Haydn's Haus

[jlaurson]

oh, please do tell!
Is there anything particular about the Tackacs Op.76,

totally out of order, indeed. but i'm in the mood for haydn now, anyway... as i have to race to meet a few deadlines... so i'll put it on & see if i find anything superb in it. but no time for comparisons, i'm afraid.

[snyprrr]

see if i find anything superb in it. but no time for comparisons, i'm afraid.

Yes please, thank you. That's all I'm looking for.

Cheers

[Al Moritz]

After having listened to -- among others -- so much Stockhausen, Bach and Maxwell-Davies over the last few years, I now have changed gears musically for a while. I have rediscovered Haydn. I had come to consider him a rather second-tier composer the last couple of years (hearing the music only on CD in the car without paying too much detailed attention is not the best thing with this composer), but recently things changed. Three weeks ago or so I heard part of one of his symphonies on the radio, and I decided, hey this is actually quite good. In some crazy mood I further decided that I would give one of his symphonies a try at home. So I opened my Dorati box, and on top after some time of abandon was CD 14, containing also symphony No 52. I was quite surprised how good that was. Not just powerful but also sophisticated. Then I went on to number 53, revisited some old favorites, # 30 and 32, and was hooked. During the last four weeks I have almost exclusively listened to Haydn symphonies, and now I have re-listened to about 15 symphonies, and explored about 10 new ones. The inventiveness of the music just does not cease to amaze me. I had listened to symphony 22 ("The Philosopher") a few times, and then I decided to go for the next one, # 23 -- and that again turned out to be a treasure trove of new ideas.

It is not just the overall invention of the musical material. My newfound appreciation stems from the fact that now I pay much more attention than ever before to the invention from one moment of the music to another. Often Haydn goes some place where you wonder, how does he get out of that again. But then he comes up with some great transition and further we go. What I had not realized as strongly before, Haydn often uses something that in Bruckner's music has been called entire "theme complexes", instead of "themes", although just themes are used as well. Haydn's music is also surprisingly polyphonic, even though of course he is no Bach.

The first mvmt. of symphony 88 features, at least in Dorati's hands, red-hot tension from the beginning of the development section to the end. It makes me wonder if the first mvmt. of Beethoven's Fifth is as absolutely original as it commonly is made out to be. The simple 7-note main motif on short notes, with two three-note repeats flanking a central higher pitch, clearly foreshadows the elementary simplicity of the four note motif in Beethoven, and the chain of ascending repeats of a four-note fragment (derived from the 7-note motif) farther in the exposition is a stunning parallel to the same kind of compositional element in the later Beethoven mvmt. Did Beethoven know that Haydn symphony and did he take it as a model? In some ways Beethoven may have been more evolutionary than revolutionary. (None of this is meant to disparage Beethoven; he is one of my three favorite composers.)

There is so much surprising music in these symphonies. The adagio of symphony 34 must be one of the most beautifully flowing and attractively structured ones that I know. It also sounds less "typically Haydn". I like to think that it might be a great piece to play as 'mystery music' on a classical station, playing it every two hours for example, without mentioning what it is, and then have curious and intrigued listeners call in. It might turn into quite a sensation.

Movements that I found boring now aren't anymore. There is only one exception, from about 1.5 to 3.5 min. in the slow mvmt. of symphony 82, where he simply gets stuck around the same thing over and over again. A rare lapse of judgment in my book -- even though overall I appreciate that mvmt. more than before, and it contains a few terrific ideas. The first and last mvmts. of the same symphony are incredibly tight and varied, however.

I have now decided that Haydn is a  first-rate composer after all. His music with its constant freshness of invention has become for me an Immense source of joy.

[jlaurson]

I have now decided that Haydn is a  first-rate composer after all.

Haydn, surely, is very appreciative of this.

