Haydn's Haus

[SonicMan46]

Haydn's Seven Last Works of Christ on the Cross (Septem Verba Christi in Cruce) - orchestral version w/ Jordi Savall and Le Concert des Nations (2006); Francisco Rojas, Evangeliste, speaking the 'words' in Latin before each of the seven movements (extra beginning and ending movement).

Well, I've owned a number of String Quartet versions of this composition (and a choral one); also, have the keyboard transcription on the way - this and the keyboard ones stimulated by an excellent review by Jens HERE - the booklet is HUGE (155 pages) mainly because the notes are printed in seven languages (a coincidence?) - 

[Opus106]

Some time ago I did read an interesting article by Jamie James (October 2, 1994, New York Times) , which discuses the use of continuo, especially harpsichord, in Haydn symphonies. This issue was especially controversial when Christopher Hogwood and Roy Goodman assumed antagonic positions in his own cycles.

I recalled it today when I was listening to these superb Haydn symphonies with continuo:

Nice article. Thanks, Antoine. Unrelated to the issue of using a continuo in a symphony, is the issue of Haydn getting "rid of the harpsichord in the string quartets." Would someone care to explain that to me, please?

[Que]

What I picked up from this article is that Hogwood is continuing his Haydn series on Hyperion.
Interesting, I didn't know that!

Q

[Lethevich]

What I picked up from this article is that Hogwood is continuing his Haydn series on Hyperion.
Interesting, I didn't know that!

What the heck? This is amazing - if bizarre - news.

[Opus106]

What the heck? This is amazing - if bizarre - news.

That article was published 15 years ago.

[Lethevich]

That article was published 15 years ago.

[Gurn Blanston]

Nice article. Thanks, Antoine. Unrelated to the issue of using a continuo in a symphony, is the issue of Haydn getting "rid of the harpsichord in the string quartets." Would someone care to explain that to me, please?

Navneeth, I think that the author had some sort of brain fart there. What I can only think he means (which I know about) is that Haydn finally got rid of the idea of continuo in the quartets. Not necessarily played on harpsichord, mind you, just the use of the cello (or other baß instrument) to play a continuo part (visualize a trio sonata where the cello doubles the left hand of the cembalo). This was something that he had to overcome in his own writing, since the concept was so ingrained that the whole conceptualization of a work included figuring the continuo. That vestige of Baroque/pre-Classical was the last hurdle in front of 'modern' chamber music.

[Opus106]

Navneeth, I think that the author had some sort of brain fart there. What I can only think he means (which I know about) is that Haydn finally got rid of the idea of continuo in the quartets. Not necessarily played on harpsichord, mind you, just the use of the cello (or other baß instrument) to play a continuo part (visualize a trio sonata where the cello doubles the left hand of the cembalo). This was something that he had to overcome in his own writing, since the concept was so ingrained that the whole conceptualization of a work included figuring the continuo. That vestige of Baroque/pre-Classical was the last hurdle in front of 'modern' chamber music.

I see. Thanks for clearing that up, Gurn.

[Antoine Marchand]

Not necessarily[/i] played on harpsichord, mind you, just the use of the cello (or other baß instrument) to play a continuo part (visualize a trio sonata where the cello doubles the left hand of the cembalo).

That's rather the case of the violoncello, for instance, in the early piano trios.     

[Gurn Blanston]

That's rather the case of the violoncello, for instance, in the early piano trios.     

Quite so, and not just the really early ones either. It was a difficult thing for Haydn to shake off, and vestiges of it come back even in the late-middle period (1780's). I read an interesting essay on this topic that I'll dig out and excerpt, if there is any interest in it.

[Opus106]

I read an interesting essay on this topic that I'll dig out and excerpt, if there is any interest in it.

Most definitely there is, unless of course it very technical.

[Gurn Blanston]

Most definitely there is, unless of course it very technical.

Hmmph. As though I would understand it if it was...

[Opus106]

Hmmph. As though I would understand it if it was...

Stop showing off your humility.

[The new erato]

Stop showing off your humility.

We know-it-alls gather at The Diner.

