Haydn's Haus

[kishnevi]

Thanks for clearing that up (as much as it can be cleared up). But you raise another question. The Rohm catalogue of Vivaldi's works has been added on to with new discoveries, and so has the BWV listings for you-know-who. So why can't these works be given numbers? Is there something especially sacrosanct with the Hoboken numbers?

[Gurn Blanston]

Thanks for clearing that up (as much as it can be cleared up). But you raise another question. The Rohm catalogue of Vivaldi's works has been added on to with new discoveries, and so has the BWV listings for you-know-who. So why can't these works be given numbers? Is there something especially sacrosanct with the Hoboken numbers?

Well, Hoboken is dead, of course, and it seems like no one has the fur to tackle it. Let me ask you though: Mozart's works all just got totally re-cataloged, and Köchel has been abandoned. Have you yet seen even an example of an NMA (Neue Mozart Ausgabe) number?  I think music people, like many other disciplines, are too conservative to change. It seems that we can't even take works which have been verified (not just deest, but...) like Hob 02_G1 Divertimento in G for Strings & Winds, which is unquestionably verified as being by Haydn, and give it a permanent number. Or even Hob 02:6 Divertimento in Eb for Strings (Op 1 #5 Op 0), which was misnamed by Hoboken, and which is unquestionably a String Quartet by Haydn. Why can't someone take the initiative to give it the abandoned number Hob 03:05  which is exactly the number it should have anyway.

Or, why am I not in charge? 

[Karl Henning]

Well, Hoboken is dead, of course, and it seems like no one has the fur to tackle it. Let me ask you though: Mozart's works all just got totally re-cataloged, and Köchel has been abandoned. Have you yet seen even an example of an NMA (Neue Mozart Ausgabe) number?  I think music people, like many other disciplines, are too conservative to change. It seems that we can't even take works which have been verified (not just deest, but...) like Hob 02_G1 Divertimento in G for Strings & Winds, which is unquestionably verified as being by Haydn, and give it a permanent number. Or even Hob 02:6 Divertimento in Eb for Strings (Op 1 #5 Op 0), which was misnamed by Hoboken, and which is unquestionably a String Quartet by Haydn. Why can't someone take the initiative to give it the abandoned number Hob 03:05  which is exactly the number it should have anyway.

Or, why am I not in charge? 

Perhaps, you are still in training.

When you can snatch the pebble from my hand....

[Gurn Blanston]

Perhaps, you are still in training.

When you can snatch the pebble from my hand....

I don't know, Master, I'm gettin' pretty old...

[TheGSMoeller]

HAYDN An imaginary orchestral journey – featuring excerpts from Symphonies Nos 6, 45, 46, 60, 64, 90 and 101; 'The Creation', 'The Seasons', 'The Desert Island' and 'The Seven Last Words of Christ on the Cross'

Releasing soon. Perhaps this is a bit of bleeding-chunks from Haydn's works, but the sample sound nice, and I'm interested to see, and hear, how Rattle pieces these movements together.

[Gurn Blanston]

1797 was a momentous year for Austria, thus for Haydn. For music lovers, it was the year of the Opus 76 quartets and the Austrian National Anthem. But the major character of the drama of that year wasn't a musician...

Now it's on!

Thanks,

[kishnevi]

Well, Hoboken is dead, of course, and it seems like no one has the fur to tackle it. Let me ask you though: Mozart's works all just got totally re-cataloged, and Köchel has been abandoned. Have you yet seen even an example of an NMA (Neue Mozart Ausgabe) number?  I think music people, like many other disciplines, are too conservative to change. It seems that we can't even take works which have been verified (not just deest, but...) like Hob 02_G1 Divertimento in G for Strings & Winds, which is unquestionably verified as being by Haydn, and give it a permanent number. Or even Hob 02:6 Divertimento in Eb for Strings (Op 1 #5 Op 0), which was misnamed by Hoboken, and which is unquestionably a String Quartet by Haydn. Why can't someone take the initiative to give it the abandoned number Hob 03:05  which is exactly the number it should have anyway.

Or, why am I not in charge? 

Seems to me you have enough chops to do the job!
Who knows, perhaps in years to come they'll talk about GurnVerzeichnis numbers!

[kishnevi]

1797 was a momentous year for Austria, thus for Haydn. For music lovers, it was the year of the Opus 76 quartets and the Austrian National Anthem. But the major character of the drama of that year wasn't a musician...

Now it's on!

Thanks,

For moment I thought I was in a time loop...
(Yes, I know you didn't want it to get lost.)

[Gurn Blanston]

Seems to me you have enough chops to do the job!
Who knows, perhaps in years to come they'll talk about GurnVerzeichnis numbers!

Well, I can always wish.    

[Gurn Blanston]

For moment I thought I was in a time loop...
(Yes, I know you didn't want it to get lost.)

It's like déjà vu all over again... 

