Haydn's Haus

[Gurn Blanston]

The link is dead. 

Try it now. I made a copy & paste screwup.

[Florestan]

Obviously I disagree with you, probably because I am intimately familiar with the multitude of fuckups in the Hoboken Catalog and you probably aren't. I'm not criticizing you here, just saying what I believe to be true. Every page of Hoboken can be read out and accepted, except for this, that and the other thing. I know, we will all just remember all those exceptions, then it will be perfect.    I can't buy that, Andrei...

My idea is that it is most rational and helpful to categorize Haydn's works by genre.

Hob:I --- Symphonies
Hob II --- String Quartets
Hob III --- whatever

aso asf.

I have no problem whatsoever with placing chronologically, say, Hob I:63. A mere Google search yields this:

https://imslp.org/wiki/Symphony_No.63_in_C_major,_Hob.I:63_(Haydn,_Joseph)

and this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symphony_No._63_(Haydn)

Are they wrong?

[Florestan]

Try it now. I made a copy & paste screwup.

Can you read German? I can't. 

[Gurn Blanston]

My idea is that it is most rational and helpful to categorize Haydn's works by genre.

Hob:I --- Symphonies
Hob II --- String Quartets
Hob III --- whatever

aso asf.

I have no problem whatsoever with placing chronologically, say, Hob I:63. A mere Google search yields this:

https://imslp.org/wiki/Symphony_No.63_in_C_major,_Hob.I:63_(Haydn,_Joseph)

and this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symphony_No._63_(Haydn)

Are they wrong?

So you are OK with actually looking up everything every time (because you sure as hell aren't going to remember it all) than to know by looking at the title that it is really Symphony #74? That might be OK for you, but is certainly not something I am interested in doing every time I want to do. Just knowing it was written in 1779 and not 1773 is a big deal for me, because I know enough about Haydn to know what he was doing in both of those years, so how 'La Roxelane' fits into his life and oeuvre at the time.

A numbering system is a potential tool. But if it gives you either no information at all or is misleading, then that is a tool you might as well throw away.

[Gurn Blanston]

Can you read German? I can't. 

I use Google Chrome, and I have it set to automatically translate German into English. Also, on one of those pages, it gives you a DE/EN option...

[Florestan]

A numbering system is a potential tool. But if it gives you either no information at all or is misleading, then that is a tool you might as well throw away.

Do you seriously and in all earnest mean that the whole Hoboken thing gives you either no information at all or is misleading?

[Florestan]

So you are OK with actually looking up everything every time (because you sure as hell aren't going to remember it all) than to know by looking at the title that it is really Symphony #74?

Yes, I am. As Jens pointed out earlier, are you OK with Beethoven's Op. 75? Tell us what it is without actually looking up. Oh, wait, you can't, can you? 

[Gurn Blanston]

Do you seriously and in all earnest mean that the whole Hoboken thing gives you either no information at all or is misleading?

I do seriously mean that much of it is misleading. All I'm saying is that the information which was considered adequate 80 years ago (when no one knew anything different) would do very well by having an update. If that were to happen, then all these 10-20 different systems (for different genres) wouldn't be necessary. They shouldn't be necessary, except that everyone knows that Hoboken is full of shit. So update it and let's move on!

[Gurn Blanston]

Yes, I am. As Jens pointed out earlier, are you OK with Beethoven's Op. 75? Tell us what it is without actually looking up. Oh, wait, you can't, can you? 

You asked the wrong person about the 6 Songs, I just listened to them last week. However, my Biamonti List shows me that they are Work #502, so I know already that they are truly well placed at Op 75, they were written in 1809.

That said, let's go back 4 Opus numbers and you can tell me something about Opus 71. It must be from around the same time period... ?

[Florestan]

I do seriously mean that much of it is misleading. All I'm saying is that the information which was considered adequate 80 years ago (when no one knew anything different) would do very well by having an update. If that were to happen, then all these 10-20 different systems (for different genres) wouldn't be necessary. They shouldn't be necessary, except that everyone knows that Hoboken is full of shit. So update it and let's move on!

