Haydn's Haus

[snyprrr]

Just finished spinning

Haydn
SQ Op.76 Nos. 1-3
Buchberger Quartet
Recorded 2008

I need to throw the The Quatuor Mosaïques set Sarge sent my way to get a feel for where this effort falls.

Check out my review of BB's 76 in the Haydn SQ Thread (one of the last posts of mine). One could start with the nuance-less beginning to the 'Sunrise', or the exaggerated tempos in fast mvmts, or their general willfulness,... argh, that record annoys me! I say Lindsays?QM in Op.76.

[Sergeant Rock]

How are these?

Koopman:
http://www.amazon.com/Haydn-Symphonies-Nos-44-45/dp/B000071WE7

Goodman:
http://www.amazon.com/Haydn-Symphonies-42-44-Goodman/dp/B00006L3WD

Goodman is closer to your ideal "big band" sound than Solomons but his harpsichord is loud and intrusive (definitely not HIP: harpsichords only sound this loud with a microphone perched directly above them, and a sound engineer cranking the gain to eleven--neither of which were available at the Esterhazy palace  ). If one must have a continuo (seems silly to me), Solomons shows how it should be done. Still, I usually enjoy Goodman's band. Koopman I don't know.


Sarge

[Gurn Blanston]

Lethe,

thanks for your kind words.

Alkan,

thanks for your offer of sending me the music. You can do this via yousendit.com (it is for free if you don't go for the premium options) to the email address under my profile.

According to this review:

http://www.gramophone.net/Issue/Page/May%201984/33/754919/

it is a bit light sounding (One viola, one cello, one double bass? There would not be much for the musicians to depart from in the Farewell symphony!). I am apprehensive about that; I don't like light-weight Haydn, even though I may change my mind once I hear the recording. That is why I like Dorati's Haydn so much. It is gutsy and powerful, without being heavy and ponderous.

How are these?

Koopman:
http://www.amazon.com/Haydn-Symphonies-Nos-44-45/dp/B000071WE7

Goodman:
http://www.amazon.com/Haydn-Symphonies-42-44-Goodman/dp/B00006L3WD

Hi, Al.

Finding the ideal 44 may be a bit of a challenge given your criteria. Since recording Haydn's symphonies has become a cottage industry in the last couple of decades, it seems.

I would tend to agree with Sarge vis-a-vis Goodman there. I have Koopman as well, but it more closely resembles Solomons than any other. The 'authenticity' movement has hit hard on these works. They were composed for very small bands (certainly fewer than 20 players) and are being played by that size group today. To me, the 'biggest sounding' groups are Goodman and Brüggen. Brüggen is hard to find and expensive, Goodman is easy to find and under $10. Makes it sort of a no-brainer.   

[Bogey]

Bill - own both of these recordings, so will be interested in your comparison comments - seems that just one recording of these works is just not enough - Dave 

Well, got  both No. 1's in early this morning, Dave:

Haydn
SQ Op.76 No. 1
Buchberger Quartet
Recorded 2008

and

Haydn
SQ Op.76 No. 1
Quatuor Mosaïques
Recorded 2000

Stark differences.  Hubert Buchberger seems to think that this composition should be like Vivaldi's Four Seasons in which he is the feature.  In the the Quatuor Mosaïques' recording Christopher Coin's cello is allowed to breathe (not featured) and be on equal ground throughout.  Also, the Buchberger performance seems to be like "sharp cheddar" and they try hard to make the composition theirs and not Haydn's.  The Mosaïques' recording is better blended and they are truly a quartet throughout without being too soft in their response.  The sound engineering on the Mosaïques' is superior as well, though I do pick up a bit of breathing from one or more of the performers.  This does not bother me much though, as it does not on the second Vegh LvB cycle, which is my favorite.

[Opus106]

Jolanda Violante (fortepiano)

L'arte Dell'arco (on period instruments), Federico Guglielmo

Unlike Mozart, Haydn for some reason failed to realise the potential of the new pianoforte as a concertante instrument, and his concertos for keyboard (some spurious) tend to focus on the organ or harpsichord.

The three works on this CD are all authentic Haydn. The 4th concerto was composed in 1770 for the blind pianist Maria Theresa Paradis, for whom Mozart and Salieri also composed piano concertos.

