants to know what other works Haydn wrote around symphony 44, which they really like, not being able to assume that 40-43 and 45-48 are valid answers.

Next you'll be telling me that you'd be fine with a dictionary that didn't have the words in alphabetical order. They didn't used to have alphabetical order once upon a time, you know. Encyclopaedias would organise material on theological lines.

Maybe you live for the excitement of not knowing whether or not you're next in the queue.

It's not "playing dumb" to point out that while wilfully and determinedly arguing against me, you eventually had to acknowledge my basic point. If a numbering system is misleading as to order, then there's no point to using a numbering system! Use something that doesn't imply sequence!

Meanwhile you seem perfectly happy, while complaining that people shouldn't revise numbering systems or devise new ones, to use Hoboken instead of opus numbers!

[Madiel]

Might I also add that I never presented this as being somehow one of the world's great problems. All I said was that it is a problem, after you said there was no problem at all.

It's the claiming that we couldn't do better that I find absurd, not least because people have been revising and improving numbering systems for composers for a century or more, and nearly all systems attempt to be chronological.  Because, you know, traditionally numbers come in a certain order!

PS I keep finding my compact discs start with track 1. How peculiar.

[George]

I could ask him. 

Do it! I was (and am) serious by the way.

[mc ukrneal]

I could ask him. 

It would be awesome if he said yes. I hope he'll take your calls!

[71 dB]

Well, instead of numbering problems I try to concentrate on the music. I listened to Symphony #49 (Dorati) and liked it. So far so good...
...next seems to be #26 which is also in minor key. 

[Karl Henning]

Well, instead of numbering problems I try to concentrate on the music.

The right priority. Happy listening!

[calyptorhynchus]

I am not playing dumb. You're just being a real jerk.

If you don't think there's any significance to Haydn's last 12 symphonies being the ones numbered from 92-104, representing two sets of 6 from each of his 2 London visits, then you're going against pretty well all of the musical profession as well as every damn composer who numbered their works, every film series where film number 2 followed film number 1, and in fact pretty well every person on the planet who comprehends that numbers are SEQUENCES. Did you not learn how to count in order as a child? It's a basic skill, and you're trying to tell me it doesn't matter that Symphony 72 was written way, way before Symphony 71... even though you managed to faintly acknowledge this was misleading.

You're basically saying that it's perfectly fine that people have to learn random facts like when symphonies 32, 37 and 72 were written rather than having a numbering system meet the standard expectations they've had since childhood of inherently providing sequence information. You don't see a problem in a person who wants to know what other works Haydn wrote around symphony 44, which they really like, not being able to assume that 40-43 and 45-48 are valid answers.

Next you'll be telling me that you'd be fine with a dictionary that didn't have the words in alphabetical order. They didn't used to have alphabetical order once upon a time, you know. Encyclopaedias would organise material on theological lines.

Maybe you live for the excitement of not knowing whether or not you're next in the queue.

It's not "playing dumb" to point out that while wilfully and determinedly arguing against me, you eventually had to acknowledge my basic point. If a numbering system is misleading as to order, then there's no point to using a numbering system! Use something that doesn't imply sequence!

Meanwhile you seem perfectly happy, while complaining that people shouldn't revise numbering systems or devise new ones, to use Hoboken instead of opus numbers!

+1

[aukhawk]

Listening to Symphony #44 "Mourning" (Dorati) and loving it! This is definitely the right kind of Haydn for me. I do like Haydn in minor keys...  0:)

Me too.  Unfortunately for us he only wrote a rather small proportion of his music in minor.    A product of his time of course - music was supposed to be uplisting and aspirational, just like the general conversation and philosophy of the day.  It is practically part of the definition of "what is a symphony?" that it should end on a high - and that is part of 'Papa' Haydn's legacy.

But that is one reason why I like the Op.20 as a set - it is the only one of Haydn's sets that includes two minor-key quartets - all the rest have only one.

[Jo498]

If you don't think there's any significance to Haydn's last 12 symphonies being the ones numbered from 92-104, representing two sets of 6 from each of his 2 London visits, then you're going against pretty well all of the musical profession as well as every damn composer who numbered their works, every film series where film number 2 followed film number 1, and in fact pretty well every person on the planet who comprehends that numbers are SEQUENCES. Did you not learn how to count in order as a child? It's a basic skill, and you're trying to tell me it doesn't matter that Symphony 72 was written way, way before Symphony 71... even though you managed to faintly acknowledge this was misleading.

You're basically saying that it's perfectly fine that people have to learn random facts like when symphonies 32, 37 and 72 were written rather than having a numbering system meet the standard expectations they've had since childhood of inherently providing sequence information. You don't see a problem in a person who wants to know what other works Haydn wrote around symphony 44, which they really like, not being able to assume that 40-43 and 45-48 are valid answers.

