Haydn's Haus

[Leo K.]

Oh my. Leo, where are you?

My copy of the Queyras cello concertos arrived yesterday, and I can't get it out out of the player, just listening to the 1st concerto over and over.

These guys take this music and fly. It doesn't sound like music through speakers. It sounds like they're in the room - hands and arms flying, bow slapping and crunching on gut. The third movement is particularly exhilarating ... no, wait: 'exhilarating' is too posh. It's raw, it's in yer face, it's eighteenth-century rock&roll, mid-50s Elvis, Beatles first album kind of raw. Precise, in its way, and by no means uncontrolled, yet giving the impression of being always on the edge of wild abandon.

My only reservation (and it may fade with more listening) is that they don't quite get the second movement as exquisite as I think I'd like. Now the problem here is that my only point of comparison is du Pre/Barbirolli - a million miles from HIPdom, it's true, but even so when du Pre plays that second movement I hear the music bleed. Of course that may not be right: it may be a du Pre extravagance. I don't know. Maybe someone will tell me.

But set that aside; this cello concerto recording just blows my furniture out of the room. It's not possible to have it playing and do anything else but listen to it. And punch the air. And dance - yes, dance - feet tapping, eyes closed, bopping all over the carpet.

Leo, I salute you, Sir. Rock on.

Wow! I'm so glad you enjoy it man! Thanks! I was playing this last night again, it is a sublime recording


Sorry I've been away, I'm in the midst of a move to a new house, and moving my whole collection once again is quite a feat! today it's the CDs and books! Yesterday I finished moving the LPs! Whew!

I'm going to catch up on this thread ASAP

[Gurn Blanston]

Yes, I noticed others using the image icon, so just posted in the listening thread - 

But, I've been keeping up w/ this thread - concerning the Keyboard Concerti, I do have the 2-CD set w/ Schornsheim and also a single disc w/ Brautigam - do not have these works either on a modern piano (probably not interested) or a harpsichord (might be a choice for me depending on the recording - not even sure 'how many' might be available but will check!) - Dave


 

Dave,
Just a quick note on that. That Koopman disk I posted, the Philips Duo, has all of them on harpsichord. Some of Schornsheim's are on that disk, and that Pinnock concertos disk shown above has the #11 in D played on harpsichord too. On 3, 4 & 11 I use Brautigam on fortepiano as well as one or another of the cembalo versions because they are authentic either way and I like them both ways.

[kishnevi]

The Naxos set of the concertos is all over the place in the instruments it uses
Here is a list ID'd by key and Hob. number
D major XVIII:2  harpsichord
F major XVIII:6 fortepiano [Double concerto for violin and keyboard]
F major XVIII:3 piano
D major XVIII:11 piano
G major XVIII:4 piano
G major XVIII:9 piano
C major XVIII:1 organ
C major XVIII:5 harpsichord
C major XVIII:8 organ
F major XVIII:7 harpsichord
C major XVIII:10 organ

The four performed on modern piano are on the same disc in the six disc set (which includes the violin, cello, trumpet, horn and lire organizzate concertos, the latter variously using two recorders, flute and oboe, and two flutes to play the solo parts.  So obviously we're not talking PI here with this set.

The track listings name the instrument as keyboard with the actual instrument used following in brackets.    So the last one they title "Keyboard [organ] concerto in C major".

[Gurn Blanston]

The Naxos set of the concertos is all over the place in the instruments it uses
Here is a list ID'd by key and Hob. number
D major XVIII:2  harpsichord
F major XVIII:6 fortepiano [Double concerto for violin and keyboard]
F major XVIII:3 piano
D major XVIII:11 piano
G major XVIII:4 piano
G major XVIII:9 piano
C major XVIII:1 organ
C major XVIII:5 harpsichord
C major XVIII:8 organ
F major XVIII:7 harpsichord
C major XVIII:10 organ

The four performed on modern piano are on the same disc in the six disc set (which includes the violin, cello, trumpet, horn and lire organizzate concertos, the latter variously using two recorders, flute and oboe, and two flutes to play the solo parts.  So obviously we're not talking PI here with this set.

The track listings name the instrument as keyboard with the actual instrument used following in brackets.    So the last one they title "Keyboard [organ] concerto in C major".

Well, it can be argued that any old thing is OK. Schornsheim, in her 2 disk set, uses organ, harpsichord and fortepiano. Her choices are far from random though. She doesn't play 18:6 at all, but I would guess she would have used a harpsichord if she did. 1756, after all.  

I note that I just have 2 versions of #10, Schornsheim and Haselböck. His disk is all organ, so it won't settle any differences, but Schornsheim uses an organ also. Koopman, whose disk is all harpsichord, doesn't play it at all. It is the only concerto he skips, in fact. I would surmise that something about its structure makes the organ the preferred instrument then.

