Haydn's Haus

[Gurn Blanston]

I like just about any fortepiano recording of Haydn, but his recording did not impress me more than Brautigam's or Schornsheim's.  After hearing him play earlier music, I think his recordings of Scarlatti and Frescobald and other less well-knowns from those periods may be more of his thing.

Well, by those standards, Staier and Bilson are about the only ones who stand out above B & S. That's just for fortepiano though, I have some clavichord disks that really appeal to me on an entirely different level. 

[Gurn Blanston]

I would agree with you except that Staier has not recorded all the sonatas and the Bilson & Co. set is so hard to find I have given up on it (I must be thinking of Beethoven here - oops).  I like it that Schornsheim used different instruments depending on the year the sonata was composed, I really like that, and consider that her edge over Brautigam.  Beghin is another set that I like because of the choice of instruments, but there is something about his set that does not create in me the same kind of enjoyment I get from B & S.  But his project is a phenomenal undertaking and I would not be without it.

Amen, Amen Amen.

Yes, that's Bilson's Beethoven. These are his only 2 Haydn disks that I am aware of;



Both well worth pursuing if you haven't already.

And you're also right about Staier; 3 disks and holding. At least he only played the fortepiano ones, so that is appropriate. I agree with you about Schornsheim. That is the true beauty of her cycle. It is also exactly the same reason that I prefer Trio 1790 over other trio cycles. The instruments are appropriate to teh music. What else is the point of period instrument performance??

Anyway, my thing with Bilson and Staier is strictly that I prefer their playing above all. I make no quibbles about that, it's a personal thing.  

I think that Beghin is truly the closest we will ever hear to true period style. He has totally stripped away the accretions of Romantic performance style. The result is that it takes some getting used to in order to find the entertainment values that those stylistic choices add or subtract. Does that make sense? I know what I mean, but not necessarily how to express it.   Anyway, I delight constantly in this box, pleased as hell to have it in-house.

[TheGSMoeller]

You never make mistakes, Karl; you been to the big school!

A nice summary of the kernel of that, this from Wiki;

Symphony #51 in Bb
Sometimes described as "a concertante piece featuring the two horns, which are given parts of staggering difficulty." The third movement contains high notes for the first horn (including an f''' which is considered the highest note ever written for the horn) and the second, slow movement, contains very low notes for the second horn.

Haydn is actually considered as one of the top all-time writers for the horn, a situation which was abetted by the fact that for a period in the 1760's, he had probably the 4 greatest horn players in Europe in his band all at the same time. And even when he only had 2 horns, they were the best. So he made them work for it.  If you love horns, you gotta love Haydn.

Being a former Horn player is what drew me to Haydn, mainly No.31. But I almost cringe listening to No.51 with the thought of attempting to play it. But what a joy to hear it though. 

Of course, No.73 (Chase) has an exciting Horn call in the final movement.

Thanks for the info, Gurn.

[Gurn Blanston]

Being a former Horn player is what drew me to Haydn, mainly No.31. But I almost cringe listening to No.51 with the thought of attempting to play it. But what a joy to hear it though. 

Of course, No.73 (Chase) has an exciting Horn call in the final movement.

Thanks for the info, Gurn.

Cool, I didn't know that, Greg. My Dad was a horn player also. I wish I had chosen it over the trumpet, maybe I would still play.

Also #72. It was written at the same time as #31 and both use the great horn players. I know the number throws people off, they rather think that 72 & 73 are twins, but no. If you have that one, give it a listen. It's a treat too.

[TheGSMoeller]

Cool, I didn't know that, Greg. My Dad was a horn player also. I wish I had chosen it over the trumpet, maybe I would still play.

Also #72. It was written at the same time as #31 and both use the great horn players. I know the number throws people off, they rather think that 72 & 73 are twins, but no. If you have that one, give it a listen. It's a treat too.

Good call on No.72, Gurn.
I thoroughly enjoy Nos.6, 31 and 72 for the their use of solos.

[Gurn Blanston]

I've heard both of these, but I think my favorite Bilson is his Schubert cycle. (Although his set of Mozart PC with Gardiner is also wonderful; and I just found his Beethoven cycle on MOG - so I'm going to finally delve into that.)