The 3rd concerto dates from 1771, and has an especially beautiful slow movement. The D major concerto No.11 is a masterpiece and dates from 1780. It is much nearer to Mozart's concertos of this date, and some have gone as far as to label it Haydn's 'only' piano concerto. It is a big work, again with a wonderful slow movement following an impressive opening movement. It is however the finale 'Rondo all'Ungarese' that has made it one of Haydn's most famous and best loved works.

[Brilliant Classics]

[Al Moritz]

Sarge and Gurn,

thanks for your comments and suggestions.

The 'authenticity' movement has hit hard on these works. They were composed for very small bands (certainly fewer than 20 players) and are being played by that size group today.

Do you have data for that assertion about very small bands? And does the one viola/one cello symphonic band of Solomons actually make historical sense (again, documentation for that would be great)?

[Gurn Blanston]

Sarge and Gurn,

thanks for your comments and suggestions.

Do you have data for that assertion about very small bands? And does the one viola/one cello symphonic band of Solomons actually make historical sense (again, documentation for that would be great)?

Al,
You're welcome.

from the book "Oxford Companion to Haydn" by David Wyn Jones (Oxford University Press - Anniversary Edition (2009)). Page 278 excerpt from entry "Performance Practice":
There is a sizable amount of archival material concerning both the players and the singers who performed at Esterháza. The ensemble that otherwise performed the symphonies also was used in the pit (at the opera). When Haydn first arrived in 1761, the orchestra consisted of 14 members: six violinists, one viola player, one cellist, one bassist (who also played the bassoon), one flautist, two oboists, one bassoon and 2 hornists. These could be expanded to 16 if necessary. Over time the orchestra increased in size; in 1772 the string complement was probably 4-3-2-1-1, and from 1776 with the beginning of regular opera performances, it remained more or less fixed at 5-5-2-2-1. From 1776 to early in 1778, 2 clarinet players were available. and on occasion, trumpets and timpani were available as well..... .

To give you some perspective relative to his symphonic works at those times;

Symphonies of 1761:
3, 6, 7, 8 & 108

Symphonies of 1772:
45, 46, 47, 51, 52 & 65  (a good year!!)

Symphonies of 1776:
61, 66, 67 & 69

I don't know how far back you went in this thread, but IIRC, it was in this one (might have been a thread actually called "Haydn's Symphonies" but I can't remember now).  that I posted a chronology of the symphonies that is actually pretty accurate (we think). And Scarpia and Navneeth put it into an easy-to-use document. You might find that useful.

In any case, I am very sure that Solomons (and now several others) recorded the early symphonies with the proper number of players. I have another book that actually has that orchestra information in much more detail. Just don't like to type that much, and this one was on top of the pile.   But if you have any questions concerning the history of Haydn, I'll be happy to provide what answers I can. I am not well-versed in analyzing the music , but you don't seem to need much assistance there.

[SonicMan46]

Do you have data for that assertion about very small bands? And does the one viola/one cello symphonic band of Solomons actually make historical sense (again, documentation for that would be great)?

Hi Al - if you're interested in the development of classical orchestras, esp. their numbers & types of instruments used - check out Gurn's 'Classical Thread' HERE - I posted (#422) about a book The Birth of the Orchestra by Spitzer & Zaslaw (covers 1650-1815) - detailed to 'beat the band' w/ appendices listing specific bands over decades and their various numbers & instruments -  Dave

[Al Moritz]

Thanks a lot, Gurn and Dave, for all the information.

Then it seems that Solomons is historically correct, after all. But then the Gramophone reviewer complaining about the small band did not know the facts -- I do not know how widely known they were in 1984 when the review was written.

Link to review:
http://www.gramophone.net/Issue/Page/May%201984/33/754919/

How about this complaint of his though:
"yet many of the quick movements, such as the first movements of Nos. 43, 44 and 48, sound almost hectic: as though an unnecessarily fast tempo was being applied to the music from outside, rather than being a natural ingredient of it."

Is there historical evidence for fast tempi in early performances? I thought the evidence was more in favor of much slower tempi 2 centuries ago -- the first performance of the Eroica supposedly had a duration of one and a half hours.

