Haydn's Haus

[Gurn Blanston]

Right now I'm reading an interesting interview, an interview with H.C. Robbins Landon (his last), found here:

http://www.earlymusicworld.com/id29.html

Here are some quotes I really enjoyed:

"Let me tell you a new story you won't know – Haydn conducting the "Coronation" Mass [K317]. Now why would he be doing that at Eisenstadt? He was doing that because his princess [Princess Marie Hermenegeld, the wife of Haydn's patron Prince Nicolaus Esterházy] had heard the Mass at the coronation in Prague in 1791 and she obviously thought it so marvellous that she asked Haydn to get hold of a copy. So Haydn went to Constanze and asked her for a copy, which he obviously paid for. It was done at Eisenstadt, where it was a huge success."

And on his discovery of Haydn, Landon says:

"In 1939, when I was 15 [recte 13] years old. During the 1939-1940 season a series of broadcast concerts conducted by Fritz Stiedry in New York introduced a number of resuscitated Haydn symphonies, most of which had never been heard there before. At the time I was at Asheville School in North Carolina and my music teacher there was a guy called Mathias Cooper. I told him of my great enthusiasm for these Haydn symphonies and that I would love to work in music. He told me that if that was the case I should certainly concentrate on Haydn. So I asked him "Why Haydn?" and he told me that Haydn needed a Gesamtausgabe. I said, "What's a Gesamtausgabe?". He explained that it was a complete edition of a composer's works and everyone has one: Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms, even Buxtehude. But not Haydn. I asked him why and he told me that forty years ago the German publisher Breitkopf and Härtel started to collect all Haydn's works, but got bogged down. It was too expensive and nobody cared. So that was what I had to do and he'd show me why. Whereupon he got out a brand new recording of Beecham conducting Symphony No. 93. We listened to it and I said, "Professor, you mean there are more symphonies like this? They must be out of their minds!". He said, "Exactly!". "

Nice story! I always knew (from somewhere... Mozart lit?) that some of his music was played at Eisenstadt, but not any back story about it.

Robbins-Landon was certainly the right man in the right place at the right time. Haydn research would still be in the Dark Ages if he hadn't come along. Next time I have an extra thousand laying around, I am finally going to get Haydn: Chronicle & Works. Everything we see today is based out of that set of books, no matter that there are amendments based on later research or whatever. It is the factual foundation for everything we know!

[Karl Henning]

I love that key, and I believe it was reading Alfred Einstein's Mozart book that made me aware of the importance of key and key relationships. Mozart's A major Symphony (#29) made me acutely aware of the key of A Major, as did Mozart's Clarinet concerto.

What, no love for the K.581? ; )

[Gurn Blanston]

What, no love for the K.581? ; )

I like it, Karl. Nothing like a good clarinet quintet to start your day. And hard to find a nicer one.

[Karl Henning]

[...] And on his discovery of Haydn, Landon says:

"In 1939, when I was 15 [recte 13] years old. During the 1939-1940 season a series of broadcast concerts conducted by Fritz Stiedry in New York introduced a number of resuscitated Haydn symphonies, most of which had never been heard there before[....]"

So really we've all got the St Petersburg Conservatory to thank for this, haven't we? Haydn was a staple in the conducting course at the Conservatory, hence Prokofiev's taking "Papa" for a model in the "Classical" Symphony.  Fritz Stiedry came from that environment (it was Stiedry who conducted the anxiety-inducing rehearsals of Shostakovich's Fourth Symphony, until the composer withdrew the piece).

[Gurn Blanston]

So really we've all got the St Petersburg Conservatory to thank for this, haven't we? Haydn was a staple in the conducting course at the Conservatory, hence Prokofiev's taking "Papa" for a model in the "Classical" Symphony.  Fritz Stiedry came from that environment (it was Stiedry who conducted the anxiety-inducing rehearsals of Shostakovich's Fourth Symphony, until the composer withdrew the piece).

Actually, Haydn never disappeared from Conservatory classrooms throughout Europe, all through the 19th & 20th century. In the 19th, his works were considered dated so not suitable for concertizing, but they were generally acknowledged as being so wonderfully well-done that they were textbook examples of how to compose. Odd, i'n'it? 

[Lethevich]

I have to majorly disagree here. I cannot think of any worse Haydn performances that I have ever heard, particularly the first disc (which is actually two discs). They are far too severe (for my tastes), and I cannot hear the spirit of Haydn here. It is because of these recordings that I generally stay away from Kuijkin, fearing that he will do to other composers what he did to Haydn. And it is not so much a question of instrumentation, but one of interpretation I think. Sorry guys (and gals)...

