Haydn's Haus

[Jared]

Even so ... I now have so much Haydn that I keep the Haydn collection separately, in a big box, and I probably now have more Haydn CDs than Elgar CDs. Well, maybe not. But it's a close run thing.

I'm not a name-dropper, but my Grandfather was a great Elgar fan... but I think he was biased, because he was fairly good friends with EE's daughter, Carice.. 

[Gurn Blanston]

You're right of course, although my progress has been largely one of observing certain barriers come down, for no apparent reason, at various intervals through my life. I would have gambled serious money, even up to a couple of years ago, against the possibility of Haydn becoming a favourite composer of mine. I'm afraid you have to shoulder a substantial part of the responsibility for that sea-change, Gurn.

But our approaches are different. I was a scholar almost from birth, I think - but decidedly in other fields, and never a music scholar. Where music is concerned I really only live for kicks. I do read music books, but (Elgar excepted) not in any systematic sense. I dip according to whim, or to what I happen to be listening to. So I don't really feel a pressure to settle on a particular period or composer. Even so ... I now have so much Haydn that I keep the Haydn collection separately, in a big box, and I probably now have more Haydn CDs than Elgar CDs. Well, maybe not. But it's a close run thing.

It is an onus that I bear proudly though, Alan. In the nearly 10 years that I have been here, I have seen 2 changes in attitude for which I claim some small credit; period instruments are no longer constantly derided as they once were, and Haydn isn't dismissed as being worth only his post 1785 works, and not all of those. I have been an ardent crusader for those 2 causes; one must choose ones battles wisely.

With nearly no formal schooling to my credit, I am nearly 100% an autodidact. So scholarship has been a hobby more than anything else. But keeping ones mind occupied allows the less pleasant parts of life to slide by with fewer abrasions, as it were. History is one of those things that intrigues me. Music history is a natural extension of my passion for music. I can't possibly separate the two. It is my pathological character defect cropping out, I fear.

[Elgarian]

With nearly no formal schooling to my credit, I am nearly 100% an autodidact. So scholarship has been a hobby more than anything else.

Oddly enough, in all the ways that matter, so am I [an autodidact], largely. My formal education was as a physicist, but all my most valuable education has been, and still is, self-inflicted; and in non-scientific fields. And scholarship that isn't pursued primarily for love doesn't interest me much, regardless of its subject. This of course is why your Haydn's Haus is such a pleasant place to drop in and put one's feet up.

[Gurn Blanston]

Oddly enough, in all the ways that matter, so am I [an autodidact], largely. My formal education was as a physicist, but all my most valuable education has been, and still is, self-inflicted; and in non-scientific fields. And scholarship that isn't pursued primarily for love doesn't interest me much, regardless of its subject. This of course is why your Haydn's Haus is such a pleasant place to drop in and put one's feet up.

Well, you are most welcome any time, sir. We Haydnistos are a genial lot, by and large.

[Karl Henning]

Self-inflicted eddication: we've all smarted for it.

[Gurn Blanston]

Ah, her husband. After co-habitating with a greater composer but lesser conductor, Sandor Varess.

Woha! Hey now. That's a leading statement. It's not the "jollity" we/they/I object to. We/they/I love the jollity alright. It's the lack of proper intonation and the sometimes sloppy-beyond-jolly playing that we/they/I object to. 

Yes, there are people who apparently don't like Hitler's Autobahns... (Not to equate the Festetics intonation issues to the slaughter of 6 + 60 million people. No, they're more in the Pinochet-league... )

You take everything so personally. You are merely one of a class of people who don't care for the Festetics, and your reasons aren't necessarily their reasons. Now, if I had said "Jens doesn't like them..." you would have reason to complain if the causes I gave weren't your own. Imaginary intonation issues aside, I'm pleased that at least they don't wring the life out of the music...

[SonicMan46]

Nice, Dave. Are those from the Marketplace? I need to wishlist them if so. I've had those arrangements in the back of my mind for a while now, looking for nice versions. These might be the ones.

Hi Gurn - yes, bought from Amazon; the prices on Amazon (w/o S/H) vs. the MP (w/ $3 per disc) are pretty similar, so just depends on what may save you a buck or two.  Both are quite enjoyable - not sure these discs are essential to a general Haydn collection (but both of us seem FAR beyond that need!), and transcriptions from that era were common, as we know; plus, these were done by Solomon & Haydn, so just a wonderful complement to a well rounded set of Papa's works - Dave

[Gurn Blanston]

Hi Gurn - yes, bought from Amazon; the prices on Amazon (w/o S/H) vs. the MP (w/ $3 per disc) are pretty similar, so just depends on what may save you a buck or two.  Both are quite enjoyable - not sure these discs are essential to a general Haydn collection (but both of us seem FAR beyond that need!), and transcriptions from that era were common, as we know; plus, these were done by Solomon & Haydn, so just a wonderful complement to a well rounded set of Papa's works - Dave

Dave,
Oh yes, they fit in nicely in many ways. They are as authentic as can be, and they allow one to include some of that wonderful symphonic music when constructing an evening of chamber music (as I frequently do). I have #94 on that La Gaia Scienza disk and it is very enjoyable. So here is a chance to expand that a bit.

