Haydn's Haus

[Florestan]

I've spent three and a half years doing this, and finally got to my favorite symphony. I hope you are interested in what I had to say about it. I was.   

Not just for fun

Enjoy, and thanks,

As usual, a most informative, illuminating and entertaining post. It only reenforces my idea that we have ireedemably lost any possibility to hear Haydn´s music (or indeed of any Classical Era composer) the way their contemporaries did --- and I´m not talking about period instruments but about period ears and worldview.

Thanks, Gurn, keep them coming!

And God bless your father´s soul.

[Gurn Blanston]

Hard for me to maintain a permanent favorite among Haydn's works.  The one that I'm listening to at the moment has a great advantage.

I appreciate all the context that you bring me about Haydn's works.

I know exactly what you mean, 99% of the time I am just the same. But since this was my introduction to the corpus, its aura for me extends beyond its mere musical quality.

The longer I do this, the more I realize the importance of context in the enjoyment of a work. I appreciate this one that much more knowing the background of it.

Our Gurn is doing the musical world real service.

Nor me.  And so, when someone who knows the symphonies much, much better than do I has a signal favorite, I take note.  I may still never have a fixed favorite, but I appreciate the other perspective.

Thanks, Karl. I am, truly, trying to do this for my peers, who may not have access to the materials I have, or the patience to slog through the swamp to get to the stuff that makes one realize how human and interesting Haydn's life was. It was interesting times.  Favorite is as favorite does. 100 has an unfair advantage over the rest of them.

As usual, a most informative, illuminating and entertaining post. It only reenforces my idea that we have ireedemably lost any possibility to hear Haydn´s music (or indeed of any Classical Era composer) the way their contemporaries did --- and I´m not talking about period instruments but about period ears and worldview.

Thanks, Gurn, keep them coming!

And God bless your father´s soul.

Sad as it is to say, I must agree; we can analyze and understand the elements of how people heard this music, but we just can't do it ourselves. Yet, anyone who wrote anything about the music they heard in that time was easily able to understand exactly what the composer was trying to say. It was only the composer's degree of mastery of his tools which made a work comprehensible or not. Now, I see that the obvious lack of understanding down the road, which I first picked up on in the operas carried over even more-so to the instrumental works. At least, knowing context helps you to go beyond the mere entertainment factor, which is, after all, quite huge. 

[Florestan]

Thanks, Karl. I am, truly, trying to do this for my peers, who may not have access to the materials I have, or the patience to slog through the swamp to get to the stuff that makes one realize how human and interesting Haydn's life was.

Have you ever considered assembling all installments chronologically in one single pdf file ? That would be one of the most interesting, educational and helpful  e-books ever.

we can analyze and understand the elements of how people heard this music, but we just can't do it ourselves.

Exactly.

At least, knowing context helps you to go beyond the mere entertainment factor, which is, after all, quite huge. 

This, too.

[SurprisedByBeauty]

Listening to

Fugue for Thought's podcast with Gurn Blanston.

http://fugueforthought.podbean.com/

[Gurn Blanston]

Listening to

Fugue for Thought's podcast with Gurn Blanston.

http://fugueforthought.podbean.com/

Pretty radical stuff, eh, Jens?      Well, it does, at least, give you an idea how my head works. When I was listening to it myself, I thought of that, how my approach to writing derives from how my imagination works on the facts. The challenge of non-fiction is how do you deal with the facts you are dealt.  I was fortunate in many ways; Haydn dealt me a pretty good hand. 

[Madiel]

Gurn (or anyone else),

I'm slightly puzzled by extra things in my shiny new Hogwood box: a Menuet and Trio and a Finale, both in C major and both dated around 1773-4.

Do these even have a Hoboken number? Are they later discoveries, or tucked away somewhere in a "bits and pieces" bit of the catalogue?

From the notes you supplied me from when the Hogwood was released in smaller volumes, it seems they were turned into a symphony by being combined with the overture to L'infedeltà delusa, and I gather this procedure is not unprecedented. What puzzles me, I guess, is why they are not still connected to the overture. If other symphonies were made this way, how come this one didn't stick?

I did a bit of a look on your blog to see if I could find anything, but no luck.

[Jo498]

On vol.8 of the separate issues the text says that Haydn himself quickly separated the "symphony" again, sold the ouverture to Artaria, used the finale in an earlier version of #63 (but replaced this very quickly with the later finale of that piece). The reported scholarly conclusion is to treat the two movements as fragment.
For me as a listener, it would very probably more interesting to get the "cobbled" symphony as the ouverture in question is not a well known piece anyway and a 4-movement-symphony would probably be nicer to listen to than such a fragment.

[Madiel]

For me as a listener, it would very probably more interesting to get the "cobbled" symphony as the ouverture in question is not a well known piece anyway and a 4-movement-symphony would probably be nicer to listen to than such a fragment.

Yes, that's exactly what I was thinking. Sure, tell me the history of it, but if other "cobbled" symphonies, where Haydn reused theatrical material, are permitted to stand as part of the canon, it seems a shame to not offer the same kind of thing in this case.

I haven't actually listened to any of the symphonies of that kind yet, just seeing what's coming up over the course of 32 discs...