Hmm, I love those Kuijken Paris recordings, although on their own merits (my other favourite is Ansermet). I find them more delicate than frigid. Who do you prefer in these works?

[Leo K.]

What, no love for the K.581? ; )

Oh yeah, I should'nt forget that'n! I didn't appreciate K.581 until alittle later in my Mozart journey 

[mc ukrneal]

Hmm, I love those Kuijken Paris recordings, although on their own merits (my other favourite is Ansermet). I find them more delicate than frigid. Who do you prefer in these works?

I have the Fischer set, which I enjoy. I don't really collect these anymore as the Fischer (complete) covers most bases well (I had gotten the Kuijkin first). My library has several of the Orpheus Chamber Orchestra releases, which I enjoy. For the London symphonies, I like Davis. But I like most of the versions I have heard over the years (PI or big band), which is why I was so surprised by the Kuijkin. I used to think these symphonies were almost 'fail' proof.

I think there are one (and a half ) major reasons I dislike them though: The string sound, which I find fatiguing - too bright and aggressive. I listen on earphones for the most part, if that matters. So it starts off more or less ok, but within a minute or two I am starting to pull my hair out! When I put on the Fischer version, I hear a few major differences: 1) A more resonant sound, 2) A warmer sound (meaning the strings are less strident), 3) the attacks/entrances are softer, and 4) There is no harpsichord/continuo (or whatever it is that Kuijkin is using). I also feel that the Fischer is much more nuanced in phrasing (while the Kuijkin is more straight ahead and get the hell out of the way). In this particular comparison, I did not go further than the first movement of #82, but based just on thus movement, delicate is not what comes to mind (though it does for Fischer).

Actually, while I was typing I listened to the second movement (most of it). And this reminds me of another issue - Kuijkin as Dr. Jekyl and Mr. Hyde. As driving and relentless as the first movement is, I feel the second movement is limpid and overly slow, so much that it loses the pulse of Haydn. And the differentiation here seems weak (phrasing and loudness). But the harshness is reduced by the nature of the movement, so I am more or less ok with this movement in terms of the sound.

Anyway, sorry to go on and bash a favorite of yours. I tried to provide some details though so that there was some explanation behind it. It is also very possible that the harpsichord is part of the problem for me - I don't generally like the instrument played as a solo, but I usually don't find it an issue when there are other instruments playing (for example, no problem in most operas that have it, thinking here of Mozart). But it is a possibility.

[Elgarian]

Interesting, isn't it? I enjoyed those Kuijken recordings so much, right from the start, that I felt no need to seek out any others. So I can't discourse knowledgeably about them in relation to alternatives, because I haven't heard any alternatives!

I might become worried that I just slurp up any old thing uncritically, if it were not for the fact that I very much disliked the acclaimed Davis set of London symphonies, completely wasting my money on them. Not because I want to dislike the Davis, but just to prove to myself I'm not some sort of Haydnistic dustbin.

[Gurn Blanston]

Interesting, isn't it? I enjoyed those Kuijken recordings so much, right from the start, that I felt no need to seek out any others. So I can't discourse knowledgeably about them in relation to alternatives, because I haven't heard any alternatives!

I might become worried that I just slurp up any old thing uncritically, if it were not for the fact that I very much disliked the acclaimed Davis set of London symphonies, completely wasting my money on them. Not because I want to dislike the Davis, but just to prove to myself I'm not some sort of Haydnistic dustbin.

I always marvel at the variety of tastes when it comes to music performance. Which is why I reiterate in my own essays that I am posting what I like, not necessarily what you will like. As for the set in question; I like it, but I don't love it. If it was all I had, I wouldn't feel the least deprived. I have seen some sharp criticism of MY choice there, the Harnoncourt. Just goes to show.

[Lethevich]

Anyway, sorry to go on and bash a favorite of yours.

Hehe, I prefer it to praise - it's more interesting. The moment you mentioned headphones I got a lightbulb over my head, as the sound is a little unforgiving even on speakers, and I can definitely understand that as a factor.

I think that I might value legato less than you (I hope that I'm using the right term), as the general "poise" of the performances was what drew my attention, perhaps to the extent that I didn't focus on the way the notes themselves were articulated. During fast movements it was a non-issue, but even in slow movements, rather than missing a long-line (which I agree Fischer brings out very well with his performance style), I was instead listening to the interplay - maybe even pointalistically.

[Geo Dude]

Any recommendations on a PI set of the London symphonies?  Gurn has previously recommended Minkowski's recording, so I'm aware of that one.  I'd like to see what the other options are.

