Haydn's Haus

[Gurn Blanston]

Precisely. What about it, without looking it up?

The point is, obviously, that without looking it up, I know that Op 71 was written years before Op 75, not just months before. So that is useful. And if I DO look it up, without even leaving the Bia catalog, I can see that it was probably 15 years before, not mere months. That is far more than I know from looking at the opus numbers. And if it isn't important to you, consider that it is important to me, and maybe a few other people...

[Florestan]

Biamonti 118   Op 71 - Sextet for Clarinets, Horns & Bassoons in E flat major   1792-94
Biamonti 502   Op 75 - 6 Songs for Princess Caroline Kinsky                             1809

So just look for a minute, and tell me whether the opus numbers here are useful or deceptive,

Okay. Let's play.

Op. 71 --- 1792-94
Op, 75 --- 1809

I'd say the Op numbering is chronological. Feel free to tell me 1794 is not before 1809.

Biamonti 118 is composed in 1792-94. Biamonti 502 is composed in 1809. I'd say that the Biamonti catalogue is chronological. Feel free to tell me that 118 is not before 502.

What's your point? I don't get it.

[Florestan]

The point is, obviously, that without looking it up, I know that Op 71 was written years before Op 75,

Have I ever claimed otherwise? 

[Gurn Blanston]

Okay. Let's play.

Op. 71 --- 1792-94
Op, 75 --- 1809

I'd say the Op numbering is chronological. Feel free to tell me 1794 is not before 1809.

Biamonti 118 is composed in 1792-94. Biamonti 502 is composed in 1809. I'd say that the Biamonti catalogue is chronological. Feel free to tell me that 118 is not before 502.

What's your point? I don't get it.

Ah, OK, you are stinging from having you butt slapped. I can accept that. So you are readily able to disregard things like this:

Bia 41   Op 103      Octet for Oboes, Clarinets, Horns & Bassoons in E flat major   1792 - 1793

Where Op 103 is chronologically after Op 75 (and 71) yet it is certainly earlier than either of them. BTW, The Biamonti Catalogue is in need of updating just like anything else in this line, but is is a hell of a lot more accurate than Grove or Hess, who don't even try, and Opus numbers, which are a joke.

[Florestan]

Ah, OK, you are stinging from having you butt slapped. I can accept that. So you are readily able to disregard things like this:

Bia 41   Op 103      Octet for Oboes, Clarinets, Horns & Bassoons in E flat major   1792 - 1793

Where Op 103 is chronologically after Op 75 (and 71) yet it is certainly earlier than either of them. BTW, The Biamonti Catalogue is in need of updating just like anything else in this line, but is is a hell of a lot more accurate than Grove or Hess, who don't even try, and Opus numbers, which are a joke.

Good grief! I was just playing along your game! Just please tell me who on this effing earth, except freaking nerds or God-damned contrarians, identify Beethoven's works by Bia number? Heck, what the hell is the Bia number for Op. 13 and who the hell knows it and refers to it as such?

[Gurn Blanston]

Good grief! I was just playing along your game! Just please tell me who on this effing earth, except freaking nerds or God-damned contrarians, identify Beethoven's works by Bia number? Heck, what the hell is the Bia number for Op. 13 and who the hell knows it and refers to it as such?

184. Me. At least I have it filed away like that. All my Beethoven, Mozart, Haydn & Schubert are filed chronologically. My Vivaldi is filed by RV number, which aren't chronological. Very damned inconvenient, that...

Apparently I am both a nerd AND a contrarian. I can live with that.

[Florestan]

184. Me.

Are you seriously going to tell me us that you've just listened to a cracking performance of Bia 184?

Come on, man! It's Op. 13 "Pathetique" and no matter how much you'll twist and turn it around, it'll always be Op. 13 "Pathetique".

Apparently I am both a nerd AND a contrarian.

You are neither --- you just love to appear as one.

[71 dB]

Well, it does come from 1768, which is a little earlier than your period of interest. And it was written to be played during religious services during Passion Week, so it sorta has that tone to it...

Yes, but I am figuring out the exact years of "my period of interest" and how wide that period is. Is it just 1772, or 1771-1773 or 1762-1782 or what? I really like Hob. I: 44 which is from 1770/71 so it looks like the period for me is wider than just 1772. However, 1768 might be "too early", but I need to listen to more. Each period has it's weaker and stronger works... ...I need to establish whether Hob. I: 26 is a weak or strong work for 1768.

[71 dB]

How much longer do people here want to fight over opus numbers? This has been going on for pages now, half of it isn't even about Haydn, but Beethoven etc. Don't we have enough toxic atmosphere in the politics thread? The Hoboken numbers (and other listings) are what they are and we have to live with them or come up with our own "superior" numbers. For me the easiest thing to do is to use the most established numbering system widely in use and translate them into correct chronology (and years) using listings like in the Gurn's pages when necessory. After Hob. I: 26 comes Hob. I: 41 which I just started to listen to. Not hard at all...