[Jo498]

I had to go through the whole booklet to get that information. From the tracklisting on the first pages it looked to me as if those were alternative movements for #50 or #54 (the latter is not possible because of the keys). And with Hogwood presenting alternative versions of some other symphonies I do find it strange that they did not go for the Infedelta-ouverture + Menuett & Finale.

Apparently with the other symphonies that use theater music (like 50 or 60) they simply argue that Haydn created them as symphonies and never had second thoughts (and then they have been treated accordingly by editors for more than 200 years). But we probably do not know enough about his second thoughts wrt the Infedelta-symphony.

Faced with all kinds of odd arrangements, reconstructions etc. as we are today, I find it odd that people suddenly seem to get squeamish with pieces that *did* exist, even if they were taken apart again later.

[Gurn Blanston]

Making ad hoc symphonies was not in the least unusual in those days. Oddly enough, that same group of players, in their 'Complete Mozart Symphonies' box, include many which were put together from overtures or extracted from orchestral serenades. Could they have left it reassembled and simply highlighted it in the notes? Absolutely. And of course, you can reassemble it yourself if you have Huss' disk of overtures or actually have the opera,although that is less satisfactory, for sure. My guess, it was a judgment call. Since Neal Zaslaw was the tech consultant on Mozart, and James Webster on Haydn, I would suspect the decision reflected a personal taste of the consultant.

[Madiel]

Do these stray waifs have a Hoboken entry, or did they totally miss out?

[Gurn Blanston]

Do these stray waifs have a Hoboken entry, or did they totally miss out?

If they do, it has not been prominently advertised. They must be, though, in an Anhang (appendix) somewhere. I will see what I can find. At the moment I am drawing blanks. 

[Madiel]

I just found that Henle publishes them in its complete Haydn edition.

They are labelled, or rather the symphony as a whole is labelled, as: "Sinfonia with Minuet/Final C major Hob. deest "

[Gurn Blanston]

I just found that Henle publishes them in its complete Haydn edition.

They are labelled, or rather the symphony as a whole is labelled, as: "Sinfonia with Minuet/Final C major Hob. deest "

Ah, yes. Hob. deest.  "Not appearing in Hoboken".   Good research.

[Mister Sharpe]

Ah, yes. Hob. deest.  "Not appearing in Hoboken".   Good research.

That's NJ's loss, for sure.

[Gurn Blanston]

That's NJ's loss, for sure.

Damn straight!   

[Gurn Blanston]

Whew, had to get off the big stage for a while, lots going on there. Decided to kick back this time and listen to some of Haydn's beautiful English Songs. Join me, you might like them bigly. 

Canzonettas, well, that's a new one...

Thanks,

[ritter]

Brought over from the "Top 5 Favourite Boulez Works" thread:

I would have expected you to choose his recording of Haydn's Symphony No. 104 from Vienna...

Haven't heard it, although it sounds intriguing. Thanks.



PS - the bootleg 9th recording is a rarity!  0:)

Boulez has been quoted as having said something to the effect that he found Haydn much more interesting than Mozart (whom he apparently found "trivial"  ). In a letter to Heinrich Strobel in the late fifties, he said that the only thing that he had in common with Mozart was the letter "z" in their respective surnames  .

He did occasionally champion Haydn in his days at the helm of the NYPO , IIRC (I must look up the orchestra's database to check what he actually programmed).

Be that as it may, there's now quite a few Mozart recordings (mainly live) available conducted by the Frenchman, but precious little Haydn. The excpetion is this quite interesting set, issued by the Vienna Philharmonic's house lable (with haphazard distribition, I'm afraid):

[asin]B0034P538W[/asin]

The contents is this:



I'm not enough of a Haydnian to say how Boulez's take on the 104 comapers to other versions, but reviews are mostly favourable, and to have a giant of 20th century music meet a titan of the 18th century is interesting enough.

Cheers,

P.S.: That Beethoven Ninth looks really, really interesting. A rarity indeed! Is it anywhere to be found?

[SurprisedByBeauty]

Be that as it may, there's now quite a few Mozart recordings (mainly live) available conducted by the Frenchman, but precious little Haydn. The excpetion is this quite interesting set, issued by the Vienna Philharmonic's house lable (with haphazard distribition, I'm afraid):


The contents is this:



I'm not enough of a Haydnian to say how Boulez's take on the 104 comapers to other versions, but reviews are mostly favourable, and to have a giant of 20th century music meet a titan of the 18th century is interesting enough.

That looked so!! promising...  but I've found it rather a let-down. That wasn't a Vienna Philharmonic very interested in Haydn, by the sound of it... and no conductor really got much excitement out of them... though they certainly are quite different kinds of disappointing performances.

[Madiel]

I've been listening to the op.64 quartets recently (combining one of my new purchases with a sibling that has been sitting patiently on its own in my collection for years).

[asin]B0000013W3[/asin][asin]B0000013W4[/asin]

And... I don't know if it's me, or the performance, or the music, but I'm finding op.64/1 to be a bit of a disappointment, because of the lack of tempo variety. 1st movement, allegro moderato, 2nd movement, a menuet in the same key, allegretto ma non troppo. 3rd movement, allegretto scherzando. Things pick up slightly for the finale (Presto), but by then it was too late. I was unexpectedly bored.

Is this a poor performance? A widely perceived flaw in op.64/1? I'm not sure what to think, because I'm very unused to wishing a Haydn quartet being over and done with and all my other recordings thus far have also been the Kodaly Qt.