[Karl Henning]

So the Op.103 quartet is incomplete? (Or is that just Wiki-sludge?) ; )

Say, Gurn . . . not to de-rail your savory, gradual chronology . . . but do you have a compact-ish sidebar which gives an overview of the Haydn opus numeration/logic?

[Gurn Blanston]

So the Op.103 quartet is incomplete? (Or is that just Wiki-sludge?) ; )

Say, Gurn . . . not to de-rail your savory, gradual chronology . . . but do you have a compact-ish sidebar which gives an overview of the Haydn opus numeration/logic?

You mean string quartets only? Because I don't really know the others at all. Plus, don't want to expect logic here because the publishing situation in those days was anarchy; thus all over the map! But I can give you the straight poop by the standards. Once again, if Navneeth wants to reformat, that will be great!

Year   Hob #   Opus #   Quartet #   Key   Notes
1757/59   1   1 #1   1   Bb   
1757/59   2   1 #2   2   Eb   
1757/59   3   1 #3   3   D   
1757/59   4   1 #4   4   G   
1757/59      0   5   Eb   Was originally classified as Hob 2:6
1757/59   6   1 #6   6   C   
1760/62   7   2 #1   7   A   
1760/62   8   2 #2   8   E   
1760/62   10   2 #4   9   F   
1760/62   12   2 #6   10   Bb   
1769/70   22   9 #4   11   d   6 Divertimentos
1769/70   19   9 #1   12   C   Quartet number indicates probable order of composition
1769/70   21   9 #3   13   G   
1769/70   20   9 #2   14   Eb   
1769/70   23   9 #5   15   Bb   
1769/70   24   9 #6   16   A   
1771   26   17 #2   17   F   6 Divertimentos
1771   25   17 #1   18   E   Quartet number indicates probable order of composition
1771   28   17 #4   19   c   
1771   30   17 #6   20   D   
1771   27   17 #3   21   Eb   
1771   29   17 #5   22   G   
1772   35   20 #5   23   f   6 Divertimentos
1772   36   20 #6   24   A   Quartet number indicates probable order of composition
1772   32   20 #2   25   C   
1772   33   20 #3   26   g   
1772   34   20 #4   27   D   
1772   31   20 #1   28   Eb   
1781   41   33 #5   29   G   6 Quartets
1781   38   33 #2   30   Eb   Quartet number indicates probable order of composition
1781   37   33 #1   31   Bb   
1781   39   33 #3   32   C   
1781   42   33 #6   33   D   
1781   40   33 #4   34   Bb   
1785   43   42   35   d   Probably one of a set (for Spain) - rest are lost
1787   44   50 #1   36   Bb   Dedicated to the King of Prussia
1787   45   50 #2   37   C   
1787   46   50 #3   38   Eb   
1787   47   50 #4   39   f#   
1787   48   50 #5   40   F   
1787   49   50 #6   41   D   
1788   57   54 #2   42   C   Tost Quartets set #1
1788   58   54 #1   43   G   
1788   59   54 #3   44   E   
1788   60   55 #1   45   A   
1788   61   55 #2   46   f   
1788   62   55 #3   47   Bb   
1790   65   64 #1   48   C   Tost Quartets set #2
1790   68   64 #2   49   b   
1790   67   64 #3   50   Bb   
1790   66   64 #4   51   G   
1790   64   64 #6   52   Eb   
1790   63   64 #5   53   D   
1793   69   71 #1   54   Bb   Apponyi Quartets, but written for London
1793   70   71 #2   55   D   
1793   71   71 #3   56   Eb   
1793   72   74 #1   57   C   
1793   73   74 #2   58   F   
1793   74   74 #3   59   g   
1797   75   76 #1   60   G   Erdödy Quartets
1797   76   76 #2   61   d   
1797   77   76 #3   62   C   
1797   78   76 #4   63   Bb   
1797   79   76 #5   64   D   
1797   80   76 #6   65   Eb   
1799   81   77 #1   66   G   Lobkowitz Quartets
1799   82   77 #2   67   F   
1803   83   103   68   d   Only the 2 inner movements were completed

Of course, the 7 Last Words are in there too, they are Op 51, Hob III:50-56.

[Karl Henning]

Thanks! I was generally wondering about Opus numbers, entirely . . . but then, I rather suspected what you've boldly averred: that it was chaos : )

I'm still mulling quartettage.  May take advantage of the drastic reductions in classical music at the local FYE, especially as I quite like the way the Amadeus Quartet do play.

Separately . . . I've now got the last of the pf trios loaded up on the player.

[Opus106]

Concordance of Quartets Composed by Joseph Haydn (Compiled by Gurn Blanston.)