[Todd]

I've worked my way through another four discs of the new Davies symphony cycle, and these four discs are better than the first four.  The discs present a wide array of symphonies - from the times of day symphonies up to the 72nd - and all come off well.  The times of day symphonies (6-8) are all splendid, as expected, and the energy level on some of the "later" symphonies (ie, around 20 and above) has picked up.  The polish is still there, too.  I did compare Adam Fischer's take to Davies' for the 72nd, and Davies' takes a slower sounding approach for the slow movements, but is otherwise perhaps a bit peppier.  Sound is much better in the new set.  Hopefully the next round is better yet.

[Que]

What I picked up from this article is that Hogwood is continuing his Haydn series on Hyperion.
Interesting, I didn't know that!

Q

That article was published 15 years ago.

Indeed -  oooops!  Shows how reliable record companies are...

Q

[snyprrr]

I've corresponded with a few others here who have also felt skittish about posting lately, and I'm just saying sorry if it's because of me. I dare say that it is because of me that this thread has ballooned to 28 pages, for good or ill, but hey, I can't think of any other "music+performance" topic, other than Haydn SQs, which can engender so many different responses (because there are so many worthwhile, one-off, performances?).

Almost 20 years ago, when I was "searching", the Kodaly introduced me to Haydn SQs, much to my initial frustration (a) the music wasn't what I was looking for at the time, b) the Kodaly's middlin' performances couldn't turn the music around for me). When I dove back into Haydn in May of this year, I had my hopes up that I had been wrong earlier, and that there truly was a banquet here.

Op.20/2 in C major was the SQ that brought me into the fold. The baroque sounding slow mvmt. hooked me. So, from then on, I slavishly sought out the whole era's nuggets, piece by piece. When it came to Haydn SQs, I totally relied on your all good people's wisdom (some of it clashing!), while the library had sets by the Amadeus and Kodaly and QM.

Now, one thing I've noticed is, that not every group does well in every opus number of this repertoire: the Kodaly is a great example. Some of their cds are top choice for some, whilst in other places they are merely serviceable. I do like their Op.77; perhaps their Op.55 is not the greatest . And so on.

When it comes to the current issue at hand, I remind all that I had the Opp. 54/55 issue of the Buchberger set. From the first note of 54/1 I was in shock; when I came to (my second full post, when I compared with the Endellion and Lindsays), I believe I had a clearer view. You can see for yourselves that I was balanced (I chose BB over Endellion in 54/3). I also scratched my head when I finally read about the BBs hailing from 1974. I should really have liked them, and, maybe, they work better in the earlier opera (everyone seems to be gaga over Opp. 9/17 lately because of the new competition, which I welcome, surely). I can see where they might appeal to me more in the earlier context. Which brings me to...

the HIP thing. All I can say is, whenever I've heard a DIRECT comparison between HIP and non-HIP, the HIP recording always ends up sounding baroque to me. When I hear it by itself,...no problem. When I hear modern by itself,... no problem. But, when I compare directly, it sounds as though I'm listening to two different styles of music. And, so, maybe that's my problem, and I will deal with it accordingly.

And, not all HIP is created equal. I have totally enjoyed the Salomon Quartet in the "English SQs" cd, and really want to hear them in Haydn (verrry $$$). Their HIP-ness doesn't sound as all encompassing as, say, the QM, with their built in orchestral ambience. Some of the CPO bands (Nomos, Revolutionary Drawing Room, Pleyel Quartet, Haydn Quartet) seem to have struck a perfect balance.

I still haven't heard the Festetics, sorry to Que (because this computer won't do ANYTHING ), but, of course, I feel obligated by now, haha. No, seriously, I just wish I had more insight here.

And then there's this new Auryn cycle that seems to be having people do cartwheels of joy; and, I believe they're supposed to be modern, right?

When I initially mistook the Buchberger's HIP-ness for "suck-ness", I think I embarassed myself !! They ARE HIP, right? Maybe there are people out there right now who are actually saying that very thing about the whole HIP thing, and I'm sure some take it a bit far (who?), but I don't have any bias either way. It's not politics with me.

My personal theory for Haydn (and this is JUST FOR ME) is that Opp. 9/17/20 should be played HIP, Op.33 is special, Op.50 is special, and from Op.54 on, I just want to hear what EYE want to hear. That means, I want to be selfish and just hear those bands which I choose for my own selfish reasons, whatsoever they may be. This is just my personal thing, and wouldn't bring it into any argument (though 9/17/20 being HIP seems kinda obvious, no?).