Amen, amen, Amen.   


Interesting idea; so far his playing is striking me as more academic than I prefer, but that could just be a bias based on what I know about the project from the DVD.  I do really like the set and agree with you about being pleased having it; and very happy that it was done at all!

Well, Bilson is probably my favorite fortepianist. Oddly, I don't have any of his Beethoven; I never ran across a reasonable deal on that cycle he did with his students (although the list of names itself should give a good idea of his stature!).  But in addition to the lovely Mozart concerto cycle, I also have his Mozart solo keyboard cycle (on Hungaroton) which is a peach too. If I didn't have Badura-Skoda.....      I agree about the Schubert, another gem.  A couple of single disks, like the Cramer/Haydn/Dussek disk are worth a look too;



Yes, I can understand the immediate reaction to Beghin as being academic. What I tried to do (successfully for myself) was to divorce that concept and instead extend the fantasy metaphor that the producers used to include myself in the room as the putative listener. So by making the here and now disappear, I was able to just be part of the music in the way that I believe that it was intended to be. I don't know that this would work for everyone; I'm a peculiar bastard even on a good day.  

[Gurn Blanston]

Good call on No.72, Gurn.
I thoroughly enjoy Nos.6, 31 and 72 for the their use of solos.

Yes, those include some of my favorites too. In addition, they are also very characteristic of the evolution of the symphony from its roots in the Italian concerto grosso, which incorporated obligatto solos for several instruments. You can see that in many of Haydn's early symphonies, where symphonic form wasn't 'written in stone' yet. You mention #6, but also its companions 7 & 8 have lovely solos. All three symphonies feature extensive solo passages for the wind, horn and strings, including unusual solo writing for the double bass and bassoon in the third movement of #6.  Back in those days, it was common for virtuoso players to get a 'bonus' for playing something out of the ordinary in difficulty. Since Haydn was new to the band, and these were in fact his first symphonies for the Esterházy orchestra, by writing all these neat little passages he was making friends with the members of the orchestra. That's the kind of guy he was.

[Wakefield]

I would love to see reissued those four Haydn discs, recorded by Paul Badura-Skoda on Astrée:



Sonates et pièces pour le pianoforte
Contains: 4 CDs
Instrument: Hammerflügel Johann Schantz (ca 1790)
Recorded / Published: 1980-82 / -
Label / Number: Astrée E 7711 (NAÏVE),
Astrée E 7712 (NAÏVE), Astrée E 7713 (NAÏVE), Astrée E 7714 (NAÏVE)

CONTAINS:
I: Sturm und Drang (1767-1776)
II: Le style galant (1773-1779)
III: La maturité (1782-1790)
IV: L'apogée (1793-1797)

Unfortunately, at the moment, only his Haydn on Arcana is available.

[Gurn Blanston]

I would love to see reissued those four Haydn discs, recorded by Paul Badura-Skoda on Astrée:



Sonates et pièces pour le pianoforte
Contains: 4 CDs
Instrument: Hammerflügel Johann Schantz (ca 1790)
Recorded / Published: 1980-82 / -
Label / Number: Astrée E 7711 (NAÏVE),
Astrée E 7712 (NAÏVE), Astrée E 7713 (NAÏVE), Astrée E 7714 (NAÏVE)

CONTAINS:
I: Sturm und Drang (1767-1776)
II: Le style galant (1773-1779)
III: La maturité (1782-1790)
IV: L'apogée (1793-1797)

Unfortunately, at the moment, only his Haydn on Arcana is available.

I have seen only one of these, available on eBay. I got into a small bidding war over it, but lost out at $65. Disappointing, but maybe another opportunity will arise.

[Karl Henning]

Dafrazzanabit, Gurn: you knew Haydn would be a rabbit-hole! Don't play innocent with me . . . .

Now I shan't be content until I've got all those symphonies loaded onto the player . . . .

[Gurn Blanston]

Dafrazzanabit, Gurn: you knew Haydn would be a rabbit-hole! Don't play innocent with me . . . .

Now I shan't be content until I've got all those symphonies loaded onto the player . . . .

Well, it was lonely down here at the bottom of the hole all alone, I needed company. Willkommen, bienvenue, welcome!   

