Haydn's Haus

[SurprisedByBeauty]

Be it Haydn, Bach, Beethoven or Dvorak, numbering works appears to be a matter of convenience, convention, and practicality.

There's no doubt that conventions can change, given time and usage. But it determines a good deal of convenience and practicality. It can't be denied that simply having a standard to which everyone can refer and which everyone knows how to assess is helpful in-and-of-itself. I.e. if we all know that with "Schubert Symphony No. 8" the idea is the "Unfinished", communication becomes easier. There might be reasons to consider it the "Great C Major" (as musicologists have been trying to establish, to varying success, for half a century), but that means we introduce ambiguity... which requires the addition of more information to even identify the work. Sometimes the switch works nicely (I.e. Dvorak's "Symphony No. 5" is now associated with a different work (F major, Op. 76) and no longer with "From the New World"), sometimes old habits die harder. [Schubert is a special case; I think that the curious lacunae at No.7 is helpful in making us stop and think and perhaps realize that there *is* a largely ignored symphony that would fit the spot... and that there are even more symphonic drafts out there that are quite nice... and that things aren't always as simple as a continuous numbering system might have us believe. But that's a different topic again.]

As such, any conventionally used identifier (be it a D-, KV-, BWV- or even Hob.- number, an opus number, a "Symphony Number") primarily serves the function of identifying a work. I won't argue that additional information conveyed by any such numbering system isn't convenient or desirable, but first and foremost we need to establish what work we are talking about.

Secondly, the question of a numbering system is one of introducing a greater amount of information in the most concise (but also convenient) way. BWV numbers do that, by giving us the "type" of work. In establishing these (or most other systems), scholars rely on the amount of knowledge present at the time. BWV numbers left some room for future discoveries to be made and incorporated... another sign of a good system, because it allows room for convention to take hold _and_ some flexibility.

With better numbering systems being come up with, we face the reality of those numbers not meaning enough to too many people, so that additional information (i.e. the work's title or any other 'conventional' reference) becomes necessary. And if it is just a matter of adding information, it might be argued that sticking with convention and adding the year of composition serves that purpose neatly, giving us not only the identifier and a handle on the chronology but also an exact date.

What with the different preferences that we attach to these different aspects of identifiers, and our varying degree of familiarity with any given body of work, it's no wonder that we are arguing. I'm just happy if I am given enough information to know _what_ (or which piece) we are arguing about. 

[amw]

Listening to these on Deezer and I have to say, regardless of how many old ladies he may have physically assaulted, Stefan Arzberger's intonation here (currently on Op. 50 no. 2) is really sloppy. I've enjoyed some of the earlier Haydn volumes with him but this is not really up to the same standard as e.g. their Beethoven or Mozart (which, admittedly, is extremely high). Bring 👏 back 👏 Andreas 👏 Seidel 👏

Side note: if you didn't know you can now listen to the Musikproduktion Dabringhaus und Grimm catalogue on Deezer (whereas it's still restricted on other streaming platforms), be advised that you can now listen to the Musikproduktion Dabringhaus und Grimm catalogue on Deezer.

[Karl Henning]

Apparently I am both a nerd AND a contrarian. I can live with that.

To thine own self be true

[Madiel]

Be it Haydn, Bach, Beethoven or Dvorak, it appears to be a matter of convenience, convention, and practicality.

There's no doubt that conventions can change, given time and usage. But it determines a good deal of convenience and practicality. It can't be denied that simply having a standard to which everyone can refer and which everyone knows how to assess is helpful in-and-of-itself. I.e. if we all know that with "Schubert Symphony No. 8" the idea is the "Unfinished", communication becomes easier. There might be reasons to consider it the "Great C Major" (as musicologists have been trying to establish, to varying success, for half a century), but that means we introduce ambiguity... which requires the addition of more information to even identify the work. Sometimes the switch works nicely (I.e. Dvorak's "Symphony No. 5" is now associated with a different work (F major, Op. 76) and no longer with "From the New World"), sometimes old habits die harder. [Schubert is a special case; I think that the curious lacunae at No.7 is helpful in making us stop and think and perhaps realize that there *is* a largely ignored symphony that would fit the spot... and that there are even more symphonic drafts out there that are quite nice... and that things aren't always as simple as a continuous numbering system might have us believe. But that's a different topic again.]

