Haydn's Haus

[Florestan]

Although it's not befitting for a gentleman to read a letter that is not addressed to him, I must express my fullest agreement with the paragraph above dealing with the survival of intimate chamber music past the fateful year 1850. 

[Gurn Blanston]

Dear Gurn,

I must agree. Why, Aunt Gertrude was telling me just yesterday that young Mr Mahler had sent her youngest two invitations. Of course, we both know that she is the worst of gossips. But still, she is a pleasant sort, and one musn't blame Mr. Mahler too much. After all, the follies of youth!!

But I was thinking about what you wrote earlier about intimacy and I cannot entirely agree. One must not forget that salon music was still very much in voque and there are many composers post 1850 that write most intimate music for the 'lay person' to play. Some of it is quite exquisite, though not all of it attracts the listener equally. 

But even if we were to focus on larger scale pieces (it was less than a month ago that I saw Mr. Humperdinck's wonderful opera, Hansel and Gretal - I am sure you would just love this), many of the pieces with 'pyrotechnics' were popular for quite some time. It is only later in the 19th century or early 20th century that many of these pieces began to disappear from the concert hall. I personally believe that we must not ignore the roll that fads have in this dreadful situation.

Well, the post man has arrived to collect the mail, so I must cut short my letter. Our best to you and the family (don't forget to try the new cookie recipe we sent you - they are pure heaven). I hope you manage to get away from work in time to sit with us at Mr. Mahler's new symphony premiere, but we'll hold a spot for you as long as we can (and we understand that they may play some Hadyn quartets in the foyer as we wait, and we know how how much you like those)!!

Ever Your Friend,
Ukrneal

   

My Dear Neal,
I take keyboard in hand to bring you up to date on my latest thoughts on the Mahler/Haydn issue. It is my considered opinion that Herr Mahler's re-orchestration of Op 76 #2 into a full symphony has left something to be desired overall. The descending 5th's in the cello which give the quartet it's name simply lose something when played by 8 basses, 4 bassoons and the entire cello section. Even that would be acceptable except when the Wagner tubas are added in... Herr Mahler's assertion  that 'Haydn would have written it that way it he had tubas available' just doesn't hold water for me, so consequently I must regrettably decline your most kind invitation. Perhaps Saturday for the Dvorak gala?

Best Regards,
Your Gurn 

[Gurn Blanston]

Although it's not befitting for a gentleman to read a letter that is not addressed to him, I must express my fullest agreement with the paragraph above dealing with the survival of intimate chamber music past the fateful year 1850. 

I didn't mean ALL intimacy, rather, that the balance has clearly shifted. Classical piano sonatas, even Beethoven's, were NOT composed to be played on a stage in front of 1000 people! Even if one likes them that way, which is an objection that I frequently hear, that doesn't change the facts.

I would be willing to wager that Haydn's Symphony #44 was premiered in a more intimate setting (including the musicians and all, not talking about the venue so much) than Brahms' 1st string quartet.

[mc ukrneal]

My Dear Neal,
I take keyboard in hand to bring you up to date on my latest thoughts on the Mahler/Haydn issue. It is my considered opinion that Herr Mahler's re-orchestration of Op 76 #2 into a full symphony has left something to be desired overall. The descending 5th's in the cello which give the quartet it's name simply lose something when played by 8 basses, 4 bassoons and the entire cello section. Even that would be acceptable except when the Wagner tubas are added in... Herr Mahler's assertion  that 'Haydn would have written it that way it he had tubas available' just doesn't hold water for me, so consequently I must regrettably decline your most kind invitation. Perhaps Saturday for the Dvorak gala?

Best Regards,
Your Gurn 

I would continue, but I suspect we would lose many of the rest. That is, they might come and hunt us down!! But I do so enjoy the Victorian letter, I must say. They say so much in the way they say it, not just what they say.