[Karl Henning]

Well, obviously I am no less intimidated by the sheer scale of the œuvre; I am not acquiring the facility of after-recognition of a great many of the trios, quartets, even symphonies. Which in a way annoys the music student in me.  Which I think is one of the reasons why I have adopted Haydn.  I mean, the first reason is that the music is wonderful.  But subconsciously I think that the larger part of the reasoning behind not getting to know the music, was (by virtue of the scale) the near-hopelessness of "complete" assimiliation of the material, in a way that is readily possible with (for instance) the nine Beethoven symphonies.  But that's no reason to neglect "Papa."  (I know, here in the Haus, we all know this by now.)  Thus, the (sophomoric?) music student in me needed to let go of the precondition of complete re-recognition, and as a result, I can just love the music for itself . . . and to be sure, consume, digest and recall at a gradual pace, but without worrying about any fantastical end state of complete drop-the-needle Haydn recall.

Any of that make sense to a non-music student?

[SonicMan46]

London Symphonies w/ Harnoncourt  & the gang from Amsterdam - new arrival and probably my 4th set of these works (plan to cull one out) - excellent & highly recommended here; now I still want to obtain the Kuijken performances (below, right) if ever re-released @ a decent price! 


 

[Gurn Blanston]

Well, obviously I am no less intimidated by the sheer scale of the œuvre; I am not acquiring the facility of after-recognition of a great many of the trios, quartets, even symphonies. Which in a way annoys the music student in me.  Which I think is one of the reasons why I have adopted Haydn.  I mean, the first reason is that the music is wonderful.  But subconsciously I think that the larger part of the reasoning behind not getting to know the music, was (by virtue of the scale) the near-hopelessness of "complete" assimiliation of the material, in a way that is readily possible with (for instance) the nine Beethoven symphonies.  But that's no reason to neglect "Papa."  (I know, here in the Haus, we all know this by now.)  Thus, the (sophomoric?) music student in me needed to let go of the precondition of complete re-recognition, and as a result, I can just love the music for itself . . . and to be sure, consume, digest and recall at a gradual pace, but without worrying about any fantastical end state of complete drop-the-needle Haydn recall.

Any of that make sense to a non-music student?

Karl,
I understand your dilemma here. For me it is a blessing, since I don't have a facility for remembering phrases and thus identifying music, I can plead scale as an issue. Works. for Mozart too.   But the fact that I can practically pick something at random and be confident going in that it will be an fine piece of music in an idiom that I can relate to is a major factor in my appreciation of Haydn. The historiographical challenges are another.

So the short answer is 'yup, makes perfect sense to me'.

[Gurn Blanston]

London Symphonies w/ Harnoncourt  & the gang from Amsterdam - new arrival and probably my 4th set of these works (plan to cull one out) - excellent & highly recommended here; now I still want to obtain the Kuijken performances (below, right) if ever re-released @ a decent price! 


 

Dave,
I know you favor boxes if they exist, but I got tired of waiting for the box price to be 'decent' about 3 years ago, and so I started snapping up the 5 singles instead as I was able to find them. In the end, I got all 5 in excellent condition for an average price of $10/ea. The last time I checked the box it was $65, so maybe that's as low as it will go. If not, the  singles are still available out there, you just have to search patiently.

[Karl Henning]

Guess what I discovered on the shelf? Franz Brüggen and the Orch of the 18^th Century playing the Paris symphonies . . . God bless friend Burchest's soul.

[Gurn Blanston]

Re: Scale of output and recordings available -

I am often surprised at the number of posts on GMG where people have sufficient aural memory to recall and compare different recordings of the same work and declare fairly confidently one better than another, or say something like, "there's 11 others I like better". 

Not only am I not interested in comparing recordings, that seems too much like a sporting event approach, but I would not feel comfortable doing it.  It is so subjective that one person's (my) delight might be some else's bane.  It is very hard for me to suggest one recording over another one since I tend to like them all for some reason and enjoy hearing any one of them.  Say, e.g. Haydn symphonies - just about any recording is fine by me, except a conductor who brings a big-19th C.-orchestra approach to the music.  Same for all classical era music. 