As such, any conventionally used identifier (be it a D-, KV-, BWV- or even Hob.- number, an opus number, a "Symphony Number") primarily serves the function of identifying a work. I won't argue that additional information conveyed by any such numbering system isn't convenient or desirable, but first and foremost we need to establish what work we are talking about.

Secondly, the question of a numbering system is one of introducing a greater amount of information in the most concise (but also convenient) way. BWV numbers do that, by giving us the "type" of work. In establishing these (or most other systems), scholars rely on the amount of knowledge present at the time. BWV numbers left some room for future discoveries to be made and incorporated... another sign of a good system, because it allows room for convention to take hold _and_ some flexibility.

With better numbering systems being come up with, we face the reality of those numbers not meaning enough to too many people, so that additional information (i.e. the work's title or any other 'conventional' reference) becomes necessary. And if it is just a matter of adding information, it might be argued that sticking with convention and adding the year of composition serves that purpose neatly, giving us not only the identifier and a handle on the chronology but also an exact date.

What with the different preferences that we attach to these different aspects of identifiers, and our varying degree of familiarity with any given body of work, it's no wonder that we are arguing. I'm just happy if I am given enough information to know _what_ (or which piece) we are arguing about. 

I thank you for a thoroughly sensible response.

[Karl Henning]

You are neither --- you just love to appear as one.

And I was just telling Gurn that he should have renewed his nerd certification.

[71 dB]

I am not interested of the numbering systems! They are what they are. I'm waiting for the Op. 20 discs to arrive finally. I ordered them June 17th. International postal service is frustratingly slow and Covid-19 crisis made it even slower!  I am really hoping they will arrive tomorrow, July 1st. This is a problem: I get really excited about something. I order the CDs and then I wait for half a month or even longer for the shipment to arrive. So frustrating and it kills enthusiams. Oftentimes I have lost my excitement by the time the discs arrive and I have to wait for a year or two for the enthusiams to come back. 

[Karl Henning]

I am not interested of the numbering systems! They are what they are. I'm waiting for the Op. 20 discs to arrive finally. I ordered them June 17th. International postal service is frustratingly slow and Covid-19 crisis made it even slower!  I am really hoping they will arrive tomorrow, July 1st. This is a problem: I get really excited about something. I order the CDs and then I wait for half a month or even longer for the shipment to arrive. So frustrating and it kills enthusiams. Oftentimes I have lost my excitement by the time the discs arrive and I have to wait for a year or two for the enthusiams to come back. 

I know it's a challenge, but the virtue of Patience is our friend.

[71 dB]

I know it's a challenge, but the virtue of Patience is our friend.

Yeah Karl.  0:)

I have now enough information to explore Haydn around 1772 by myself (meaning less presence here). This looks an attractive boxset:

[asin]B00004SA85[/asin]

[Karl Henning]

Yeah Karl.  0:)

I have now enough information to explore Haydn around 1772 by myself (meaning less presence here). This looks an attractive boxset:

[asin]B00004SA85[/asin]

That does look nice.

[Daverz]

Yeah Karl.  0:)

I have now enough information to explore Haydn around 1772 by myself (meaning less presence here). This looks an attractive boxset:

[asin]B00004SA85[/asin]

Love this set.  Though I also highly recommend the Dennis Russell Davies set of all the symphonies if you can find a good price on it (I payed around $25 for it in 2013). 

[Gurn Blanston]

Love this set.  Though I also highly recommend the Dennis Russell Davies set of all the symphonies if you can find a good price on it (I payed around $25 for it in 2013).

