Haydn's Haus

[Clever Hans]

SonicMan: If you like "Piano Hulk" in Haydn (unless you just mean MAH's  ridiculous skill & speed which I've once observed sitting diagonally behind him as he played Godowski-Chopin Etude Variations), you should check out Tzimon Barto's Haydn disc. http://ionarts.blogspot.com/2009/12/best-recordings-of-2008-almost-list.html.

To all Schornsheim-lovers (or haters, or neutrals).

Are there any questions you would like to ask her (have her asked)??

Perhaps to name some of her favorite sonatas. 
And which conductors/performers she likes in the symphonies, or other Haydn works.

[Gurn Blanston]

Gurn, do you have any relevant information about what was the intended audience for Haydn's piano sonatas?

Oh sure. I can give you precise details from home, but if it is enough to know that every single one was written for private performance either at Esterhazy for the Prince, in Vienna for friends or in London for friends, then I can tell you that much right now. He did publish them, starting in 1775 or so, but of course he had no control over how they were used.

[Florestan]

every single one was written for private performance either at Esterhazy for the Prince, in Vienna for friends or in London for friends

Thanks. That would imply that the performance at the time they were composed would typically involve a small room and very few people attending besides Haydn and the keyboard-ist. And the audience would not necessarily be seated, stiff and still, but rather walking around and commenting the music. Am I right in these assumptions?

[Opus106]

Oh sure. I can give you precise details from home, but if it is enough to know that every single one was written for private performance either at Esterhazy for the Prince, in Vienna for friends or in London for friends, then I can tell you that much right now. He did publish them, starting in 1775 or so, but of course he had no control over how they were used.

Even the oratorios?

[mc ukrneal]

Namely what? (For the record, I'm on your side. )

Not a question of sides (there are at least three anyway), the author makes a number of subjective statements with the implication that it is somehow fact.  For example, he makes statements that the interpretation/sound we are hearing is the intent of Beethoven. I can buy that different instruments may allow that intent to be reliazed more or less fully or more or less precisely (certianly the result is different). But to say that the intent is realized only with one of the instruments strikes me as extremely subjective (and certainly this is the implication in the article).  One can play on an original instrument less violently and get closer to the sound of a modern one. Playing a passage violently, in and of itself (for example), is not very persuassive from my point of view.

[Antoine Marchand]

Oh sure. I can give you precise details from home, but if it is enough to know that every single one was written for private performance either at Esterhazy for the Prince, in Vienna for friends or in London for friends, then I can tell you that much right now. He did publish them, starting in 1775 or so, but of course he had no control over how they were used.

Tom Beghin's Virtual Haydn is a perfect demonstration of all those points. 

P.S.: I know, I know, Gurn, you don't have a blu-ray player.     

[Gurn Blanston]

Thanks. That would imply that the performance at the time they were composed would typically involve a small room and very few people attending besides Haydn and the keyboard-ist. And the audience would not necessarily be seated, stiff and still, but rather walking around and commenting the music. Am I right in these assumptions?

Yes. Evenings at the Florestan household for some piano and singing were incredibly commonplace.

"Oh, Fanny Florestan has a new sonata that Haydn wrote for her. Let's drop in for it and some punch tomorrow...".   

[Gurn Blanston]

Even the oratorios?

Oh, no, we were specifically talking piano sonatas, Navneeth. Certainly there were also works written for public consumption. Just not piano sonatas...

[Gurn Blanston]

Tom Beghin's Virtual Haydn is a perfect demonstration of all those points. 

P.S.: I know, I know, Gurn, you don't have a blu-ray player. 

But I have read enough background as to his intentions and accomplishment to know that this is true.

[Antoine Marchand]

Thanks. That would imply that the performance at the time they were composed would typically involve a small room and very few people attending besides Haydn and the keyboard-ist. And the audience would not necessarily be seated, stiff and still, but rather walking around and commenting the music. Am I right in these assumptions?

Totally right. Even in the theaters the people was not quiet during the performances. I recall a Mozart's letter where he said that he was waiting the public's reaction (shouts and applause) during certain passages of a symphony in Paris. 

[Gurn Blanston]

Not a question of sides (there are at least three anyway), the author makes a number of subjective statements with the implication that it is somehow fact.  For example, he makes statements that the interpretation/sound we are hearing is the intent of Beethoven. I can buy that different instruments may allow that intent to be reliazed more or less fully or more or less precisely (certianly the result is different). But to say that the intent is realized only with one of the instruments strikes me as extremely subjective (and certainly this is the implication in the article).  One can play on an original instrument less violently and get closer to the sound of a modern one. Playing a passage violently, in and of itself (for example), is not very persuassive from my point of view.

I am having a bit of trouble following you, so forgive me if I misunderstand. But in the bolded passage above, what does the sound of a modern piano have to do with Beethoven's intention? It can't possibly be related, since he had no knowledge of its existence, let alone its sound quality.

