Haydn's Haus

[Gurn Blanston]

Did some "homework" concerning Haydn. The exact date of composition isn't always known, but according to Wikipedia the following Symphonies are written around 1770-1775:

Nos. 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 50, 51, 52 and 64.

I listened to again Nos. 42, 43, 45 and 46 (Dorati) and yes, I do like them. Seems the correct Haydn period for me. Among the Piano Sonatas the Esterházy Sonatas are from 1773, but I have to figure out if the optimal Haydn period for me is the same among different genres*. I happen to have (sometimes you find BIS cheap) the last three of the Esterházy Sonatas on a BIS CD played by Ronald Brautigam.

If it turns out  1770-1775 Haydn is "my thing" it certainly helps reducing the very large output of a this prolific composer to something I can manage better + help me enjoy this composer, something I have kind of strugged with because a lot of his works just don't work for me it seems, but some other works are most enjoyable...  I have always been a bit "lost" with Haydn, but maybe this helps...

* Among Oratorios/Masses late Haydn seems to work for me just fine.

That's actually a very good way to go about it. Just make sure you don't get sidetracked into worrying about what artist(s)/recordings you can get. Just listen to the music.

Here is a page that has all of Haydn's music from the 1770's in one place. The symphonies have, like, 3 or 4 different numbering systems, so they are listed side-by-side here, but everything else is very straightforward.  Quite handy, I use it all the time.

[Jo498]

Among the so called "Sturm and Drang" symphonies they are usually counted a few more from the late 1760s, e.g. 39, 48, 49, 59 etc., overall about 20 pieces but it is not a totally sharp distinction. The most famous piano sonata from that time is the one in c minor hob. 16:20 and maybe the A flat major Hob.16:46. There are a bunch more but it seems that the dating of the sonatas is even more uncertain than of the symphonies.

[71 dB]

That's actually a very good way to go about it. Just make sure you don't get sidetracked into worrying about what artist(s)/recordings you can get. Just listen to the music.

Here is a page that has all of Haydn's music from the 1770's in one place. The symphonies have, like, 3 or 4 different numbering systems, so they are listed side-by-side here, but everything else is very straightforward.  Quite handy, I use it all the time.

Thanks Gurn! This might be of some help. different numbering systems for the Symphonies is a mess... 

Among the so called "Sturm and Drang" symphonies they are usually counted a few more from the late 1760s, e.g. 39, 48, 49, 59 etc., overall about 20 pieces but it is not a totally sharp distinction. The most famous piano sonata from that time is the one in c minor hob. 16:20 and maybe the A flat major Hob.16:46. There are a bunch more but it seems that the dating of the sonatas is even more uncertain than of the symphonies.

"Sturm and Drang" is perhaps not the only thing that makes this period work for me.

I have Hob. XVI: 20, but not 46.

[SurprisedByBeauty]

Something different from Haydn:


Haydn & The Harp: Light Delights

[insider content, alas]

[Karl Henning]

Great to "see" you, Jens!

[Jo498]

I am not fond of the "Sturm and Drang" moniker either. I just wanted to point out that there are a few more pieces often subsumed under this dubious label that might be worth checking out.
And there is absolutely no problem with the numbering of Haydn symphonies as there is only one common system, Hoboken, (even though there are alternative numberings they are almost never used on records or in concerts). It is more complicated with the trios and sonatas, but the symphonies are straightforward.

[George]

Great to "see" you, Jens!

Ditto.

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

[Madiel]

And there is absolutely no problem with the numbering of Haydn symphonies as there is only one common system, Hoboken.

Of course there's a problem with the numbering. The problem is that the Hoboken system, while common, is wrong. It doesn't reflect the sequence of composition, which is something it claimed to represent (and indeed, is the whole rationale for most numbering systems).

That's like saying there's no problem with a calculation being incorrect so long as everyone agrees to use the same errors.

[71 dB]

Of course there's a problem with the numbering. The problem is that the Hoboken system, while common, is wrong. It doesn't reflect the sequence of composition, which is something it claimed to represent (and indeed, is the whole rationale for most numbering systems).

That's like saying there's no problem with a calculation being incorrect so long as everyone agrees to use the same errors.

Is it even possible to have a correct numbering system? Often scholars don't even know who actually wrote a work let alone when.  Having a common numbering system, correct or incorrect, is the relevant thing here so everybody knows what work we are talking about when somebody says for example Hob. VIIb:1.

[Madiel]

Is it even possible to have a correct numbering system? Often scholars don't even know who actually wrote a work let alone when.  Having a common numbering system, correct or incorrect, is the relevant thing here so everybody knows what work we are talking about when somebody says for example Hob. VIIb:1.

Are you talking in general, or for Haydn?

It's absolutely possible to have a correct numbering system in general. Some composers have done a very good job of enabling us to have one. In some cases, even when publishers ignored it.