[Antoine Marchand]

After having listened to -- among others -- so much Stockhausen, Bach and Maxwell-Davies over the last few years, I now have changed gears musically for a while. I have rediscovered Haydn. I had come to consider him a rather second-tier composer the last couple of years (hearing the music only on CD in the car without paying too much detailed attention is not the best thing with this composer), but recently things changed. Three weeks ago or so I heard part of one of his symphonies on the radio, and I decided, hey this is actually quite good. In some crazy mood I further decided that I would give one of his symphonies a try at home. So I opened my Dorati box, and on top after some time of abandon was CD 14, containing also symphony No 52. I was quite surprised how good that was. Not just powerful but also sophisticated. Then I went on to number 53, revisited some old favorites, # 30 and 32, and was hooked. During the last four weeks I have almost exclusively listened to Haydn symphonies, and now I have re-listened to about 15 symphonies, and explored about 10 new ones. The inventiveness of the music just does not cease to amaze me. I had listened to symphony 22 ("The Philosopher") a few times, and then I decided to go for the next one, # 23 -- and that again turned out to be a treasure trove of new ideas.

It is not just the overall invention of the musical material. My newfound appreciation stems from the fact that now I pay much more attention than ever before to the invention from one moment of the music to another. Often Haydn goes some place where you wonder, how does he get out of that again. But then he comes up with some great transition and further we go. What I had not realized as strongly before, Haydn often uses something that in Bruckner's music has been called entire "theme complexes", instead of "themes", although just themes are used as well. Haydn's music is also surprisingly polyphonic, even though of course he is no Bach.

The first mvmt. of symphony 88 features, at least in Dorati's hands, red-hot tension from the beginning of the development section to the end. It makes me wonder if the first mvmt. of Beethoven's Fifth is as absolutely original as it commonly is made out to be. The simple 7-note main motif on short notes, with two three-note repeats flanking a central higher pitch, clearly foreshadows the elementary simplicity of the four note motif in Beethoven, and the chain of ascending repeats of a four-note fragment (derived from the 7-note motif) farther in the exposition is a stunning parallel to the same kind of compositional element in the later Beethoven mvmt. Did Beethoven know that Haydn symphony and did he take it as a model? In some ways Beethoven may have been more evolutionary than revolutionary. (None of this is meant to disparage Beethoven; he is one of my three favorite composers.)

There is so much surprising music in these symphonies. The adagio of symphony 34 must be one of the most beautifully flowing and attractively structured ones that I know. It also sounds less "typically Haydn". I like to think that it might be a great piece to play as 'mystery music' on a classical station, playing it every two hours for example, without mentioning what it is, and then have curious and intrigued listeners call in. It might turn into quite a sensation.

Movements that I found boring now aren't anymore. There is only one exception, from about 1.5 to 3.5 min. in the slow mvmt. of symphony 82, where he simply gets stuck around the same thing over and over again. A rare lapse of judgment in my book -- even though overall I appreciate that mvmt. more than before, and it contains a few terrific ideas. The first and last mvmts. of the same symphony are incredibly tight and varied, however.

I have now decided that Haydn is a  first-rate composer after all. His music with its constant freshness of invention has become for me an Immense source of joy.

Thanks for sharing your new insights and opinions about Haydn, Al Moritz. This kind of finds are always exciting and I am sure this is only the tip of the iceberg. You have a whole universe to discover in Haydn: his piano sonatas, string quartets, piano trios, concertos, etc. Congratulations! 

[Gurn Blanston]

Al,
Thanks for your great post. Your experience is one that could be shared by a lot of people who wrote Haydn off back before they had the experience to get a grip on what he was doing. To paraphrase Mark Twain; when I was young, my father was an idiot. Then the older I got, the smarter he became.  

In any case, it was nice hearing from you again, even if you hadn't been here to praise my favorite composer. It's been too long.

[Florestan]

Welcome back, Al! Your coming back --- and with such a great post no less --- is an event to be celebrated! With a Hornsignal, of course!

when I was young, my father was an idiot. Then the older I got, the smarter he became.  

Excellent, Gurn. 

BTW, may I ask how old is your son? 

[Gurn Blanston]

Welcome back, Al! Your coming back --- and with such a great post no less --- is an event to be celebrated! With a Hornsignal, of course!
Excellent, Gurn. 

BTW, may I ask how old is your son? 