Thought I'd mention that I am still enjoying the Fischer Symphony series on Brilliant. I still have a long way to go, but very much enjoying the music!

[Gurn Blanston]

I would continue, but I suspect we would lose many of the rest. That is, they might come and hunt us down!! But I do so enjoy the Victorian letter, I must say. They say so much in the way they say it, not just what they say.

Thought I'd mention that I am still enjoying the Fischer Symphony series on Brilliant. I still have a long way to go, but very much enjoying the music!

  I actually learned all that in school. I have vivid memories of teacher smacking my hand with a ruler if I wasn't colorful enough for her taste...

I am delighted that you are enjoying the Fischer Haydn. They are my first recommendation whenever someone expresses an interest in Haydn symphonies en masse. IMO, they are the perfect introduction on all counts.

[Al Moritz]

Earlier music was much more demanding in its listening requirements, however its far more limited audience was capable of dealing with it on the composer's terms. When music's audience expanded exponentially in the early 19th century, the composer didn't take a chance that they wouldn't be able to digest the music. The contrast between 1775 and 1850 is so great that one can scarcely call it all the same thing; performance of music.



----------------
Now playing:
BBC Scottish SO / Atherton  Lawrence Power (Viola) - Hindemith WoO 'Trauermusik' for Viola & Orchestra

I think what you said about earlier music and its audiences also holds for contemporary New Music.

And there is no coughing in dedicated New Music concerts, only close attention.

[Al Moritz]

Gurn, I do not quite agree with your view of the Romantic era. You mention the piano pyrotechnics of List, but Liszt has well structured compositions that make him a master of rhetoric a la Haydn. For example, "Totentanz",  "Oberon" from Annees de Pelerinage Vol. 1, "Fantasia quasi una sonata" from Annees de Pelerinage Vol. 2, or the Sonata in B minor.

Rimsky-Korsakov and Tchaikovsky whom you like tend to focus less on structure (as does Dvorak except in his last masterpieces), whereas Mahler's music whom you don't like has a lot of structure. And Beethoven and Bruckner are kings of structure and sublime musical rhetoric. I would even think that probably for Bruckner the construction of giant musical structures ('cathedrals of sound') was more important than "romantic expression".

[Gurn Blanston]

Gurn, I do not quite agree with your view of the Romantic era. You mention the piano pyrotechnics of List, but Liszt has well structured compositions that make him a master of rhetoric a la Haydn. For example, "Totentanz",  "Oberon" from Annees de Pelerinage Vol. 1, "Fantasia quasi una sonata" from Annees de Pelerinage Vol. 2, or the Sonata in B minor.

Rimsky-Korsakov and Tchaikovsky whom you like tend to focus less on structure (as does Dvorak except in his last masterpieces), whereas Mahler's music whom you don't like has a lot of structure. And Beethoven and Bruckner are kings of structure and sublime musical rhetoric. I would even think that probably for Bruckner the construction of giant musical structures ('cathedrals of sound') was more important than "romantic expression".

Hi, Al,
Well yes, one can't possibly make a generalization about anyone or anything that will fit all cases. Without having written it out each time, I will say that I am speaking way more about trends than about hard and fast certainties. Even the Classico-Romantic dichotomy is nothing to me, I look at them as trends towards one side or the other, never as a complete change from one style to another. At some point in time I posted a chart that I made (simple but effective) that illustrated that idea. All you are saying is true, but I'm not really saying otherwise, I just didn't spell it out. My bad.   

[snyprrr]

Wow,...cough cough,... this Thread's got some dust on it,... cough cough...


Well, I fiiiiinally got the Lindsay's Op.76 4-6,... after a month, and two attempts at purchase (cheap, though). I'm starting of with No.5 'Largo'. My first reaction is that the first mvmt. isn't the greatest I've ever heard, but then, in these matters, everyone has something else to recommend them, so I can't possibly remember who 'does' this mvmt. to my specifications. The Lindsays here just don't seem as pointed as I would have thought they would take it. It's a perfectly blended reading,... I could simply be getting spoiled here!