As for Haydn, why do you think people CREATED the different numbering systems? It's because they were aware of the deficiencies of the first one.

But if you want to argue that first person to come with a system automatically wins, no matter how misleading that system is as to what symphony belongs when... well that's a very odd stance given that you are the one specifically wanting symphonies from a particular time period.  You're actually looking up when symphonies are thought to have been composed, and yet now you're shrugging your shoulders and saying "oh well, often we don't know". Do you want that information to hand or don't you?

And as I've said, Hoboken's aim was a chronological system. That was his intended goal. He didn't entirely succeed.

[Jo498]

Of course there's a problem with the numbering. The problem is that the Hoboken system, while common, is wrong. It doesn't reflect the sequence of composition, which is something it claimed to represent (and indeed, is the whole rationale for most numbering systems).

That's like saying there's no problem with a calculation being incorrect so long as everyone agrees to use the same errors.

There isn't a problem in practice unless you obsessively decide to make it one. The practical function of numberings in music is closer to phone numbers (i.e. a unique and rigid mapping of the set of pieces to a certain set of numbers) than to calculations.   
No sane person would obsess about differences in order of composition and publication in Beethoven's first two piano concertos or the quartets op.131 and 132 and so on. And it's similar with Haydn symphonies. Problems begin when one needs to consult catalogues and concordances because different numbering systems can make it difficult to identify a pieces. No such problems exist right now with Haydn symphonies because everyone sticks to the old numbering (pre-dating Hoboken, it was first done by Eusebius Mandyczewski). There are a few numbers that are misleading (e.g. #40 and #72 being much earlier than one would think) but most give a pretty close indication to their composition date (if it is known sufficiently precisely at all). There are also differences between order of composition and publication or first performance that are impossible to solve except by convention. So why not avoid confusing people with new numberings and simply stick to the conventional ones.

[71 dB]

Are you talking in general, or for Haydn?

In general, but what I said applies mostly (prolific) composers long ago. What and when Brahms composed is much better known than what and when Haydn wrote. Prolific composers seem to have been a bit "careless" about documenting their own working. My boss teached me to ALWAYS write the date on the papers you are working with, because a few years later you may need to come back and know more or less exact dates for what happened and when. "Were the pipe size calculations made before or after October 10, 2010?" for example. Then you thank yourself when you see the date "October 6, 2020" on the paper or document.

It's absolutely possible to have a correct numbering system in general. Some composers have done a very good job of enabling us to have one. In some cases, even when publishers ignored it.

Sure. Of course you can document your working well and some people do, but famous classical composers were often geniuses and intelligent people tend to have more chaotic working style because they can manage it. Chaos can even be a source of creativity. One of my past working pals, unquestionably very intelligent, used calendars for two years: So he would use for example the 2001 calendar also in 2002 not worrying about the days shifting by one (or two when leap year happens). Sometimes he was wondering if a markup was for this or previous year, but when your IQ is around 170 you can do it and not feel stupid when other people around say to you it would be so much easier to just use the correct calender for every year...

But if you want to argue that first person to come with a system automatically wins, no matter how misleading that system is as to what symphony belongs when... well that's a very odd stance given that you are the one specifically wanting symphonies from a particular time period.  You're actually looking up when symphonies are thought to have been composed, and yet now you're shrugging your shoulders and saying "oh well, often we don't know". Do you want that information to hand or don't you?

Of course the exact year of composing can be given in liner notes: "This Symphony was written in 1787." for example, because opus numbers no matter how correct do not tell the year.

And as I've said, Hoboken's aim was a chronological system. That was his intended goal. He didn't entirely succeed.

Hoboken seems to be "quite" chronological and Haydn exthusiasts in no doubt learn whenever it's not.

[Mahlerian]

In general, but what I said applies mostly (prolific) composers long ago. What and when Brahms composed is much better known than what and when Haydn wrote. Prolific composers seem to have been a bit "careless" about documenting their own working. My boss teached me to ALWAYS write the date on the papers you are working with, because a few years later you may need to come back and know more or less exact dates for what happened and when. "Were the pipe size calculations made before or after October 10, 2010?" for example. Then you thank yourself when you see the date "October 6, 2020" on the paper or document.
Sure. Of course you can document your working well and some people do, but famous classical composers were often geniuses and intelligent people tend to have more chaotic working style because they can manage it. Chaos can even be a source of creativity. One of my past working pals, unquestionably very intelligent, used calendars for two years: So he would use for example the 2001 calendar also in 2002 not worrying about the days shifting by one (or two when leap year happens). Sometimes he was wondering if a markup was for this or previous year, but when your IQ is around 170 you can do it and not feel stupid when other people around say to you it would be so much easier to just use the correct calender for every year...