38 now.   Apparently I am about peaked out!

[Al Moritz]

Thank you guys for the welcome back. I thought it might be nice to share my enthusiasm here.

Yes, I know one or two masses, the Stabat Mater and the string quartets op. 74 and 76. I'll have to revisit these too.

Tonight I was listening to symphony # 96 and I marveled at the complexity and the genius of it all. Weird that I had heard this music so many times and liked it, but never really closely listened to it as I now do.

[SonicMan46]

38 now.   Apparently I am about peaked out!

Our son just turned 37 y/o in August!  Just hard to believe - but I love that Mark Twain comment (and of course numerous others from this great American author & humorist) - probably in the late '80s or early '90s, we saw Hal Holbrook's Mark Twain performance in our city - he was just wonderful in that role (and of course used that line) - a fine remembrance - 

[Gurn Blanston]

Our son just turned 37 y/o in August!  Just hard to believe - but I love that Mark Twain comment (and of course numerous others from this great American author & humorist) - probably in the late '80s or early '90s, we saw Hal Holbrook's Mark Twain performance in our city - he was just wonderful in that role (and of course used that line) - a fine remembrance - 

Dave, I almost hate to reveal how long I've known Holbrook/Twain, but he started doing that one-man show way back in the late 1960's. The local university in my home town sponsored a series of arts shows for years, and the very first year that he did that show they brought it to Burlington and I went to see it. I was already a Twain fan, but since then I've been a fan for life!

Thread duty:

Haydn would have liked Twain too...

Stay in touch, Al. We particularly want to hear how you feel about the string quartets now from this perspective.

[snyprrr]

1) To DavidW, and anyone else in the anti-samples camp,... ok, in this case, I was truly deceived by my own good nature.

2) I have determined that the Buchbergers are willful to the point of me wishing that they should be formally censored.



I've been looking for "MY" Op.76, and I mean that in the me-me-me-est. So, lately, I went through the amazon "haydn quartet 76" search, and, the Buchbergers (which, you can read afore, that I am not fond of them) had quite a positive review, and the samples seemed to reveal that they might just have learned a thing and calmed their wildman ways.

I directed my assistant to begin comparing before I got back from work. As I opened the door, I heared the whiffs coming from the speakers upstairs (along with a pot of broccoli cooking,...eeeeewwwww ). My first thoughts were:

a) I suppose my assistant was in the midst of comparing Haydn

b) I thought I was hearing a quite thin sound

c) I couldn't place the music

As it turned out, it was the Minuet of the "Emperor", not something I've studied. Then came the Finale, which I am more familiar with. And,...mmm,...I thought it sucked. Too rabid, thin sound, no ambience.

ok, let's just go straight to the No.4, "Sunrise". By the time I got to this most cherished of Minuets, I was yelling at the speakers, and my assistant had hid behind the couch, waiting for equipment to learn to fly. No grace, no sound, just rabid competition-styled speed. Add to this the sound of their just-ain't-right intruments, the boxy room,...

ok, they PLAY ok,...but,...

ok, ok,... some I go to No.1. Actually, No.1 is very successful indeed. Speed wise, and style wise, there appears there is nothing anyone can do with this quartet. All compares play this quartet pretty well the same.

Nos.2-3: "Fifths" & "Emperor"
The "Fifths",...ok, positives first. The slow mvmt is probably the most successful example of what the Buchberger do. I won't explain, but, if you have, just listen, and see. However, the "witch's menuet" is taken waaay too fast to the point of ridicule, and the first mvmt is anger inducing. Ultimately, this is the Buchberger acting like TSA Agents.

And, the slightest compare of the "Emperor" with, say, Teldec ABQ, yields to revelations untold. Night and day, black and white.

I WILL NOT even bother listening to Nos.5-6 (I can see by the timings that the famous Largo is taken too quick, like the confusing ABQ take). I stand with my face like flint against the Buchberger. If you have anything nice to say about them, I will conclude you in madness!