All of them are titled "Keyboard Concerto" (für das Klavier) so they have that right anyway. Sounds like they have at least a nice part of it on appropriate instruments. When we have spoken about period instruments and I have advocated for open-mindedness in that regard, I have to confess, I meant with anything but keyboards. 0:)



----------------
Now playing:
Musicians of the Louvre, Grenoble \ Minkowski - Hob 01_103 Symphony in Eb 4th mvmt - Finale: Allegro con spirito

[kishnevi]

Well, it can be argued that any old thing is OK. Schornsheim, in her 2 disk set, uses organ, harpsichord and fortepiano. Her choices are far from random though. She doesn't play 18:6 at all, but I would guess she would have used a harpsichord if she did. 1756, after all.  

I note that I just have 2 versions of #10, Schornsheim and Haselböck. His disk is all organ, so it won't settle any differences, but Schornsheim uses an organ also. Koopman, whose disk is all harpsichord, doesn't play it at all. It is the only concerto he skips, in fact. I would surmise that something about its structure makes the organ the preferred instrument then.

All of them are titled "Keyboard Concerto" (für das Klavier) so they have that right anyway. Sounds like they have at least a nice part of it on appropriate instruments. When we have spoken about period instruments and I have advocated for open-mindedness in that regard, I have to confess, I meant with anything but keyboards. 0:)



-

Went and read the Naxos liner notes, which indicates that #10 could be played on the harpsichord--but cites the date of compostion (and the key)to link it to the other organ concertos and Haydn's employment at the time as organist/church musician.  So presumably all these recordings use the organ on the grounds that it was probably written for an organ.

[snyprrr]

Marvin should have read the first 40 Pages of this Thread, and then we wouldn't have had to go through this... again!! Ugh!!

Oy, this Thread brings out the snob in me, tee hee!!

[Elgarian]

She [du Pre] plays it [the Haydn cello concerto] as though it were a Romantic piece that is written to be heart-rending, despite that it isn't. I think that a good player can do that with any piece of music.

I think what's happened here is that this [du Pre] is the most extreme example I've encountered so far. Till now I think I've been more consciously struck by the difference in sound as opposed to the difference in feeling when comparing period with modern interpretations. Although even as I write that I realise it's not an accurate statement. Immerseel's Beethoven is more exciting, more exhilarating than any large-scale-orchestra modern interpretations I've ever heard. And all these period Haydn symphonies, quartets and Masses I've been enjoying sparkle with a joi-de-vivre that seems largely missing from modern interpretations. I think I could safely say that I find rather more 'feeling' in period performance, than less.

In fact, as I write, I'm starting to wonder about the whole business of 'emotion' or 'feeling' in music, and what it means; and whether it means (for me) the same as it means for other people. Is it the equivalent of the 'pathetic fallacy' in literature, I wonder? Where we project our internal emotional state outwards, onto the object that seems to be stimulating it - as when we say things like 'the cruel sea'? If that's so, then no wonder there's so much disagreement over the period v modern instrument issue: much of the time we think we're talking about the music when actually we're talking about ourselves.

[mc ukrneal]

If that's so, then no wonder there's so much disagreement over the period v modern instrument issue: much of the time we think we're talking about the music when actually we're talking about ourselves.

This resonates with me in ways that I cannot even express. Well said!

[Gurn Blanston]

I think what's happened here is that this [du Pre] is the most extreme example I've encountered so far. Till now I think I've been more consciously struck by the difference in sound as opposed to the difference in feeling when comparing period with modern interpretations. Although even as I write that I realise it's not an accurate statement. Immerseel's Beethoven is more exciting, more exhilarating than any large-scale-orchestra modern interpretations I've ever heard. And all these period Haydn symphonies, quartets and Masses I've been enjoying sparkle with a joi-de-vivre that seems largely missing from modern interpretations. I think I could safely say that I find rather more 'feeling' in period performance, than less.

In fact, as I write, I'm starting to wonder about the whole business of 'emotion' or 'feeling' in music, and what it means; and whether it means (for me) the same as it means for other people. Is it the equivalent of the 'pathetic fallacy' in literature, I wonder? Where we project our internal emotional state outwards, onto the object that seems to be stimulating it - as when we say things like 'the cruel sea'? If that's so, then no wonder there's so much disagreement over the period v modern instrument issue: much of the time we think we're talking about the music when actually we're talking about ourselves.

Well, I have always believed this to be true. You could probably go back to my earliest musings in this forum and I will have said some variation of that. Usually it is not well-received because people generally don't want to think that the reaction they have is not one that was somehow imbued into the music and is thus an intrinsic part of it.

I also think this is a large part of the Classico-Romantic dichotomy. Classical composers weren't emotionless robots, but they didn't try to write their own emotions into the music. If you had an emotional reaction to it, that was your emotions. But I do now, and always have felt that in the later time, composers felt it was incumbent upon them to share with you 'this is how I feel right now'. I don't pass value judgments on any of that, I am merely acknowledging its existence.

Certainly though, a manner of playing can express an emotion. A crisp, 'straight' note on a cello, all on its own, versus a drawn out, vibrato-laden note, can convey a feeling to you that arouses an emotion, one different from the other. After all, a cello can't be sad, but it can make you cry...