He's not interested in anything but the S&D symphonies though, so you are wasting your time.   I think he will be delighted with the Pinnock. I have the 6 individual disks: I have had them since before the box set came out and still listen to them quite frequently.

[Jo498]

Pinnock is the easiest choice for the symphonies around 1770 in a box. Brüggen and Hogwood are oop as separates and they are not as good (or at least not as uncontroversially excellent ), Weil is incomplete, so is Solomons, I think, and even harder to get. I'd still recommend all Solomons one can find despite the tiny and occasionally scrawny orchestra, especially for 39, 45 and 48.

[aukhawk]

Collating the volumes (so far) of 'Haydn 2032' on the Alpha label, with Gurn's list, suggests two 'sweet spot' issues, Vols. 2 & 3 each including two works from Gurn's list.  Vol 1 is also notable in including two minor-key symphonies (though from the 1760s).  Note that each of these issues also includes a work not by Haydn, that is deemed to be somehow related (often tenuous, sometimes not).

'Haydn 2032' on the Alpha label
Il Giardino Armonico
* Kammerorchester Basel
cond. Giovanni Antonini

vol
1 - 39~, 49~, 1  (~ signifies minor key)
2 - 46, 22, 47
3 - 42, 64, 4
4 - 60, 70, 12
5*- 80~, 81, 19
6*- 3, 26~, 79, 30
7*- 67, 65, 9
8 - 63, 43, 28


Gurn's list:
Year       NC#  Key         Hob #   Name
1770/71      50   e      44   Mourning
1770/71      51   Eb      43   Mercury
1771           52   c      52   
1771           53   D      42   
1772           54   G      47   
1772           55   f#      45   Farewell
1772           56   B      46   Palindrome
1773           57   Bb      51   
1773           58   A      64   Tempora Mutantur
1773/4   59   C      50 

[71 dB]

The Naxos CDs of Op. 20 arrived today finally and I am listening to them. Yes, this is my kind of Haydn! I like these String Quartets significantly more than Op. 64 and Op. 76. The difference is shocking. Op. 20 sounds Mozartian and (proto-) Beethovenian at the same time. Maybe there are "better" performances of these works available, but I do like these Naxos discs. I'm not someone who understand the finest nyances of top notch performances and I think Naxos has very nice balanced sound. Not too muddy. Not too thin. These should have been my first Haydn discs over 20 years ago. Instead I started with Op. 64 discs and hit a rock (not hating them, but not excited to explore further either). 

Love this set.  Though I also highly recommend the Dennis Russell Davies set of all the symphonies if you can find a good price on it (I payed around $25 for it in 2013).

He's not interested in anything but the S&D symphonies though, so you are wasting your time.   I think he will be delighted with the Pinnock. I have the 6 individual disks: I have had them since before the box set came out and still listen to them quite frequently.

I'm not 100 % sure about that, but it certainly looks like the "S&D Symphonies" in average are the most attractive to me. I limit myself into this period at least for now (that's still plenty of works thanks to Haydn being so prolific) and maybe later I explore other periods. Haydn's early works seem to have it's own charm for example.

Maybe in 2013 one could buy the Dennis Russell Davies boxset for $25, but I'm affraid in 2020 that's unrealistic. In Amazon.co.uk the set goes for about £60 used and £770 new!         

Since I have the Dorati as mp3s, I am considering of getting the S&D Symphonies on physical discs and also have alternative performances for Dorati. The Pinnock boxset looks good for that. Naxos has "scattered" the  S&D Symphonies all over the place with other Symphonies, but I have the one with 50, 51 and 52 which I bought about 10 years ago because I liked those Symphonies. Clearly an indication of where my taste is.

[Karl Henning]

The Naxos CDs of Op. 20 arrived today finally and I am listening to them. Yes, this is my kind of Haydn! I like these String Quartets significantly more than Op. 64 and Op. 76. The difference is shocking. Op. 20 sounds Mozartian and (proto-) Beethovenian at the same time. Maybe there are "better" performances of these works available, but I do like these Naxos discs. I'm not someone who understand the finest nyances of top notch performances and I think Naxos has very nice balanced sound. Not too muddy. Not too thin. These should have been my first Haydn discs over 20 years ago. Instead I started with Op. 64 discs and hit a rock (not hating them, but not excited to explore further either). 