[Gurn Blanston]

Are you seriously going to tell me us that you've just listened to a cracking performance of Bia 184?

Come on, man! It's Op. 13 "Pathetique" and no matter how much you'll twist and turn it around, it'll always be Op. 13 "Pathetique".

You are neither --- you just love to appear as one.

Yes, but my interest in it goes a lot deeper than 'Op 13 "Pathetique"'.  I don't have Bia memorized by any means, but when I look through the 3,101 FLAC files on my hard drive of Beethoven works,  just the fact that its file name is "Bia 184 Op 013 Sonata #8 in c for Fortepiano" it tells me something more about it than just 'Pathetique Sonata' does.

I may not be an actual nerd (not many farmers are, even retired ones), but I am definitely nerdish...

[Florestan]

when I look through the 3,101 FLAC files on my hard drive of Beethoven works,  just the fact that its file name is "Bia 184 Op 013 Sonata #8 in c for Fortepiano" it tells me something more about it than just 'Pathetique Sonata' does.

I may not be an actual nerd (not many farmers are, even retired ones), but I am definitely nerdish...

Nerdish....

[Gurn Blanston]

Yes, but I am figuring out the exact years of "my period of interest" and how wide that period is. Is it just 1772, or 1771-1773 or 1762-1782 or what? I really like Hob. I: 44 which is from 1770/71 so it looks like the period for me is wider than just 1772. However, 1768 might be "too early", but I need to listen to more. Each period has it's weaker and stronger works... ...I need to establish whether Hob. I: 26 is a weak or strong work for 1768.

There is a reason why you will find a fairly noticeable difference in the 1768 works from the 1770 and later ones. It is because during 1768, Haydn began an entire series of lessons where he says he went back to the basics of composition and rethought how he did everything. The first result of this is that he started writing string quartets again, which he did for practice more than anything else. The next 4 years (1769-72) produced Op 9, 17 & 20, each one an improvement on the previous ones. But they also produced what came in later years to be called the Sturm und Drang symphonies, which feature the ones you seem mostly attracted to. That attraction isn't just random chance, it is a conscious effort on Haydn's part to write something different.  I can't remember if you printed a list of the ones you were looking to hear, but these are the ones from the heart of that era. FWIW, Hob# 42 is one of MY favorites. 

Year       NC#  Key         Hob #   Name
1770/71   50   e      44   Mourning
1770/71   51   Eb      43   Mercury
1771           52   c      52   
1771           53   D      42   
1772           54   G      47   
1772           55   f#      45   Farewell
1772           56   B      46   Palindrome
1773           57   Bb      51   
1773           58   A      64   Tempora Mutantur
1773/4   59   C      50   

[71 dB]

There is a reason why you will find a fairly noticeable difference in the 1768 works from the 1770 and later ones. It is because during 1768, Haydn began an entire series of lessons where he says he went back to the basics of composition and rethought how he did everything. The first result of this is that he started writing string quartets again, which he did for practice more than anything else. The next 4 years (1769-72) produced Op 9, 17 & 20, each one an improvement on the previous ones. But they also produced what came in later years to be called the Sturm und Drang symphonies, which feature the ones you seem mostly attracted to. That attraction isn't just random chance, it is a conscious effort on Haydn's part to write something different.  I can't remember if you printed a list of the ones you were looking to hear, but these are the ones from the heart of that era. FWIW, Hob# 42 is one of MY favorites. 

Year       NC#  Key         Hob #   Name
1770/71   50   e      44   Mourning
1770/71   51   Eb      43   Mercury
1771           52   c      52   
1771           53   D      42   
1772           54   G      47   
1772           55   f#      45   Farewell
1772           56   B      46   Palindrome
1773           57   Bb      51   
1773           58   A      64   Tempora Mutantur
1773/4   59   C      50   

My explorations into Haydn has always been "blind", but this is educational, thanks! Yes, based on the Symphonies I have been listening to lately what you say makes sense. I often do my own explorations myself before knowing much of the "circumstances" to have an unbiased take on things and then maybe educate myself about historical facts to see if they "explain" my experiences. I don't want what I read to affect my listening. I don't want to like Hob. I: 42 because YOU like it. I want to discover it myself, evaluate it myself having neutral expectations.

My "list" was a section from your page (Symphonies part 3) consisting of 24 symphonies 1767 - 1774. Your reduced list of 10 Symphonies looks a refined one to meet my taste. Thanks!

[Madiel]

And now that I think of it, which is more important: to know when Hob:I - 53 was composed, or to listen to Hob:I - 53? I'll take my chance with the latter.

The point is you shouldn't have to choose between those 2 things. In a well-organised system you could have both.