Why, you certainly know a whole lotta things about it --- why don't you go about your own way of cataloguing Haydn's works in a rational and chronological way?

No offense meant, my friend, but it's so easy to talk the talk... 

[Florestan]

You asked the wrong person about the 6 Songs, I just listened to them last week. However, my Biamonti List shows me that they are Work #502, so I know already that they are truly well placed at Op 75, they were written in 1809.

That said, let's go back 4 Opus numbers and you can tell me something about Opus 71. It must be from around the same time period... ?

When, pray tell, did I ask you, or anybody else, about "the 6 Songs"? I don't even have no idea whatever what you're talking about. You surely confuse me for someone else. 

[Gurn Blanston]

Why, you certainly know a whole lotta things about it --- why don't you go about your own way of cataloguing Haydn's works in a rational and chronological way?

No offense meant, my friend, but it's so easy to talk the talk... 

Well, the people who are actually responsible for doing this stuff (The Haydn Institute, for example) should be keeping Hob. updated. No one knows better than they do how much is wrong with it. But they never do. Instead, they either support or ignore all these other efforts to make accurate catalogs which would not be necessary of someone would take the bull by the horn and get it done. I have no standing in the academic community to undertake a project of that size. I can have comprehensive knowledge and understanding of the problem, but it isn't worth a pinch of salt without connections. I am nearly 70 years old: the likelihood of getting academic standing at this point in my life ranges from slim to none, and Slim just left town...

[Gurn Blanston]

When, pray tell, did I ask you, or anybody else, about "the 6 Songs"? I don't even have no idea whatever what you're talking about. You surely confuse me for someone else. 

Yes, I am. As Jens pointed out earlier, are you OK with Beethoven's Op. 75? Tell us what it is without actually looking up. Oh, wait, you can't, can you? 

Beethoven Op 75: 6 Songs dedicated to Princess Caroline Kinsky.  1809.

I think that was you....

[Florestan]

Well, the people who are actually responsible for doing this stuff (The Haydn Institute, for example) should be keeping Hob. updated. No one knows better than they do how much is wrong with it. But they never do. Instead, they either support or ignore all these other efforts to make accurate catalogs which would not be necessary of someone would take the bull by the horn and get it done. I have no standing in the academic community to undertake a project of that size. I can have comprehensive knowledge and understanding of the problem, but it isn't worth a pinch of salt without connections. I am nearly 70 years old: the likelihood of getting academic standing at this point in my life ranges from slim to none, and Slim just left town...

Well, then I guess we all have to put up with the latest revised edition of Hoboken and just shut up.

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.

[71 dB]

Listened to Hob. I: 26 from 1768. Dorati. Despite of being in d minor it's not among the best ones I have heard from Haydn.

[Florestan]

Beethoven Op 75: 6 Songs dedicated to Princess Caroline Kinsky.  1809.

Do you mean to tell us that you knew the work, dedicatee and composition year without looking it up?

[Gurn Blanston]

Do you mean to tell us that you knew the work, dedicatee and composition year without looking it up?

Nope, just the work. I looked up her name and the year for a reason, which was to ask you the question I asked you earlier: What about Op 71?

[Gurn Blanston]

Listened to Hob. I: 26 from 1768. Dorati. Despite of being in d minor it's not among the best ones I have heard from Haydn.

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...

[Florestan]

What about Op 71?

Precisely. What about it, without looking it up?

My whole point is: given the current state of research and technology, complaining that Hoboken or KV or BWV or whatnot is partially faulty when it comes to exact chronology is hairsplitting to the umpteenth degree.

[Gurn Blanston]

Precisely. What about it, without looking it up?

My whole point is: given the current state of research and technology, complaining that Hoboken or KV or BWV or whatnot is partially faulty when it comes to exact chronology is hairsplitting to the umpteenth degree.

Well, you can say that but you're not going to cheat me out of making my point. 

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, and then whether the Bia numbers are useful or deceptive. This is assuming that you aren't 100% ignorant about Beethoven, which I know you aren't. I know it rips your heart out to concede a point, but be honest, please.