I'm not 100 % sure about that, but it certainly looks like the "S&D Symphonies" in average are the most attractive to me. I limit myself into this period at least for now (that's still plenty of works thanks to Haydn being so prolific) and maybe later I explore other periods. Haydn's early works seem to have it's own charm for example.

Maybe in 2013 one could buy the Dennis Russell Davies boxset for $25, but I'm affraid in 2020 that's unrealistic. In Amazon.co.uk the set goes for about £60 used and £770 new!         

Since I have the Dorati as mp3s, I am considering of getting the S&D Symphonies on physical discs and also have alternative performances for Dorati. The Pinnock boxset looks good for that. Naxos has "scattered" the  S&D Symphonies all over the place with other Symphonies, but I have the one with 50, 51 and 52 which I bought about 10 years ago because I liked those Symphonies. Clearly an indication of where my taste is.

Excellent! I'll join you in the Op. 20

[Karl Henning]

Love this set.  Though I also highly recommend the Dennis Russell Davies set of all the symphonies if you can find a good price on it (I payed around $25 for it in 2013). 

I, too, am lastingly grateful for the DRD box.

[71 dB]

Excellent! I'll join you in the Op. 20

Op. 20 joins the people together, hurrah!  0:)

[71 dB]

Million thanks to  aukhawk for the comment of Op. 20 being where Haydn peaked with String Quartets. These two Naxos discs are blowing me away! 

I love the music and I the luscious recorded sound*. Good spatiality with speakers and also with headphones when I use crossfeed level -8 dB.

I think I like the 2 minor Quartets the most, Op. 20/5 being maybe my favorite, but the major Quartets are not far behind. Simply a revelation for me after the semi-struggles with Op. 64 and Op. 76.  0:)

* Perhaps not the best/cleanest possible technically especially compared to what the best recordings are today, but it serves the music well. I find it quite enjoyable.

[Gurn Blanston]

Op. 20 joins the people together, hurrah!  0:)

Well, unlike many people, I rarely listen to an entire opus at a time, I like to pick 1 or 2 from a few different ones and listen to 6 that way instead of a set.  But since Op 20 is getting some well-deserved attention, I will jump on the bandwagon and say that my single favorite disk of Haydn quartets is this one, with Jaap Schroeder playing first violin:



But as with most music, I am far more pleased to have a good recording of the music than I am to have a specific performer. I know the Kodaly's do an excellent job, because they were my first set of everything except Op 76. If I had never gotten any others I would still be pleased to have the entire set of quartets.

[71 dB]

Well, unlike many people, I rarely listen to an entire opus at a time, I like to pick 1 or 2 from a few different ones and listen to 6 that way instead of a set.  But since Op 20 is getting some well-deserved attention, I will jump on the bandwagon and say that my single favorite disk of Haydn quartets is this one, with Jaap Schroeder playing first violin:



But as with most music, I am far more pleased to have a good recording of the music than I am to have a specific performer. I know the Kodaly's do an excellent job, because they were my first set of everything except Op 76. If I had never gotten any others I would still be pleased to have the entire set of quartets.

As much as I seem to like Op. 20 I'm not planning to get other performances. I hear absolutely nothing wrong with Kodály. I paid 8.39 euros total delivered for these discs and I enjoy them very much. This might be my best CD purchase of the year! It would be idiotic to doubt the enjoyment by "dreaming" about other releases of these works. Happiness is knowing when you are winning and know to stop reaching higher with a higher cost. If I spent say 30 euros for Op. 20 to have a better performance/recording, I would render these Naxos discs "worthless" (8.39 euros wasted) and I would have spent ~5 times more for a little better. Not cost-effective at all. I am winning now.