I have now tried three sets by this group, and I certainly feel like I stepped into it on this last one. I will tirelessly proclaim AGAINST the Buchbergers from this point on, so, bring it if it is to be brought. For those of you who haaave received pleasure from this group, ok, I'm not going to argue Op.20, but, here in Op.76, the height of High Classicism, I don't think we should tolerate such willfulness.

The instruments, the playing choices, the clinical sound,... all and more was done on purpose!, and the people responsible wanted it to sound this way, so, my charges of willfulness are surely not my own. Down Satan!

Further ranting upon request.

[snyprrr]

I see SonicMan Dave reading my post. I wonder how this will go?

[SonicMan46]

I see SonicMan Dave reading my post. I wonder how this will go?

Snyprrr - LOL -    So you're tracking those who may be currently reading your posts!   

Actually, I had another question regarding the many previous posts on the tuning of A (i.e. 440 Hz or less) - my wife, Susan (Harpo here) is an excellent musician who has a lot of instruments, many strings - she uses an electronic tuner that can detect the EXACT vibration rate of the strings (harps, guitars, etc.) - of course, we all know these are ubiquitous devices these days that many use, including the professionals - she just had her piano tuned by a gal w/ a rolling cart full of electronic tuning equipment.

Now back in the 18th & early 19th century, how were these tuning frequencies determined?  Of course, the obvious answer is the 'human ear' but who is to say that someone then w/ perfect pitch would pick the A string on a violin to be 440 Hz or less?  And if two individuals w/ so-called perfect pitch tuned the same string would the frequencies be the same.  My botton line is that back then the A pitch was certainly lower but to try to come up w/ an exact number is a little irrational since the 'equipment' of the time was the human ear which is quite good but does not have a scale protruding from it to tell the EXACT Hz of a pitch.  But, hey just a thought to think about. 

P.S. - attached a short discussion on tuning history for those interested - 

[DavidW]

Dave, I believe that the tuning fork was invented in the early 18th century, and used for tuning.

[Scarpia]

Snyprrr - LOL -    So you're tracking those who may be currently reading your posts!   

Actually, I had another question regarding the many previous posts on the tuning of A (i.e. 440 Hz or less) - my wife, Susan (Harpo here) is an excellent musician who has a lot of instruments, many strings - she uses an electronic tuner that can detect the EXACT vibration rate of the strings (harps, guitars, etc.) - of course, we all know these are ubiquitous devices these days that many use, including the professionals - she just had her piano tuned by a gal w/ a rolling cart full of electronic tuning equipment.

Now back in the 18th & early 19th century, how were these tuning frequencies determined?  Of course, the obvious answer is the 'human ear' but who is to say that someone then w/ perfect pitch would pick the A string on a violin to be 440 Hz or less?  And if two individuals w/ so-called perfect pitch tuned the same string would the frequencies be the same.  My botton line is that back then the A pitch was certainly lower but to try to come up w/ an exact number is a little irrational since the 'equipment' of the time was the human ear which is quite good but does not have a scale protruding from it to tell the EXACT Hz of a pitch.  But, hey just a thought to think about. 

A tuning fork is probably not of much help, because they did not have precise metal machining equipment and probably could not manufacturer a turning fork that would vibrate at a pre-determined frequency.  It would have to be tuned like any other instrument. 

Although it does not give a numerical value of the frequency you can use an organ pipe of defined length to determine a standard pitch.  This defines the de-facto tuning for church music, and still does when using the old organs. 

[DavidW]

A tuning fork is probably not of much help, because they did not have precise metal machining equipment and probably could not manufacturer a turning fork that would vibrate at a pre-determined frequency. 

Yet most of the tuning forks vibrated at 422-425 Hz while the organ tuning was all over the place from 300-470.

[snyprrr]

TOPIC ALERT!!![/size]

TOPIC ALERT!!!
TOPIC ALERT!!!

[Herman]

Looks like the topmost TOPIC ALERT is first past the pike

[snyprrr]

totally out of order, indeed. but i'm in the mood for haydn now, anyway... as i have to race to meet a few deadlines... so i'll put it on & see if i find anything superb in it. but no time for comparisons, i'm afraid.

I can't take the suspense any more!! Is there a verdict?!!