[Gurn Blanston]

Went and read the Naxos liner notes, which indicates that #10 could be played on the harpsichord--but cites the date of compostion (and the key)to link it to the other organ concertos and Haydn's employment at the time as organist/church musician.  So presumably all these recordings use the organ on the grounds that it was probably written for an organ.

Very likely. I have read that elsewhere, but also the likelihood that 95% of performances then and later probably took place on the harpsichord. The music was still used outside of its intended setting. Probably even by Haydn himself.

[Elgarian]

Well, I have always believed this to be true. You could probably go back to my earliest musings in this forum and I will have said some variation of that. Usually it is not well-received because people generally don't want to think that the reaction they have is not one that was somehow imbued into the music and is thus an intrinsic part of it.

My difficulty over this is essentially a philosophical one. For a long time now, I've adopted as a working hypothesis Susanne Langer's idea of the work of art as a collection of 'symbols of feeling', whereby the artist creates and/or arranges the symbols, which we then contemplate and - to a greater or lesser degree - recapture something of the original 'feeling'. I'm seeing this now as less than satisfactory. On the other hand, the suggestion that the whole idea of 'feeling' in art is a pathetic fallacy seems equally unacceptable....

Or maybe not. Here's Haydn - he assembles this 'thing', this 'structure', and presents it to us as an object he considers worthy of our contemplation. So alright, we contemplate it; we admire the structure. And in the process we 'feel' certain things - much as we would if we contemplated a tree or a flower. And maybe Haydn expected we would feel like that, simply as part of the contemplative and admiring process, because, classical period or not, human beings don't generally experience admiration without 'feeling' something. I'm reminded of Sandra Blow, the great British abstract painter, who worried - when she started painting abstract pictures in the 1950s - about 'how to get the feeling into it'. She resolved this by deciding that her job, as painter, was to get the architecture of the picture right; and then the feelings would look after themselves. Not sure what the philosophers would make of that, but right now it seems like a very helpful way to approach Haydn. Yes?

[Gurn Blanston]

.....
Or maybe not. Here's Haydn - he assembles this 'thing', this 'structure', and presents it to us as an object he considers worthy of our contemplation. So alright, we contemplate it; we admire the structure. And in the process we 'feel' certain things - much as we would if we contemplated a tree or a flower. And maybe Haydn expected we would feel like that, simply as part of the contemplative and admiring process, because, classical period or not, human beings don't generally experience admiration without 'feeling' something. I'm reminded of Sandra Blow, the great British abstract painter, who worried - when she started painting abstract pictures in the 1950s - about 'how to get the feeling into it'. She resolved this by deciding that her job, as painter, was to get the architecture of the picture right; and then the feelings would look after themselves. Not sure what the philosophers would make of that, but right now it seems like a very helpful way to approach Haydn. Yes?

Tom Beghin, fortepianist and Haydn scholar, analyzes the sonatas as classic rhetorical arguments. Where Haydn will make a statement by writing a phrase, and then argue it by pursuing different ways to make it resolve (as composers in that time believed it must do). Not being a musical theoretician, I can't recapitulate that process here, although I can understand it as I read it. But the point being that I think it is philosophically congruent with the philosophy of Sandra Blow, in that he is presenting a structure for our approval. Bearing in mind that the audience of that time was different than that of today, he sought their agreement (that is; approval) with his argument. Clearly he often won. The 19th century totally saw the end of this form of music appreciation, which is why it seems so foreign today as to be unlikely. But to the 18th century, it was simply the way things were. If your library has a copy of Beghin's book, which I believe is called "Haydn and the Rhetorical in Music" or sommat such, you should at least ponder a chapter or two to get a feel for it. I found it fascinating as a concept, despite barely comprehending some of it.

[Leon]

I am generally suspect of the idea that music expresses emotion - except only in a the vague sense that a well wrought piece of art is pleasing.  When a composer attempts to manipulate my emotions I do not like it. This may be why the music I enjoy the most was written in the Classical period and 20th/21st century atonal style.

[Mn Dave]

I am generally suspect of the idea that music expresses emotion - except only in a the vague sense that a well wrought piece of art is pleasing.  When a composer attempts to manipulate my emotions I do not like it.

I think I'm the exact opposite.

[Brahmsian]

I think I'm the exact opposite.

Me too.  Music is all about emotion, for me.

[Gurn Blanston]

I am generally suspect of the idea that music expresses emotion - except only in a the vague sense that a well wrought piece of art is pleasing.  When a composer attempts to manipulate my emotions I do not like it. This may be why the music I enjoy the most was written in the Classical period and 20th/21st century atonal style.

I think I'm the exact opposite.

Say no more! 

[Mn Dave]

I enjoying watching as food is prepared but I prefer the sensations as I shovel it into my mouth.

[Opus106]

I enjoying watching as food is prepared but I prefer the sensations as I shovel it into my mouth.

How does this analogy apply to the present discussion?

[Brahmsian]

How does this analogy apply to the present discussion?

When it's MN Dave, anything goes! 

[Mn Dave]

How does this analogy apply to the present discussion?

What discussion?