[Gurn Blanston]

Part 26

1777

The opera fetish continues full blast at Esterháza, and we reach a year without even a symphony, or at least, not one that survived. More on that later (1779).

The last of the baryton trios was finished up, and the following year Book 5 was privately published. It isn't known if Nicolaus ever even played it, it is hard to imagine that Haydn had time to resume his customary place in the viola chair for a whole lot of chamber musicking. He was busy, amazingly busy, taking care of the music machine that had grown gargantuan since the days of the 15 man orchestra that he began with. One wonders if he ever had envisioned where music was going to take him. This must have been amazing enough, what if he could have foreseen his London triumphs? Within 3 years though, he would finally be in a position to build the foundation to make that happen.

The music of 1777;

Hob 01a_04 Overture in D   
Hob 01a_07 Overture in D
   Manfred Huss / Haydn Sinfonietta Wien


Hob 11_123 Trio in G for Baryton, Viola & Cello Book 5
Hob 11_124 Trio in G for Baryton, Viola & Cello Book 5
Hob 11_125 Trio in G for Baryton, Viola & Cello Book 5
Hob 11_126 Trio in C for Baryton, Viola & Cello Book 5
   Esterhazy Ensemble


Hob 28_07 Opera 'Il Mondo della Luna'
   Chamber Orchestra of Lausanne / Dorati Auger / Mathis / Stade / Terrani / Johnson



No symphonies, true enough, but here we have 2 overtures though, and they aren't connected to any particular work. I'm sure that some Haydn scholar has considered that one of the many missing operas were originally headed up by one or another of these, but the only certain thing is that two of the many (at least 4) variations of Symphony #53 of the following year used these pieces as movements. Why Haydn did that, writing a work with interchangeable movements, is still not known for certain, but these 2 Stücke were published in England as overtures, so we'll go with that. Huss and company save us once again from the fate of never being able to hear this music for ourselves.

I have assigned the last 4 baryton trios here. Book 5 began with Trio #97 and continued through #126, so 30 trios over the span of 8 years, along with the 7 or 8 octets. Compare to the fact that it only took 7 years at most (1764-1770) to compose the first 96 along with all of the other solos and duos and the quintet. Clearly the demand was no longer there. Still highly enjoyable works though, I'm glad I've been part of the first generation since Haydn's own that had a chance to hear them as written.

And lastly, an Italian opera. Il mondo della Luna (The World on the Moon) is a dramma giocoso in 3 acts, on a libretto by Carlo Goldoni, the undisputed master of comic opera in the latter half of the 18th century. This is one of my favorite of Haydn's operas, it seems like Goldoni's story line and/or poetic prowess inspired Haydn to some extent. The overture is darn near a symphony on its own, and in fact he reduced it next year and made it part of symphony #63. Since it was never revived outside of Esterháza, he also reused some of the music in, for example, the Hob IV:6-11 divertimentos that we discussed here recently. Some of it even made its way into the Benedictus of the Mariazeller mass (Hob 22: of 1782! As always in this series, Dorati and company do a fine job. Among other noted soloists, Arleen Auger makes an appearance here. Splendid!

I am currently looking for a listing of all the operas performed at Esterháza that were not by Haydn. I have all of the replacement arias to cover yet, and these tell us the year, opera and composer, but there are really only 25 or so of those. If anyone happens across that listing (it must be out there!) please steer us towards it. Or post it here (which is what I will do anyway).

As always, thanks for reading, please feel free to question, comment editorialize, whatever!

[kishnevi]

I merely bemoan the lack of concision after 1830. It (prolixity) did reach its peak about 60-80 years later though, didn't it? Of all the things that subsequent composers could have taken from Beethoven, somehow they missed out on his  almost magical ability to telescope great statements down to a few terse notes. Haydn had it, Mozart too. Maybe that is the nut of Classicism?

Gurn, are you aware that almost all of Havergal Brian's symphonies are less than 30 minutes in length--the exceptions to be found mostly in the first half dozen or so symphonies (No. 1 being the most obvious).

Listening to the Op. 71 quartets now played by the Takacs Quartet. Totally different sound world from the London Haydn Quartet and Mosaiques recordings (although of course these are different works)-- more decorous and obviously "Classical' although nothing over refined about them.

[kishnevi]

I'm thinking that this is due to redundancy. If a man has fewer than 100 opus numbered works and yet 3,333 recordings, how does that stack up to someone with over 800 works and 2300 recordings? Hell, I have 2300 Haydn recordings, for that matter....

Don't take the Arkivmusic numbers at face value.  The way their system operates, if a recording includes even one item by a composer, it will show up in those totals.  So if  Robin Nightingale releases a recital CD which includes five arias from Verdi, one from Bellini, three from Rossini, two from Donizetti, two from Mozart, and four from Puccini, the census counts that CD as one recording for each of the six composers involved.