[Jo498]

This seems fairly obvious: Of course you do not re-assign numbers because this would result in a lot of confusion when using older sources when a different piece had the number.
So Hoboken stays, or even Koechel (despite some efforts) and you get a new additional number in brackets. The current Haydn edition did some re-distribution, e.g. separating the early string divertimenti from the quartets (op.9 and later).

[Karl Henning]

This seems fairly obvious: Of course you do not re-assign numbers because this would result in a lot of confusion when using older sources when a different piece had the number.

Witness the Mozart catalogue.

[The One]

OK, haus keeper. Whom do you prefer when it comes to keyboard solo and with orchestra? The less tinny the sound the better 

Or you can start with your favorite non-symphonic works of him.

[Gurn Blanston]

This seems fairly obvious: Of course you do not re-assign numbers because this would result in a lot of confusion when using older sources when a different piece had the number.
So Hoboken stays, or even Koechel (despite some efforts) and you get a new additional number in brackets. The current Haydn edition did some re-distribution, e.g. separating the early string divertimenti from the quartets (op.9 and later).

In principle I agree with you but in practice, changing Hob 2:6 to 3:5 would confuse, perhaps, 3 people. They would learn to adapt. Of course you wouldn't do it wholesale.

As it is now, many Köchel numbers are 3 or more deep, some of them with an Anhang tag added in. Who wants to deal with that stuff? As it is, 90% of people, including nearly all CD publishers, still use KV1 numbers if they ever existed (they often didn't because the work had never been assigned one before). The NMA numbers may be brilliantly conceived, but are doomed to failure, I'm afraid.

Really, the fact of the matter is that the only people who use anything other than opus numbers (which are essentially irrelevant before the 19th century) or "symphony #24" numbers is a tiny fraction of all people who have anything to do with the music. I would suppose that any of those who had a modicum of intelligence would welcome someone to come in and straighten out the mess that has accumulated over the years, sometimes even because it was messed up to begin with (common in Hoboken). I certainly wish someone would fix up the Haydn numbers!

[Gurn Blanston]

OK, haus keeper. Whom do you prefer when it comes to keyboard solo and with orchestra? The less tinny the sound the better 

Or you can start with your favorite non-symphonic works of him.

You want Brautigam for both the concertos and the sonatas. I'm all about tinny, I like Schornsheim.

[Karl Henning]

You want Brautigam for both the concertos and the sonatas. I'm all about tinny, I like Schornsheim.

Please, sieur: we say jangly, hereabouts 

[Jo498]

I don't think one can avoid that if a catalogue has had some prominence and was widely known(Koechel far more so than Hoboken) then the numbers will stick. It is still good to have a better reference system for musicologists but hardly anyone will bother to learn 417b (or whatever) instead of 421 and while "d minor quartet" is not unique, almost always this is the piece that one refers to).

Hoboken was a mess from the beginning because it did already collide with other common numberings (opus in the quartets and others in the piano sonatas). So you are right that there would not be such a problem in changing numbers of the Hoboken. But it would still tend to add confusion. Even as it is is now I have talked past people because we were using different numbers for a Haydn piano sonata.

[The One]

You want Brautigam for both the concertos and the sonatas. I'm all about tinny, I like Schornsheim.

I have the concertos. So you want me to buy this? (I have tried giving link to presto via the thumbnail)

[Gurn Blanston]

I don't think one can avoid that if a catalogue has had some prominence and was widely known(Koechel far more so than Hoboken) then the numbers will stick. It is still good to have a better reference system for musicologists but hardly anyone will bother to learn 417b (or whatever) instead of 421 and while "d minor quartet" is not unique, almost always this is the piece that one refers to).

Hoboken was a mess from the beginning because it did already collide with other common numberings (opus in the quartets and others in the piano sonatas). So you are right that there would not be such a problem in changing numbers of the Hoboken. But it would still tend to add confusion. Even as it is is now I have talked past people because we were using different numbers for a Haydn piano sonata.

I have watched discussions on this topic many times over the years, and still haven't convinced anyone that Biamonti is the only reasonable Beethoven numbering...     Mostly it is people getting confused because they simply didn't see a need to make an investment of time and learning effort until there actually WAS a need, and then trying to catch up.

The keyboard sonatas (and trios) are yet another fine example of confusion, which I have addressed a blog page to, and it is one of the most heavily used references on my site.  I think Landon numbers are a wonderful thing, and as nearly as I can tell, most pianists learn them from the beginning (because sheet music publishers use them), but most other people don't. Honestly, I still use Hoboken numbers for them, even though I am intimately familiar with all of the alternatives. I have assembled concordances of nearly all of the competing systems, and of course the one and only constant is Hoboken. Which is why I am all about just fixing it instead of writing yet another competitor, no matter that it would be far superior.

[Gurn Blanston]

I have the concertos. So you want me to buy this? (I have tried giving link to presto via the thumbnail)

I think it is an excellent box, Brautigam is a top shelf player and the instrument he uses is one of the finest sounding fortepianos I have heard.  So, I guess, yeah.