I think that the issue is that you have an instrument that is "too much" for what the music was written for. So you have 2 choices if you are going to use that instrument; 1 > play the music however it comes out, make it "bigger" in other words, or 2 > throttle back the modern instrument so that it sounds like the period one.

Most people that I know were brought up (in Beethoven's case) with choice 1. That's what they like and as far as they are concerned there is little else that matters.   

If you are going to elect choice 2, which is becoming more widespread, then why not just learn how to play a fortepiano (yes, even a great modern pianist would have to learn how to play one) and forget throttling back?

Even if I have misunderstood you, I stand by these points on their own.

Beethoven, however, is not Haydn. Haydn should be played on the harpsichord, the clavichord or the fortepiano. Just sayin'...

[mc ukrneal]

I am having a bit of trouble following you, so forgive me if I misunderstand. But in the bolded passage above, what does the sound of a modern piano have to do with Beethoven's intention? It can't possibly be related, since he had no knowledge of its existence, let alone its sound quality.

I think that the issue is that you have an instrument that is "too much" for what the music was written for. So you have 2 choices if you are going to use that instrument; 1 > play the music however it comes out, make it "bigger" in other words, or 2 > throttle back the modern instrument so that it sounds like the period one.

Most people that I know were brought up (in Beethoven's case) with choice 1. That's what they like and as far as they are concerned there is little else that matters.   

If you are going to elect choice 2, which is becoming more widespread, then why not just learn how to play a fortepiano (yes, even a great modern pianist would have to learn how to play one) and forget throttling back?

Even if I have misunderstood you, I stand by these points on their own.

Beethoven, however, is not Haydn. Haydn should be played on the harpsichord, the clavichord or the fortepiano. Just sayin'...

The author makes a connection in one of the Beethoven sonatas that becuase it has been played more violently (on the period instrument), it is closer to 'true' Beethoven (becuase the instrument is portrayed like that). If one does not avail oneself of the full 'violence' available, does that mean the pianist is not following Beethoven's intent or does it mean it is simply a different interpretation (a valid one). The author has nice soundbites (and the samples are interesting for sure), but doesn't ultimately connect the dots logically (or at least fully). Maybe Brendel attains some of his impact with smoke and mirrors, but that doesn't mean his interpretation is any less Beethoven.

Should Haydn be played on the harpsichord or fortepiano? Not over my dead....

[DavidRoss]

This sort of statement confusese me, in particular the bit about the 'fuller richer sound'. Since I don't have this version, I went online to check it out (to make sure I had the right instrument in mind, as there are many variations).  What I heard was exactly the opposite of what you describe: cold, pingy, and hollow. How can this be that we hear the same thing and yet hear something so completely different? I don't know how to explain it.

I also don't understand why you say a modern piano demands a larger orchestra. People use them in solos, trios and quartets, orchestra, etc. and I've never heard anyone complain about a lack of balance among the isntruments.

(a) Perhaps you misunderstood the comparison...? I'm not comparing Brautigam's instrument to the much richer and fuller sound of modern pianos, but to the tinny sound of the period instruments that I'm accustomed to hearing, such as Immerseel's (mentioned as a specific reference in my original post).

(b)The reason a modern piano demands a larger orchestra is because its more powerful sound would drown out the other instruments and screw up the balance of forces with a small period ensemble.   It would be like playing Vivaldi's lute concerto in D with a small chamber orchestra using a Stratocaster plugged into a 100 watt amp turned up to 11.

[Gurn Blanston]

...Maybe Brendel attains some of his impact with smoke and mirrors, but that doesn't mean his interpretation is any less Beethoven.

Should Haydn be played on the harpsichord or fortepiano? Not over my dead....

No, quite so. If he can produce the same sort of effect as to capture the intent of the music, then it will satisfy. As it happens, I like Brendel's Beethoven (although not as much as Badura-Skoda's, but that's an issue for another day) so I don't want to denigrate him. I really don't think that it is impossible to listen to and enjoy a spectrum of performances and instruments and judge them each on its own merit. It can't be, since I do it and I am not as well armed for that battle as many are.

True, the clavichord IS the right thing in most cases...

[mc ukrneal]

(a) Perhaps you misunderstood the comparison...? I'm not comparing Brautigam's instrument to the much richer and fuller sound of modern pianos, but to the tinny sound of the period instruments that I'm accustomed to hearing, such as Immerseel's (mentioned as a specific reference in my original post).

(b)The reason a modern piano demands a larger orchestra is because its more powerful sound would drown out the other instruments and screw up the balance of forces with a small period ensemble.   It would be like playing Vivaldi's lute concerto in D with a small chamber orchestra using a Stratocaster plugged into a 100 watt amp turned up to 11.

a) Ah - I did misunderstand. Makes sense now.
b) Still not sure why a modern piano wouldn't serve. Just need to be careful about dynamics, which is something pianists should think about anyway. I have some Brahms chamber works with piano and they don't get drowned out by the piano, though they could if the pianist were less careful.