***

Certainly, it is fascinating to hear a performance with forces (number, instruments) that emulate the original situation. However, I am not so sure about the ultimate justification of the historical movement in *musical* terms. Haydn himself was reported to prefer to work with the largest orchestra he could get, and could it not reasonably be assumed that, had he been asked in his later years to perform a middle symphony, e.g. # 44 or 45, he would have chosen a much larger orchestra for this than available at the Esterhazy court? And if he would be able to come into our times and see that his music is played with modern instruments and larger forces, just like composers after him, thus 'leveling the playing field' for his music, as it were, would he not love it? I don't think it is reasonable to a priori assume that he would not.

So yes, HIP performances are historically justified and can be musically captivating, but I think modern performances are musically justified just the same -- as long as they are not heavy and ponderous, and thus defeat the spirit of the music.

Obviously, some ears would rather prefer a smaller performance also in musical terms, not just historical ones. But other ears have different preferences.

[Opus106]

Is there historical evidence for fast tempi in early performances? I thought the evidence was more in favor of much slower tempi 2 centuries ago -- the first performance of the Eroica supposedly had a duration of one and a half hours.

I don't know if you've watched this BBC film/documentary of the symphony (of the same name -- it's available on YouTube for a quick, low-def preview) and it supposedly recreates the premier of the work in the palace of Prince Lobkowitz, Beethoven's patron. And It is not the usual concert affair... Beethoven interrupts the orchestra for playing badly, shouts at Ries for complaining about the horn player (when the poor fellow played just as Beethoven had indicated on the score), and asks them to replay certain parts. So all of this combined, the duration of the premier could have stretched for 90 minutes, and perhaps that's what you read or heard about.

[Gurn Blanston]

Thanks a lot, Gurn and Dave, for all the information.

Then it seems that Solomons is historically correct, after all. But then the Gramophone reviewer complaining about the small band did not know the facts -- I do not know how widely known they were in 1984 when the review was written.

Link to review:
http://www.gramophone.net/Issue/Page/May%201984/33/754919/

How about this complaint of his though:
"yet many of the quick movements, such as the first movements of Nos. 43, 44 and 48, sound almost hectic: as though an unnecessarily fast tempo was being applied to the music from outside, rather than being a natural ingredient of it."

Is there historical evidence for fast tempi in early performances? I thought the evidence was more in favor of much slower tempi 2 centuries ago -- the first performance of the Eroica supposedly had a duration of one and a half hours.

Hi, Al. Lots going on there. Yes, I agree, the reviewer in 1984 was unaware of the facts. He can be excused in 1984. A professional reviewer now wouldn't be so lucky.     There has been a lot of research done since then. As it happens, Haydn is a particular interest of mine because I love to listen to his music. Consequently I have virtually every book published in the last 20 years (that sells to the English-speaking public, anyway). Still, things that specifically have to do with performance practice are more general than just Haydn. I only know some general things that I've read that aren't specifically music directions. Things like 'allegro now and allegro in 1780 are widely different'. The tendency in the 19th century was to slow things down a lot. This was suitable for then currently popular new music (composed for large orchestras playing in concert halls). Where things got off-kilter is that the same techniques were then applied to older music too (whatever was deemed fit to become "The Canon"), and after a few decades, Haydn played like Brahms was common. Haydn was never played like Brahms in Haydn's lifetime.

Certainly, it is fascinating to hear a performance with forces (number, instruments) that emulate the original situation. However, I am not so sure about the ultimate justification of the historical movement in *musical* terms. Haydn himself was reported to prefer to work with the largest orchestra he could get, and could it not reasonably be assumed that, had he been asked in his later years to perform a middle symphony, e.g. # 44 or 45, he would have chosen a much larger orchestra for this than available at the Esterhazy court? And if he would be able to come into our times and see that his music is played with modern instruments and larger forces, just like composers after him, thus 'leveling the playing field' for his music, as it were, would he not love it? I don't think it is reasonable to a priori assume that he would not.

I have never seen anything indicating to me that Haydn was anything but delighted with his little orchestra. Absolutely the only quote of his that I can think of that could be construed that way is indirect at best. Somewhere after the premiere of 'Eroica' which he was familiar with, the discussion came around to Beethoven's use of brass and big wind sections in general. And Haydn said something along the lines of "I wish I had them to work with when I was younger, I could have done something with them too".   I just can't come to grips with what a lot of folks do when confronted with historical instruments and their sound. Which is to say "yes, but if Bach had modern instruments he would have preferred them".  Maybe he would. Maybe he wouldn't. Maybe, like me, he would have preferred the rich but subtle tones of a wood flute over a metal one, for example.  One thing that modern instrumentation does is make music homogeneous so to speak in terms of tone color. 