[Madiel]

What I see in looking at all these catalogs in general (which I do, it's kind of like my thing) is that once the first edition is complete, everyone wants to believe the work is done and should be chiseled into stone. Which couldn't be more wrong. Actually, a foundation has been built upon which one can base some actual creative thoughts upon the music of that composer. Once accurate chronology has been established, you can see how the music developed upon itself. For example, you can see that Hob 13, 31 & 72 actually all go together because Haydn had 4 horns to play with in that period from 1763 to 1765. How would you know that from the Hoboken numbers??

Yes, exactly this. The idea that the first effort, however good it is, must be the only effort makes no sense to me. There are all sorts of fields where we gradually improve and refine our knowledge over time, and I don't see why this shouldn't be one of them. We shouldn't perpetuate errors forevermore just because the errors are "traditional".

And understanding the timing and context of composition is often very interesting because composers don't stand still (any more than the rest of us do). In fact I'm reasonably sure it was Florestan who once expressed interest in the chronological approach I often take to exploring a composer's work. I'm not completely obsessed with getting every piece in exactly the right order, but it's a damn sight easier to follow the arc of a composer's development when I can just pick up an existing cataloguing system and trust that it's reasonably in line.

[Madiel]

Come on, man! It's Op. 13 "Pathetique" and no matter how much you'll twist and turn it around, it'll always be Op. 13 "Pathetique".

I find this funny, given that opus numbers have largely disappeared for Haydn, have almost completely disappeared for Mozart and Schubert, and seem to be on their way out for the much later Dvorak. And yet you think opus numbers are immutable.

Back before Hoboken got involved, there was someone probably declaring that no matter what happened, Haydn's op.13 piano sonatas (a set of six) would always be op.13.

[aukhawk]

There is a reason why you will find a fairly noticeable difference in the 1768 works from the 1770 and later ones. It is because during 1768, Haydn began an entire series of lessons where he says he went back to the basics of composition and rethought how he did everything. The first result of this is that he started writing string quartets again, which he did for practice more than anything else. The next 4 years (1769-72) produced Op 9, 17 & 20, each one an improvement on the previous ones. But they also produced what came in later years to be called the Sturm und Drang symphonies, which feature the ones you seem mostly attracted to. That attraction isn't just random chance, it is a conscious effort on Haydn's part to write something different.  I can't remember if you printed a list of the ones you were looking to hear, but these are the ones from the heart of that era. FWIW, Hob# 42 is one of MY favorites. 

Year       NC#  Key         Hob #   Name
1770/71   50   e      44   Mourning
1770/71   51   Eb      43   Mercury
1771           52   c      52   
1771           53   D      42   
1772           54   G      47   
1772           55   f#      45   Farewell
1772           56   B      46   Palindrome
1773           57   Bb      51   
1773           58   A      64   Tempora Mutantur
1773/4   59   C      50   

Thanks Gurn, that's a very informative post and a really useful little reference list.  Having identified this early stylistic change, would you go so far as to say there is another 'fault line' in Haydn's output later on - roughly coinciding with Esterhazy's death, and Haydn turning his music more towards 'public' performance in places like Paris and London.

[Gurn Blanston]

Thanks Gurn, that's a very informative post and a really useful little reference list.  Having identified this early stylistic change, would you go so far as to say there is another 'fault line' in Haydn's output later on - roughly coinciding with Esterhazy's death, and Haydn turning his music more towards 'public' performance in places like Paris and London.

Thanks. I think it is fair to say there WAS another change in Haydn's style, although I wouldn't agree about the timing. Esterházy died in 1790, and by then the 'new' style was well on towards maturity. If I was choosing a specific event in his life which triggered the change, it would be ca. 1781, when for musical purposes he became a free man. The Entrepreneur.

Several things happened here, beyond the Prince allowing him to sell his music on his own. Although he continued doing opera as his main job, the list of other theatrical works dwindles to nothing, the last theatrical symphony being #63, La Roxelane in 1779. After that, we have La chasse, but its finale comes from an opera overture, to La Fedeltà Premiata his current latest opera.   The Hunt Symphony et al. Anyway, as you will see if you read that essay, I believe this is the genesis if Haydn late style. This is followed up with 76-81, a set of 6 that were the first he ever 'legally' offered for sale, then 82-87, the First Paris Symphonies and 88-92, the Second Paris Symphonies, and finally the 93-104, the London Symphonies. From my perspective, I look at 76-104 as a continuous arc of development. There is a clear break from what came before, and stylistically they are related.

Of course, I am an historian, not a musicologist, so this is just my opinion based on what was happening in his life, but when I empathetically look at the challenges he was facing, going from being strictly a private Kapellmeister to trying to please a world with which he really had no experience beyond Vienna, I think that his reaction to that would have been to develop something that would attract the greatest number and variety of listeners without selling himself out.

[aukhawk]

From my perspective, I look at 76-104 as a continuous arc of development. There is a clear break from what came before, and stylistically they are related.

Exactly what I was looking for - thanks again !! 

[Gurn Blanston]

Exactly what I was looking for - thanks again !! 

My pleasure. Please visit us back in future with one of your perceptive analyses of this group. You probably noticed that I don't really give a damn about performers...