I don't think it's a matter of temperament, much less intellectual ability, but rather a very different way of conceiving and thinking about musical works from our modern ideas. The early Haydn symphonies would have been written for specific performances, and were not produced to serve as a lasting testament to their composer's abilities so much as a refined form of entertainment. That we see them differently is a testament to their ability to function within both the older context and the newer one.

If you were to prepare a speech or a presentation for a given occasion, only the most vain or self-conscious among us would carefully date the product for the sake of scholars or researchers. Composers in Haydn's day were seen as craftsmen or, in Kant's comparison, decorators, rather than artists, and although some of their works were preserved for the study and enjoyment of later generations, the ideas we have today about following a composer's development and enjoying the arc of their entire career would have been completely foreign.

So it makes sense that Bach, Haydn, and Mozart didn't bother doing much to help scholars along. Of course, scholars in turn have become far more aware of details, such as paper type and handwriting, that composers would have taken no notice of whatsoever.

The reason why the less prolific composers of the 19th and 20th centuries tended to preserve a record of the creation of their works more than those of previous eras can be traced to that same shift from composer as artisan to composer as artist.

[Florestan]

I don't think it's a matter of temperament, much less intellectual ability, but rather a very different way of conceiving and thinking about musical works from our modern ideas. The early Haydn symphonies would have been written for specific performances, and were not produced to serve as a lasting testament to their composer's abilities so much as a refined form of entertainment. That we see them differently is a testament to their ability to function within both the older context and the newer one.

If you were to prepare a speech or a presentation for a given occasion, only the most vain or self-conscious among us would carefully date the product for the sake of scholars or researchers. Composers in Haydn's day were seen as craftsmen or, in Kant's comparison, decorators, rather than artists, and although some of their works were preserved for the study and enjoyment of later generations, the ideas we have today about following a composer's development and enjoying the arc of their entire career would have been completely foreign.

So it makes sense that Bach, Haydn, and Mozart didn't bother doing much to help scholars along. Of course, scholars in turn have become far more aware of details, such as paper type and handwriting, that composers would have taken no notice of whatsoever.

The reason why the less prolific composers of the 19th and 20th centuries tended to preserve a record of the creation of their works more than those of previous eras can be traced to that same shift from composer as artisan to composer as artist.

Excellent points.

[71 dB]

There isn't a problem in practice unless you obsessively decide to make it one. The practical function of numberings in music is closer to phone numbers (i.e. a unique and rigid mapping of the set of pieces to a certain set of numbers) than to calculations.   
No sane person would obsess about differences in order of composition and publication in Beethoven's first two piano concertos or the quartets op.131 and 132 and so on. And it's similar with Haydn symphonies. Problems begin when one needs to consult catalogues and concordances because different numbering systems can make it difficult to identify a pieces. No such problems exist right now with Haydn symphonies because everyone sticks to the old numbering (pre-dating Hoboken, it was first done by Eusebius Mandyczewski). There are a few numbers that are misleading (e.g. #40 and #72 being much earlier than one would think) but most give a pretty close indication to their composition date (if it is known sufficiently precisely at all). There are also differences between order of composition and publication or first performance that are impossible to solve except by convention. So why not avoid confusing people with new numberings and simply stick to the conventional ones.

I got interested of this issue more and read the page given by Gurn about Chronology. I was surprised to read the Hoboken numbering is from 1950's (really that "new"? I though the numbering was from early 19th century not long after the composer was put 6 feet under!) and even Eusebius Mandyczewski numbering is from 1907! So there was no numbering in the 19th century at all? Wow! I guess it didn't matter much because people were not collecting Haydn's Symphonies on CD.  It seem a lot of things concerning Haydn are pretty recent. Haydn's Cello Concertos where found in the 1960's for example, hardly a decade before I was born.

[71 dB]

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:)

[Gurn Blanston]

Poju, you mentioned Gerlach earlier, so I know you know who she is. If you look again at the first sction from that link I sent you, you will see headings like this:

New Chronology     HRL       Hob. I #


Hoboken didn't actually make an attempt to research a proper chronology, he took his numbers from a list compiled back for the centennial of Haydn's death (1909) by the Secretary of the Vienna Society of the Friends of Music, a fellow named Eusebius Mandyczewski (in 1907). Mandyczewski wrote a great list, he actually had everything right except for what are now called Symphony A & B, which he only knew as string quartets. However, the chronology is completely wrong. Hob. # 1-10 are really 1, 37, 18, 2, 4, 27, 10, 20, 17 & 19. So he got #1 right, but only because Haydn told Griesinger that it is WAS #1.

The HRL numbers are devised by Landon, when he wrote his monumental book 'Symphonies of Joseph Haydn'. As you will see, they differ considerably from the Hoboken numbers, but are not far from the New Chronology numbers.