On the one hand, I'm glad we're starting to get a glut of recordings; on the other, no one seems to be willing to buy EVERYTHING, and then let us poor ($$$) folks know which way to the mountain. Jens, of course, has done great service, but I'm sure even he can't get EVERYTHING (or,... can he?,hmmm ).

Personally, I don't want to get the whole Aeolian set just to compare it to the Angeles, or Kodaly, or whatever. Still, we haven't heard word ONE about this band (are they now obsolete?). And, what of the Angeles? Are they contenders, or, are they totally hamstrung by pillowy reverb?

I'm also interested in the Dekany vs. Tatrai in Op.20.

The Medici in Op.64.
The Griller in 71/74.
The Weller in Op.33.
The Chilingirian in Op.71.
The Kocian in Op.20.

The list of interesting contenders/pretenders is OUTSTANDING! In every opus number, there are great one-offs that make me curious. Of course, many of them are outrageously priced on Amazon, making them practically useless (unless, of course, one of GMG's more philanthro...ah, nevermind!).

I suppose one could argue that any string quartet group that eventually ends up recording a Haydn SQ disc should be considered worthy, even the South Eastern Arkadian Community College String Quartet. Who knows? I simply can't AFFORD$$$ to believe that all Haydn albums are created equal. I want maximimity is my choices. I want it all-in-one. I want great sound, great modern/HIP-congealed playing (best of all worlds),... no excuses. And, sure, if one group can deliver on all cylinders at all times, then, so be it. I hasn't happened yet, according to everyone's collected wisdom, but, maybe the Auryn are working on that?

I just happened upon a cache of Haydn SQ reviews (sorry, can't remember... search Pellegrini Haydn), mainly between the Pellegrini and Hagen in Op. 20., but there were other great little tidbits. Me, I'm just trying to get as much info as possible before I plunk down any $$$ for anything these days.

I'm sure everyone here has already played the London Haydn Quartet's Op.20 in their heads, and knows if they will like it or not. What if the LHQ actually took a note of all their criticism, tweaked things a little bit, and came up the best Op.20 ever? That's the kind of stuff I'm looking for: people who respond to feedback, and correct previous errors (as opposed to players who start off great, and then sink under the weight of their own ego).

Honestly, I would have wished that someone out there would already have every group playing every SQ, and would go down the line, and make blow by blow comparisons for people like me who just don't have the trust fund or well paying job to do the dirty work.

I was thinking about starting a "Field Guide to Haydn SQ Recordings" where I would make a different post for each opus, with all the recordings of that opus, so that if you had a cd to add, you could just click the quote for that particular opus, and add the name of the group, and the label they're on. Is that a good idea? Have you actually read this far?

No one's mentioned the new Smithson recording on Dorian, with Op.9/17 pieces.

[Bulldog]

I've corresponded with a few others here who have also felt skittish about posting lately, and I'm just saying sorry if it's because of me. I dare say that it is because of me that this thread has ballooned to 28 pages, for good or ill, but hey, I can't think of any other "music+performance" topic, other than Haydn SQs, which can engender so many different responses (because there are so many worthwhile, one-off, performances?).

Oh, I think you give yourself way too much credit for the "balloon"; the credit belongs to Haydn.

[snyprrr]

That's what I meant to say !

[jlaurson]

On the one hand, I'm glad we're starting to get a glut of recordings; on the other, no one seems to be willing to buy EVERYTHING, and then let us poor ($$$) folks know which way to the mountain. Jens, of course, has done great service, but I'm sure even he can't get EVERYTHING (or,... can he?,hmmm ).
Tatrai in Op.20
The Kocian in Op.20.

Very true. Especially Hungaroton is not playing ball. But I do have the Kocian op.20 now--turns out a colleague of mine instigated the project in his time at Orfeo, when he was the Editor there. So here I am, with my Henle Urtext Studien-Edition (what a bargain, and nicely printed, too!), listening to Kocian, Buchberger, Kodaly, Pellegrini, Festetics, Hagen, and Q.Mosaiques. Like you, I'm not willing to get Aeolian and Angeles, at my own expense, just to compare. Fortunately that's not necessary, either... who'd get a complete box set of Haydn SQ4t just for op.20?!