So yes, HIP performances are historically justified and can be musically captivating, but I think modern performances are musically justified just the same -- as long as they are not heavy and ponderous, and thus defeat the spirit of the music.

Obviously, some ears would rather prefer a smaller performance also in musical terms, not just historical ones. But other ears have different preferences.

Absolutely. You can even have a 'right' sized orchestra playing modern instruments if you want. I'm referring to the Orpheus Chamber Orchestra. I have 3 of their disks of Haydn symphonies and am quite fond of them. And with some older releases, you can get really good performances of large orchestras playing modern instruments too. My favorite Haydn symphony disk is still (after all this time!) one I got years ago, on DGG, of the Vienna Philharmonic under Bernstein (recorded <>1986?) playing the 2 symphonies in G major, 88 & 92. Not only are they 2 of my favorite symphonies, but these guys play the hell out of them. I saw this disk on eBay last week for $6 or so, huge bargain, IMO.   But that doesn't mean (to me) that all big band Haydn symphonies are well-done. Most of them I stay away from. YMMV.

Cheers for now,

[Bogey]

While my friend was staying here he asked me if Haydn ever had a "big hit".  You know, the kind that most of the world would recognized like the opening to Beethoven's 5th when played.  I told I did not think so....was I correct?

[Opus106]

I told I did not think so....was I correct?

Does the tune of the German national anthem count?

[Gurn Blanston]

While my friend was staying here he asked me if Haydn ever had a "big hit".  You know, the kind that most of the world would recognized like the opening to Beethoven's 5th when played.  I told I did not think so....was I correct?

Does the tune of the German national anthem count?

Probably the most famous song in Europe other than 'Ode to Joy' and 'God Save the King' (which it was modeled after). Listen to the second movement of Op 76 #3 string quartet and you will hear it as variations.




----------------
Now playing:
Academia Wind Quintet of Prague - Op 091 #3 Wind Quintet in D 2nd mvmt - Adagio

[Bogey]

We'll do!  Thanks!

[DavidRoss]

Does the tune of the German national anthem count?

No.

Is there anything else in music nearly as well known by so many as the opening of Beethoven's 5th?  Even the Hallelujah Chorus seems like a very distant second. 

[Gurn Blanston]

No.

Is there anything else in music nearly as well known by so many as the opening of Beethoven's 5th?  Even the Hallelujah Chorus seems like a very distant second.

Yeah, but the question was 'did Haydn ever write anything famous?'. Unless you are implying that Haydn actually wrote the opening notes of Beethoven's 5th (at the risk of sounding like Newman!) then we can't legitimately count that one.   



----------------
Now playing:
Bruce Hungerford - Op 031 #2 Sonata #17 in d 3rd mvmt - Allegretto

[DavidRoss]

Yeah, but the question was 'did Haydn ever write anything famous?'. Unless you are implying that Haydn actually wrote the opening notes of Beethoven's 5th (at the risk of sounding like Newman!) then we can't legitimately count that one.   

Ah.  I missed that question.  I was responding to:

While my friend was staying here he asked me if Haydn ever had a "big hit".  You know, the kind that most of the world would recognized like the opening to Beethoven's 5th when played.  I told I did not think so....was I correct?

[Gurn Blanston]

Ah.  I missed that question.  I was responding to:

I see.   In that context, I guess I would have to say "it depends when and where you lived". Some of Haydn's London symphonies were huge hits in their time and in places like London and Paris (the epicenter of the music world). At the time that Beethoven's 5th Symphony came out, Haydn was still a superstar. Of course, 20 years later and since then, not so much. People do prefer their emotions to be out front.



----------------
Now playing:
Bruce Hungerford - Op 053 Sonata #21 in C 2nd mvmt - Adagio molto - 3rd mvmt - Allegretto moderato

[Florestan]

I At the time that Beethoven's 5th Symphony came out, Haydn was still a superstar. Of course, 20 years later and since then, not so much. People do prefer their emotions to be out front.

Not that Haydn was a cold and dry philosopher who eschewed any emotion, was he?