Year	Hob.	Opus	Quartet	Key	Notes
1757/59	1	1 #1	1	Bb
1757/59	2	1 #2	2	Eb
1757/59	3	1 #3	3	D
1757/59	4	1 #4	4	G
1757/59		0	5	Eb	Was originally classified as Hob 2:6
1757/59	6	1 #6	6	C
1760/62	7	2 #1	7	A
1760/62	8	2 #2	8	E
1760/62	10	2 #4	9	F
1760/62	12	2 #6	10	Bb
1769/70	22	9 #4	11	d	6 Divertimentos
1769/70	19	9 #1	12	C	Quartet number indicates probable order of composition
1769/70	21	9 #3	13	G
1769/70	20	9 #2	14	Eb
1769/70	23	9 #5	15	Bb
1769/70	24	9 #6	16	A
1771	26	17 #2	17	F	6 Divertimentos
1771	25	17 #1	18	E	Quartet number indicates probable order of composition
1771	28	17 #4	19	c
1771	30	17 #6	20	D
1771	27	17 #3	21	Eb
1771	29	17 #5	22	G
1772	35	20 #5	23	f	6 Divertimentos
1772	36	20 #6	24	A	Quartet number indicates probable order of composition
1772	32	20 #2	25	C
1772	33	20 #3	26	g
1772	34	20 #4	27	D
1772	31	20 #1	28	Eb
1781	41	33 #5	29	G	6 Quartets
1781	38	33 #2	30	Eb	Quartet number indicates probable order of composition
1781	37	33 #1	31	Bb
1781	39	33 #3	32	C
1781	42	33 #6	33	D
1781	40	33 #4	34	Bb
1785	43	42	35	d	Probably one of a set (for Spain) - rest are lost
1787	44	50 #1	36	Bb	Dedicated to the King of Prussia
1787	45	50 #2	37	C
1787	46	50 #3	38	Eb
1787	47	50 #4	39	f#
1787	48	50 #5	40	F
1787	49	50 #6	41	D
1788	57	54 #2	42	C	Tost Quartets set #1
1788	58	54 #1	43	G
1788	59	54 #3	44	E
1788	60	55 #1	45	A
1788	61	55 #2	46	f
1788	62	55 #3	47	Bb
1790	65	64 #1	48	C	Tost Quartets set #2
1790	68	64 #2	49	b
1790	67	64 #3	50	Bb
1790	66	64 #4	51	G
1790	64	64 #6	52	Eb
1790	63	64 #5	53	D
1793	69	71 #1	54	Bb	Apponyi Quartets, but written for London
1793	70	71 #2	55	D
1793	71	71 #3	56	Eb
1793	72	74 #1	57	C
1793	73	74 #2	58	F
1793	74	74 #3	59	g
1797	75	76 #1	60	G	Erdödy Quartets
1797	76	76 #2	61	d
1797	77	76 #3	62	C
1797	78	76 #4	63	Bb
1797	79	76 #5	64	D
1797	80	76 #6	65	Eb
1799	81	77 #1	66	G	Lobkowitz Quartets
1799	82	77 #2	67	F
1803	83	103	68	d	Only the 2 inner movements were completed

[Gurn Blanston]

Ah, brilliant as always, Navneeth. I hope you have some sort of macro to do that, it seems as though the tedium would be mind-numbing after a bit, sort of like listening to Mahler... 

[Gurn Blanston]

Thanks! I was generally wondering about Opus numbers, entirely . . . but then, I rather suspected what you've boldly averred: that it was chaos : )

I'm still mulling quartettage.  May take advantage of the drastic reductions in classical music at the local FYE, especially as I quite like the way the Amadeus Quartet do play.

Separately . . . I've now got the last of the pf trios loaded up on the player.

Well, what I was meaning there is that for each set of quartets, there were a minimum of 2 publishers, often 3 or 4, and they each used their own opus numbers. Crazy, I know. Later on, Pleyel published what he felt was the entire oeuvre, and he chose to use this or that number and that became the de facto standard.

[Karl Henning]

Well, what I was meaning there is that for each set of quartets, there were a minimum of 2 publishers, often 3 or 4, and they each used their own opus numbers. Crazy, I know. Later on, Pleyel published what he felt was the entire oeuvre, and he chose to use this or that number and that became the de facto standard.

Thus, to bring it all back to First Things: No such thing as items belonging to each cardinal number, Opus 1-103, for instance, yes? ; )

And thanks to you, Nav.  Apart from our Alan, you are the man!

[Elgarian]

I'd say, looking around here in the immediate vicinity right now, there are quite a lot of people who are the man (and more)! Indeed, I am surrounded by giants.