However, as I'm listening to the menuet, I'm finding it, too, seems a bit smooth. Yes, in the minor key trio section, the cello certainly isn't digging in as much as I've heard in others,... though, there is really no loss. This is very strange to me. These readings are about the 'straightest' thing I've ever heard from this Lindsay/Haydn Cycle. Very curious.

The Largo mvmt., as one would have thought, is taken very slowly and very intensely, surely one of the most deeply felt interpretations,... not too many allow themselves to take it really nice and slow. The cello in particular, has a rapt, reserved intensity that lingers in the mind.

The Finale has us back in proper Lindsay territory: blisteringly fast Finales! Here, the 'point' appears to be back, and it's over before you know it, but my overall impression here is that the microphone placement is 'different' than in other installments (including the other Op.76). I will have to check the recordings. Of course, I'll give it a 25% that this is all in my head, but I question why I would have such a strange reaction? we'll see






The 'Sunrise' is next. The Lindsays confound my expectations by taking the placid opening a touch quicker than all others I've heard, setting the stage for quite a thrilling first mvmt. indeed. The 'point' that I missed in the previous SQ seems to be here. Definitely, kudos to lead violinist Cropper for his great ideas! Again, though, I'm wondering if we have the same recording situation as with other Lindsays? Again, I feel as though my ears are playing tricks on me. Hmmm. It's almost as if, when something is played just so, and it sounds off. Very strange. And I don't think they're off,... I'm almost getting that HD effect,... too clear???

Anyhoo...

As I hear the opening of the slow mvmt., I realize I'm not that familiar with it,...huh? So, I move onto the all important menuet, one of my favorites. Well,... hmmm,... once again, I'm getting that they're-so-on-it's-scary sound,... it's almost disturbing. They are skirting,... nay, dancing... on the edge of too much, but, they're right there. They are certainly messing with my preconceived notions!

Haha,... oy!,... this Finale is something!! NO ONE take the point the Lindsays do here in the opening! All the 'point' that seemed lacking in the 'Largo' is here in spades. This certainly just shot into first place for this mvmt. Excellent!! I'll admit, it almost sounds Beethovenian! They imbue every phrase with impish snippiness. Sounds like Hobbits!





The all important No.6. Before listening, I'm going to predict Great Things for the first two mvmts. Well, ok, the first mvmt.,... what can you do?,... it sounds like what it's supposed to sound like. It's frightening how simplicity and anonymity are sometimes the Greatest Things, no? Ah,... is that a moment of will I heard? I am hearing nice things from the cello. They certainly aren't afraid to do things with a little more passion, as witnessed in the middle section.

Haha, here I was, expecting Great Things, and realize that it is enough just to play the piece, haha!

The menuet is pretty much a carbon copy of every other Great Performance. Nothing to report but pleasure. And, as expected, the Finale is blistering. The scratchy, pointy sound that I'd been missing earlier is here in the opening,... those quick, short, sharp notes downward. This is probably the quickest by a few seconds.




So, excellent, and disturbingly so!?! Yea,... I don't even know what I meant by that. I don't have any of the compares with me, so I can't go into any further detail, but, suffice to say, that day will have to come now!

Whew!


Now, as I see, we're approaching Page42, and you know what that means! Page50 is after that!

[Florestan]

Gurn, in the light of our latest exchange you might find the following interesting.

To this...

The idea of a work intended to be for concert performance in a formal setting serves as my personal qualification for a work to be called "classical music" (and yes, I realize that the term "classical music" is flawed, so I also call it "concert music").

...I replied thus:

This criterion disqualifies as "classical music" anything written prior to the advent of the formal setting of the concert hall --- Bach, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert included. 

[Florestan]

I would be willing to wager that Haydn's Symphony #44 was premiered in a more intimate setting (including the musicians and all, not talking about the venue so much) than Brahms' 1st string quartet.