Which brings us to Gerlach. She didn't mess around, she did complete analyses of the works, combined with the most thorough research, and came up with the list that I call 'New Chronology'. Virtually all Haydn scholars accept this list as being ~95% accurate, so if you want to actually call the symphonies out in order, that is the one to use. If you want to call them by the name everyone else does, use Hoboken. It's sort of like the Kochel Catalog for Mozart; everyone knows it's wrong, but no one wants to switch over to the far more accurate Neue Mozart Ausgabe (NMA). It's problematic.

[71 dB]

Poju, you mentioned Gerlach earlier, so I know you know who she is. If you look again at the first sction from that link I sent you, you will see headings like this:

New Chronology     HRL       Hob. I #


Hoboken didn't actually make an attempt to research a proper chronology, he took his numbers from a list compiled back for the centennial of Haydn's death (1909) by the Secretary of the Vienna Society of the Friends of Music, a fellow named Eusebius Mandyczewski (in 1907). Mandyczewski wrote a great list, he actually had everything right except for what are now called Symphony A & B, which he only knew as string quartets. However, the chronology is completely wrong. Hob. # 1-10 are really 1, 37, 18, 2, 4, 27, 10, 20, 17 & 19. So he got #1 right, but only because Haydn told Griesinger that it is WAS #1.

The HRL numbers are devised by Landon, when he wrote his monumental book 'Symphonies of Joseph Haydn'. As you will see, they differ considerably from the Hoboken numbers, but are not far from the New Chronology numbers.

Which brings us to Gerlach. She didn't mess around, she did complete analyses of the works, combined with the most thorough research, and came up with the list that I call 'New Chronology'. Virtually all Haydn scholars accept this list as being ~95% accurate, so if you want to actually call the symphonies out in order, that is the one to use. If you want to call them by the name everyone else does, use Hoboken. It's sort of like the Kochel Catalog for Mozart; everyone knows it's wrong, but no one wants to switch over to the far more accurate Neue Mozart Ausgabe (NMA). It's problematic.

Sorry, I don't believe I have ever mentioned Gerlach, but I'm getting much better into how this Haydn business goes. I never put much effort into understanding the chronology of Haydn's works, but now that I am getting excited about the ~1772 stuff I am motivated.  0:)

I copied the html code of "Chronology of the Symphonies: 1767 - 1774" from your site and removed most of the code so that only the Introduction text and table of the Symphonies remain (see screen capture below). Now I can make markups of my own while exploring these works. BTW Gurn, as great as your site is, it could be improved by some "clean up". For exampe the order of columns in the "Chronology of the Symphonies" pages differ from each other. Sometimes Hoboken # is first, sometimes New Chronology. This may confuse people. Another thing is the basic "navigation" of the pages: The links on right could be grouped so that all links to "Chronology of the Symphonies" are grouped for example. Now it's a bit "where is part 3 link?"

[Gurn Blanston]

Sorry, I don't believe I have ever mentioned Gerlach, but I'm getting much better into how this Haydn business goes. I never put much effort into understanding the chronology of Haydn's works, but now that I am getting excited about the ~1772 stuff I am motivated.  0:)

I copied the html code of "Chronology of the Symphonies: 1767 - 1774" from your site and removed most of the code so that only the Introduction text and table of the Symphonies remain (see screen capture below). Now I can make markups of my own while exploring these works. BTW Gurn, as great as your site is, it could be improved by some "clean up". For exampe the order of columns in the "Chronology of the Symphonies" pages differ from each other. Sometimes Hoboken # is first, sometimes New Chronology. This may confuse people. Another thing is the basic "navigation" of the pages: The links on right could be grouped so that all links to "Chronology of the Symphonies" are grouped for example. Now it's a bit "where is part 3 link?"

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!

[Madiel]

There isn't a problem in practice unless you obsessively decide to make it one. The practical function of numberings in music is closer to phone numbers (i.e. a unique and rigid mapping of the set of pieces to a certain set of numbers) than to calculations.   
No sane person would obsess about differences in order of composition and publication in Beethoven's first two piano concertos or the quartets op.131 and 132 and so on. And it's similar with Haydn symphonies. Problems begin when one needs to consult catalogues and concordances because different numbering systems can make it difficult to identify a pieces. No such problems exist right now with Haydn symphonies because everyone sticks to the old numbering (pre-dating Hoboken, it was first done by Eusebius Mandyczewski). There are a few numbers that are misleading (e.g. #40 and #72 being much earlier than one would think) but most give a pretty close indication to their composition date (if it is known sufficiently precisely at all). There are also differences between order of composition and publication or first performance that are impossible to solve except by convention. So why not avoid confusing people with new numberings and simply stick to the conventional ones.

You spent most of that denying a problem and then in the middle of it decided to agree that some of the numbers are misleading.