You keep totally ignoring my point. I didn't write or imply at all what you try to put in my mouth. (What you write about the two London sets is clearly reflected in the current numbering, the main wrong thing is that the Concertante is put at the very end.)  I don't think people should learn such random facts. In a nutshell, I think they should rather look up such random facts like when a piece was probably written if they are interested in this than having to bother all the time with two or three alternative and periodically amended and revised numberings. Furthermore in your example the assumption is close anough for six out of seven pieces because all but #40 were in fact written temporally close to #44.
Put very simply: For me the errors in the traditional numbering are a not a problem, but alternative numberings would be (or actually are in the cases they already exist). Of the two objectives of numbering I think that the unique identification of a piece is more important than that a chronology is correctly shown. Because the latter is often difficult to assess, object to revision and in some cases not uniquely resolvable. I'd rather look up such stuff than be frequently in doubt which piece one is talking about. With Huss' re-numbering 92 becomes 94, they are both in G major and very popular, so one would always have to give the older number or the nickname to make sure which one is played or talked about (similar with 101 than becomes 104 and I am not searching for more examples).
In most later music we have the convention that we number by publication order, not by composition order, so in a case like Beethoven's hardly anybody is bothered in the least by piano sonatas 19&20 having such high numbers because of their late printing. There will always be things one has to look up if one wants to know because such information is not easily represented by a simple number.

Meanwhile you seem perfectly happy, while complaining that people shouldn't revise numbering systems or devise new ones, to use Hoboken instead of opus numbers!

No, for string quartets one should use Opus numbers, because Hoboken is messed up (e.g counting op.3 which is not by Haydn and counting op.51 as 7 pieces, although it is either one piece or 9). In my very first reply wrt numbering I wrote that it is a problem for sonatas and trios because there are different common numberings. The practical problems concern identification and potential confusion, chronology can be looked up anyway. There will always be borderline cases because composers and publishers changed orders for publication etc. Beethoven put his op.18 in a particular order for publication, so revising this according to probable order of composition would basically hide this fact. Nobody would do this.

[Jo498]

Me too.  Unfortunately for us he only wrote a rather small proportion of his music in minor.    A product of his time of course - music was supposed to be uplisting and aspirational, just like the general conversation and philosophy of the day.  It is practically part of the definition of "what is a symphony?" that it should end on a high - and that is part of 'Papa' Haydn's legacy.

It seems that other composers of his time wrote even less in the minor. Mozart has 2 of 40-50 symphonies whereas Haydn has about 10 of 104. IIRC Michael Haydn has none in the minor among 40+ symphonies. In the high baroque one would usually have about half of a collection of 6 or 12 pieces in the minor, in classicism about one or two.

[Madiel]

You keep totally ignoring my point.

Yes, well maybe I tend to do that when people accuse me of "playing dumb" while ignoring MY point. 

Your point consists pretty much entirely of explaining why you think I'm wrong to say a more consistent numbering system would be preferable. In the process, you've repeatedly said that because YOU don't give a shit about such things, anyone who does give a shit about things is simply wrong. It's not a problem FOR YOU, so no-one else can even say the smallest thing about it being a problem.

I never said a word against the benefits of each work having a unique number, by the way, which is why I ignored all your ranting about how valuable that was. I never said otherwise, you jerk. I ignored your supposed "point" because I'd never argued against it in the first place.

All you had to do in the first place was acknowledge that yes, sometimes a symphony number is misleading as to when Haydn wrote it and consequently the style of the work. That was all. Instead you had to belittle musicologists and 'obsessive' people.

By the way, I actually helped write Australia's telephone numbering system, so your idea that telephone numbers are ONLY about unique mapping and don't have any other kind of structure? Laughably wrong.

We're done here.

[DaveF]

Regarding the numbering of the symphonies, I solve the problem by having my complete set (Fischer) ordered by date on iTunes - dates taken from Gurn's website, of course.  And although it's not relevant to this thread, who on earth thought BWV numbers were a good idea?

[Madiel]

Regarding the numbering of the symphonies, I solve the problem by having my complete set (Fischer) ordered by date on iTunes - dates taken from Gurn's website, of course.

Seems eminently sensible. For symphonies 1-75 plus 'A' and 'B' I have them in the Hogwood box, where the symphonies are largely chronological (originally volumes of 3 discs, with each volume a chronological group but the individual symphonies in number order within the volume). Of course this means that when I'm looking at a list of the symphonies in number order, I need a note reminding me what CD I'll find each one on...

And although it's not relevant to this thread, who on earth thought BWV numbers were a good idea?

Indeed.

[Biffo]

Regarding the numbering of the symphonies, I solve the problem by having my complete set (Fischer) ordered by date on iTunes - dates taken from Gurn's website, of course.  And although it's not relevant to this thread, who on earth thought BWV numbers were a good idea?

BWV numbers are an excellent idea. Bach has a vast output and each one has a unique BWV number and that is all I need.

[Madiel]

BWV numbers are an excellent idea. Bach has a vast output and each one has a unique BWV number and that is all I need.

I can only assume you have zero interest in following Bach's cantatas through a liturgical year. If you did want to do that, you would need something else.

Not done it myself, but I'm given to understand quite a lot of people like doing that. Not least because of the evidence that Bach himself cared about it.