Probably, but the music itself is as intimate as any Haydn SQ. 

[Gurn Blanston]

Gurn, in the light of our latest exchange you might find the following interesting.

To this:

I replied this:

  That's too funny! And 100% accurate. Yes, if you eliminate by definition anything composed before <> 1850, you really narrowed the field!   0:)



----------------
Now playing:
Smithson String Quartet - K 174 Quintet #1 in Bb for Strings 4th mvmt - Allegro

[Bogey]

As posted in my Symphony Saturday thread:

http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,17780.msg486283.html#msg486283

[Bogey]

Do not want to lose this discussion, so brought it over here:

Following Bill's lead, Haydn Symphony #77, Goodman and his giant harpsichord leading the Hanover Band




Sarge

Bill, take a look on Presto Classical:

http://www.prestoclassical.co.uk/search.php?searchString=goodman+haydn

IMO, Sarge is right, the bottom line is "giant harpsichord". 

That may be a reason to snap one up.  Instead of getting another that sounds similar, this one could add a new wrinkle that have never heard.  However, the word "giant" has me a bit worried.

I love Goodman's Haydn...but hate what I view as a very egotistical  continuo part (way too prominent--artificially induced obviously--you'd never hear it like this in a concert hall) in music that really doesn't need a continuo. But I overlook that fault and just enjoy his rough-edged, raucous and joyous band. Wish he'd been able to complete the cycle.

Sarge

  Well, other than being freakin' hilarious, there is little to justify that sales pitch. True enough, Goodman does play continuo on that disk, but it isn't really gigantic-sounding, in fact, it is hard to even pick it out. That controversy between Hogwood and Goodman on using continuo or not was probably only relevant to the visual aspect of seeing it being played. It would take a giant harpsichord to be heard over a band of 18 players.

That said, I really do enjoy the Goodman set. I think it was Lethe who encouraged me to buy them, and no regrets at all. BRO was/is the way to go, Bill, I got the entire lot for $50 or so.



----------------
Now playing:
Combattimento Consort Amsterdam \ de Vriend     Paul van Zelm (Horn) - K 386b 412 514 Concerto #1 in D for Horn 1st mvmt - Allegro

Hey, Sarge,
Well, clearly we don't agree on the prominence of the continuo, and also on which side of the argument to believe vis-a-vis its propriety (I'm actually neutral, I can take it or leave it, and I think it was authentically used sometimes and not used other times). However, we agree on the performances, it is just what you said. Including the unfinished lament. One more disk, that's all it would have taken to get 79-81. And Hogwood stopped in the same damned place! Damn their eyes! 

-oo-  giant harpsichord continuo : zero harpsichord continuo  -oo-

I think Goodman and Hogwood complement each other pretty well 

Just put this one in.  On first impression, it does not distinguish iteself from the Hogwood or the Fischer, BUT I have to give them all a closer listen.  I am guessing that I could order them in preference, but a decent listen of each is  needed.....however, Hogwood in a knee-jerk.

[Gurn Blanston]

Do not want to lose this discussion, so brought it over here:


Just put this one in.  On first impression, it does not distinguish iteself from the Hogwood or the Fischer, BUT I have to give them all a closer listen.  I am guessing that I could order them in preference, but a decent listen of each is  needed.....however, Hogwood in a knee-jerk.

Well, it is the right size orchestra, and they do play awfully well. I think that overall I would have liked a tad more liveliness out of them, but for a modern instrument ensemble, they have a lot going for them.

It goes without saying that I prefer some PI versions, I think Hogwood & Goodman are the only choices, since Brüggen, Pinnock, Kuijkens, Solomons and even Freiburg Baroque all gave that entire chunk of the repertoire a miss. Like Haydn jumped from the Stürm und Dräng to the Paris in one fell swoop...    

[snyprrr]

No way am I going down that easily!