[Opus106]

Oh, no, we were specifically talking piano sonatas, Navneeth. Certainly there were also works written for public consumption. Just not piano sonatas...

Ugh. Sorry -- 1 AM, very sleepy.

[Lethevich]

Still not sure why a modern piano wouldn't serve. Just need to be careful about dynamics, which is something pianists should think about anyway. I have some Brahms chamber works with piano and they don't get drowned out by the piano, though they could if the pianist were less careful.

I always felt that this was kind of the point - by a modern piano having to be played more softly to work in music it was not intended for, it is being bent into an unidiomatic function and sound. It can play the music, but for all its improved resonance and tone, the dynamics are stilted. A period piano (as mentioned with Beethoven) can be thrashed during loud parts as Beethoven calls for without balance problems, but a modern piano is always just half-on. Brahms works better because pianos during his period were more powerful and he scored his music with that in mind.

An example, perhaps, is how the piano trio as a core form began to die out during the early 20th century, just when the modern piano as we recognise it developed. There were exceptions - Martinů for example - but generally composers seem to have been put off by the balance troubles (and why not - it's a bizarre combination of unequals) and focused on either sonatas, string quartets, or music for oddly-sized ensemble...

[mc ukrneal]

I always felt that this was kind of the point - by a modern piano having to be played more softly to work in music it was not intended for, it is being bent into an unidiomatic function and sound. It can play the music, but for all its improved resonance and tone, the dynamics are stilted. A period piano (as mentioned with Beethoven) can be thrashed during loud parts as Beethoven calls for without balance problems, but a modern piano is always just half-on. Brahms works better because pianos during his period were more powerful and he scored his music with that in mind.

An example, perhaps, is how the piano trio as a core form began to die out during the early 20th century, just when the modern piano as we recognise it developed. There were exceptions - Martinů for example - but generally composers seem to have been put off by the balance troubles (and why not - it's a bizarre combination of unequals) and focused on either sonatas, string quartets, or music for oddly-sized ensemble...

I don't understand the first statement. In most settings, the piano doesn't let loose except for an occasional moment here and there. So when it is playing in its range (which is most of the time), I don't feel that the piano is overpowering.  A modern instrument soloist is not usually drowned out by the piano, let alone some sort of chamber group. Perhaps that is where we disagree? I used Brahms as an example, but Schubert and others work just as fine as well.

[DavidRoss]

a) Ah - I did misunderstand. Makes sense now.
b) Still not sure why a modern piano wouldn't serve. Just need to be careful about dynamics, which is something pianists should think about anyway. I have some Brahms chamber works with piano and they don't get drowned out by the piano, though they could if the pianist were less careful.

Let's not shift the ground, please.  Perhaps it will help you to understand if you consider the difference between historically informed period instrument performances of works written for the smallish orchestras of Vienna ca. 1800 without piano and 20th Century performances of the same works by orchestras with string sections inflated to twice or thrice the size.  With the balance of forces thrown off, the textures are different and inner voices are obscured or muddled, changing the character of the piece.  Compare the sound, texture, and transparency of a recording of a good HIPI ensemble like The Orchestra of the 18th Century playing a Haydn symphony with that of, say, the Berlin Philharmonic under von Karajan.  Regardless of which you might prefer, I think you will agree they are different--and it is that difference that we are discussing.

If you are having a hard time understanding the point we are making intellectually--that is, by applying your mind to imagining the situations we describe and considering how the concerns we describe apply and make sense--then forego the thought experiment and actually listen.  These days, thanks to the internet and streaming downloads from services like Naxos and Rhapsody and last.fm, you don't even have to own HIPI recordings to make such comparisons and to see why even contemporary modern instrument ensembles are scaling back their proportions in performing classical and baroque era works intended for smaller forces.

[Scarpia]

I don't understand the first statement. In most settings, the piano doesn't let loose except for an occasional moment here and there. So when it is playing in its range (which is most of the time), I don't feel that the piano is overpowering.  A modern instrument soloist is not usually drowned out by the piano, let alone some sort of chamber group. Perhaps that is where we disagree? I used Brahms as an example, but Schubert and others work just as fine as well.

You persistence in not understanding is truly to be admired.  The piano would be able to "let loose" if the balance were not so shifted in it's favor.  In chamber music performance the lid of the piano is often not kept fully open and the pianist has to play with restricted dynamics.  This does not create the same timbre as an instrument with the lid up, played extrovertedly.  The other issue is sustain, which is much longer on a Modern piano.  Mozart piano parts tend to have a lot of notes, which seem redundant and tend to create a muddle on the modern piano