I can tell someone what I like about a recording, but it has to be near in time to when I've heard it.  But I can't compare it to another one unless I were to sit down right then and listen to them side by side, movement by movement - and I have zero interest in doing that kind of work.

My solution is to not worry about any of that stuff and put on a recording and sit back and enjoy it.  Okay, I admit it, I don't aspire to write CD reviews.  I can live with that.

I could have written this.  0:)

For reference, just look at my Beethoven's 9th thread. Of the 90+ recordings I have of that work, I have found something positive to say about every one of them. Like you, San, I don't remember the specifics of recordings, but I do remember things (to use the LvB 9 example) like 'the chorus in this one was superb', or 'the tempo in the scherzo was really excellent in this one'. Best I can do, really.

If people can actually remember that sort of depth of detail on that scale, they have some sort of savant talent that I can never aspire to. As for comparisons, best I can say is "I liked this one and I didn't care for that one so much". BUt I'm happy for you if you liked that one.

[Karl Henning]

Re: Scale of output and recordings available -

I am often surprised at the number of posts on GMG where people have sufficient aural memory to recall and compare different recordings of the same work and declare fairly confidently one better than another, or say something like, "there's 11 others I like better". 

Not only am I not interested in comparing recordings, that seems too much like a sporting event approach, but I would not feel comfortable doing it.  It is so subjective that one person's (my) delight might be some else's bane.  It is very hard for me to suggest one recording over another one since I tend to like them all for some reason and enjoy hearing any one of them.  Say, e.g. Haydn symphonies - just about any recording is fine by me, except a conductor who brings a big-19th C.-orchestra approach to the music.  Same for all classical era music. 

I can tell someone what I like about a recording, but it has to be near in time to when I've heard it.  But I can't compare it to another one unless I were to sit down right then and listen to them side by side, movement by movement - and I have zero interest in doing that kind of work.

My solution is to not worry about any of that stuff and put on a recording and sit back and enjoy it.  Okay, I admit it, I don't aspire to write CD reviews.  I can live with that.

Very interesting, and I am pleased that you have found your musical 'center' : ) William James-like, we might well write of The Varieties of Musical Experience . . . and while I find the discovery of the segments of overlap interesting (and even exciting), there's no call for anyone to draw any negative vibes from being at all otherwise in his musical experience to any other.

Always provided that one is not a putz, of course . . . .

[Scarpia]

Re: Scale of output and recordings available -

I am often surprised at the number of posts on GMG where people have sufficient aural memory to recall and compare different recordings of the same work and declare fairly confidently one better than another, or say something like, "there's 11 others I like better". 

Not only am I not interested in comparing recordings, that seems too much like a sporting event approach, but I would not feel comfortable doing it.  It is so subjective that one person's (my) delight might be some else's bane.  It is very hard for me to suggest one recording over another one since I tend to like them all for some reason and enjoy hearing any one of them.  Say, e.g. Haydn symphonies - just about any recording is fine by me, except a conductor who brings a big-19th C.-orchestra approach to the music.  Same for all classical era music. 

I can tell someone what I like about a recording, but it has to be near in time to when I've heard it.  But I can't compare it to another one unless I were to sit down right then and listen to them side by side, movement by movement - and I have zero interest in doing that kind of work.

My solution is to not worry about any of that stuff and put on a recording and sit back and enjoy it.  Okay, I admit it, I don't aspire to write CD reviews.  I can live with that.

Agreed, and I have made similar comments here somewhere.  I almost never make any effort to compare different recordings of the same piece, although for almost every piece I care about I have several, sometimes dozens.   This is not motivated by a desire to find the "best" but by a desire to hear different aspects of the music and not "imprint" on one version.  My goal is to find an ensemble of recordings that are as different from each other as possible.

When I read that this or that recording is 'better,' 'the best,' 'not as good,' etc, I am simply bewildered, and amazed that the writer thinks this conveys something.  What I find interesting, and what I try to provide when I write about recordings that made an impression on me, are non-judgmental comments that refer to tangible properties of the performance or recording, i.e., is the performance fast or slow;  aggressive or atmospheric; is the brass dominant or recessed; is the recording dry or reverberant; are the dynamics exaggerated or understated, etc.  The best review is one where you could judge you would like to recording even though the reviewer didn't.

[Karl Henning]

Well said.