[Herman]

I think you should turn this into a postmodern novel.

Control+Replace "Haydn" for some kind of elusive lover and you've got a great story.

Oh, I forget. You don't do Control + stuff.

[snyprrr]

I think you should turn this into a postmodern novel.

Control+Replace "Haydn" for some kind of elusive lover and you've got a great story.

Oh, I forget. You don't do Control + stuff.

You've been waiting all week to use that one, haven't you?

[Gurn Blanston]

At the suggestion of a curious member, I will try here to categorize the different phases and styles of Haydn's symphonies. It is a given that dealing with 108 works (plus a few others thrown in for good measure) makes it difficult to get a grip. In the particular case of Haydn's symphonies, the difficulties are greatly enhanced by such little foibles as his habit of not dating manuscripts. The distribution system at the time didn't help anything either, which is to say that if you, a visiting musician asked Haydn for a copy of a symphony of his, he would say OK, sit over there and copy it out from this. So there are lots of sets of parts with no provenance. And to make it more confusing still, a major fire at Esterhazy in 1779 destroyed the main opera house and its contents, including lots of Haydn's manuscripts. So extant copies are not originals, making the commonly used tools of paper and ink and handwriting analysis virtually useless.

Still, some talented and dedicated researchers have spent lifetimes figuring all this stuff out, and there are at least a few things that are settled.

The original chronology of the symphonies was first published by Eusebius Mandyczewski, the archivist for the Gesselschaft der Musikfreunde in Vienna after the famous Max Pohl died. Mandyczewski's list, published in 1907, has never been challenged as to its contents. Nothing has been removed as a result of further study, and only 2 things have been added (Symphonies A & B (107 & 108)). However, the chronology has been changed all to be damned. When I refer to a work here as #31, it is the Mandyczewski/Hoboken number. As long as you remember that that work is likely to be almost anything BUT the 31st symphony, you will be on solid ground...

In addition to chronology, there are categories that these works neatly fit into. Many of these lasted for his entire career, and even in his first 20 or so works all the major categories have appeared.

The actual musical terms are cribbed from Oxford Composer Companion to Haydn by David Wyn Jones. The historical contexts are pretty much the result of reading many books and putting together the pieces myself. I would like to footnote the entire thing, but I'm not going to. Looking up citation constantly is a pain in the ass, to be honest. Anyway, it's just us guys here (and Sara).

The Periods

How many periods do you divide 108 into? The more, obviously, the smaller they are. I like that, although if there is no stylistic difference then there's no point either in making yet another grouping. Nine is such a pleasant number, let's try that:

1.   Symphonies composed before 1761. Why 1761? That's when he went to work for the Esterhazy's. These are they:  1, 2, 4, 5, 10, 11, 15, 18, 20, 27, 32, 33, 37 & 107 (Symphony A). That is numerical order, not chronological.

2.   1761c – 1763c – this is a group of 6 symphonies which are rather on the mysterious side. They fall into that group that are virtually impossible to date properly because no original manuscript copies exist. They are: 3, 14, 16, 17, 19, 25, 36 & 108 (Symphony B). It is my opinion that these works are from earlier rather than later, and probably were composed during the short term of service with Count Morzin. 

3.   Early Esterhazy Symphonies (1761 – 1765) – The first group of works composed specifically for the Esterhazys. I will add 6 works at the beginning which I feel belong there. You can accept or reject them as you will, it is all semantics anyway! In March/April 1761 Haydn started his employment. His first works were a set of 6 miniature symphonies in 4 movements each, fully orchestrated. He didn't call them symphonies, rather they were Scherzandi (Jokes). They each lasted <>10 minutes. You can find them in Hob II:33-38. So Hoboken calls them divertimentos for multiple instruments and I respectfully disagree. In any case the remainder of the output from that period includes the following symphonies: 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 21, 22, 23, 24, 28, 29, 30, 31, 34, 40 & 72.

4.   Esterhazy Symphonies – 1766 – 1772. Ok, it's Stürm und Dräng time. Haydn's so-called crisis years. The symphonies written in these years are his most popular excepting the London's, and it's a near thing with those too! They include: 26, 35, 38, 39, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 52, 58, 59 & 106 (which is believed to be actually the overture to the opera 'Le Pescatrici' (the Fisher Girls)).

5.   Esterhazy Symphonies – 1772 – 1781. A large and very mixed bag of works here. One characteristic that they all have in common is that there is not a single minor key work in the bunch! Stark contrast to the period immediately preceding, with its outsized proportion of minor and unusual (B major! ) keys. Clearly there are some works that were put together from other things, theatrical overtures for example, and possibly even instrumental music. An example is the slow movement of #65, which is believed to have started life as some incidental music for a production of Hamlet!  What extent Haydn's main preoccupation in this time as opera impresario might have affected his symphonic work is unknown, but many works in this time have the kiss of the theater to them. They are the following: 50, 51, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 73, 74 & 75.

6.   Symphonies from 1782 – 1784 – Call them what you will, but my choice is that these are Haydn's first mature symphonies in the Classical Style. They were composed for a trip to London where Haydn was to direct their premiere, but eventually sold to a Parisian publisher when that fell through. They are actually 2 sets of 3, just like the Paris Symphonies. I consider them to be neglected masterpieces; you be the judge. They are 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 & 81.

7.   Paris Symphonies – 1785 – 1786 – Commissioned in 1784 by the Concerts de la Loge Olympique, a Paris concert organization.  3 were completed in 1785 and 3 more in 1786, but all 6 were first performed in the 1787 concert season. Haydn claimed the order of composition to be 87, 85, 83, 84, 86 & 82 but when he sold them to Artaria to publish, they ordered the set 82-87 and those numbers stuck.

8.   Symphonies 1787 – 1789 – Just 5 in these years, although he was plenty busy writing other than symphonies. Any of us who are string quartet fans will have heard the story of the Tost Quartets, which Haydn entrusted to violinist Johann Tost to take to Paris for publication, and which he may or may not have ever gotten his money for. Anyway, on that same trip, Tost also had with him the manuscripts for 2 symphonies, now called #88 & 89. They were published by Silber in Paris. They are very likely the first symphonies since 1761 that weren't composed to be played at Esterhazy before anything else was done with them. Too bad for the Prince: #88 in G is one of my very favorites!     #90-92 was another set of 3 that were originally composed for the Concerts de la Loge Olympique. Haydn was being Haydn though, and simultaneously sold them to a German publisher. #92 also served the purpose of being Haydn's doctoral dissertation in 1793 when he received his doctorate from Oxford. Good choice!

9.   London Symphonies – 1791 – 1795 – 12 symphonies #93 – 104. Also the sinfonia concertante #105. The first 6 were commissioned by Salomon for the 1791 & 92 concert season, 99 – 101 for Salomon's 1794 season, and the final 3 for the Opera Concerts of 1795.

So that should cover all 108 plus the 6 Scherzandi. I hope I haven't missed any, or worse yet, duplicated any! If anyone is keen to discuss anything specific about any work or group of works, this is as good a place for it as any. I will also add in the corrected chronology that we talked about a few months ago. It should be timely located right here. I am hoping to expand on this by adding information about different types of symphonies and what made them different and why etc. I hope you will find that of interest also. And some further info on the orchestras he had to work with over the years and how that might have affected different compositions.

Cheers,




----------------
Now playing:
Smithson String Quartet - K 563 Divertimento (Trio) in Eb for Strings 6th mvmt - Allegro

[mc ukrneal]

At the suggestion of a curious member, I will try here to categorize the different phases and styles of Haydn's symphonies.
Cheers,

Thanks for that Gurn. Very helpful!! I had never realized they could split into so many periods. Will be useful to think about as I explore them...