So those Mozart numbers doubtless include a bucket load of "Relax with", "A Night at the Opera" and "Favorite Adagios" type of CDs.

[Gurn Blanston]

Gurn, are you aware that almost all of Havergal Brian's symphonies are less than 30 minutes in length--the exceptions to be found mostly in the first half dozen or so symphonies (No. 1 being the most obvious).

Listening to the Op. 71 quartets now played by the Takacs Quartet. Totally different sound world from the London Haydn Quartet and Mosaiques recordings (although of course these are different works)-- more decorous and obviously "Classical' although nothing over refined about them.

No, haven't gone down the Brian Road yet. But my statement was more general than specifically himself. To me, nearly all composers who stayed on the tonal bus tend to get more and more drawn out, using 200 measures to say what a Classical composer said in 12. Without generalizing totally, I would say that most Romantic music, for my taste, stays around long enough to wear out its welcome. Not that a lot of it isn't very tuneful...

I like Op 71 & 74. Overtly composed for stage performance, they were surely crowd pleasers in a city where public performance of string quartets was routine.

[kishnevi]

No, haven't gone down the Brian Road yet. But my statement was more general than specifically himself. To me, nearly all composers who stayed on the tonal bus tend to get more and more drawn out, using 200 measures to say what a Classical composer said in 12. Without generalizing totally, I would say that most Romantic music, for my taste, stays around long enough to wear out its welcome. Not that a lot of it isn't very tuneful...

I like Op 71 & 74. Overtly composed for stage performance, they were surely crowd pleasers in a city where public performance of string quartets was routine.

Oh, I knew you were speaking in general terms.  I was simply producing a potential counter-example. 

I don't think the real difference between Classical and Romantic is the concision or lack thereof.  It's not so much that a Romantic composer takes a 100 bars to do what a Classical composer does in 10;  rather, the Romantic composer is doing stuff that the Classical composer usually never dreamed of doing.

[Gurn Blanston]

Oh, I knew you were speaking in general terms.  I was simply producing a potential counter-example. 

I don't think the real difference between Classical and Romantic is the concision or lack thereof.  It's not so much that a Romantic composer takes a 100 bars to do what a Classical composer does in 10;  rather, the Romantic composer is doing stuff that the Classical composer usually never dreamed of doing.

No, there are lots of differences. That is certainly one of them. If what you are saying is that the aim of music was an entirely different thing later in time, then I agree with that. The 18th century aesthetic was completely different than the 19th century, and the music filled up as much as it was asked to do. There simply is no comparison, not just from a musicological standpoint, but from a whole socioeconomic one. Generally speaking, I think that people tend to prefer one viewpoint over the other. Whether they will admit it to themselves or not. Although I notice a much greater eagerness on the part of Romantics to admit disliking Classical music than vice-versa. Not sure why that is.  Hmmm....

[jlaurson]

No, haven't gone down the Brian Road yet. But my statement was more general than specifically himself. To me, nearly all composers who stayed on the tonal bus tend to get more and more drawn out, using 200 measures to say what a Classical composer said in 12. Without generalizing totally, I would say that most Romantic music, for my taste, stays around long enough to wear out its welcome. Not that a lot of it isn't very tuneful...

You are generalizing totally, of sorts, methinks... (not that there is anything wrong with it).

If concision, one of my favorite qualities in music, is your thing, I'm sure the combined brainpower and memory of GMG could give you a list of works you would enjoy considerably. I would start with Anton Webern's "Langsamer Satz", which is like packing Tristan & Isolde into 10 minutes... and yet the epitome of romanticism.  Or Rued Langgaard's Écrasez l'infâme for Violin & Piano. Just two, almost randomish recommendations, for romantic music where you won't have to wish that the composer 'turn the page' already.

[Elgarian]

Self-inflicted eddication: we've all smarted for it.

The intravenous eddication injections are the worst, don'tcha find?

[Florestan]

Keep in mind, until the 1920's, from 1830 or so, and with the exception of a few operas and the minor key piano concertos and symphonies, Mozart was considered to be rococo garbage, by and large. I personally find the opinions of the 19th century to be strictly trash.

Whose opinions?

Rossini: I take him [Beethoven] twice a week, Haydn four times, and Mozart every day.

Tchaikovsky: Mozart is the highest, the culminating point that beauty has attained in the sphere of music.

Brahms: If we cannot write with the beauty of Mozart, let us at least try to write with his purity.

Grieg: In Bach, Beethoven and Wagner we admire principally the depth and energy of the human mind; in Mozart, the divine instinct.

Schumann: Does it not seem as if Mozart's works become fresher and fresher the oftener we hear them? (add to this that Schumann studied Mozart's and Haydn's SQs much more than Beethoven's before writing his own)

Wagner: The most tremendous genius raised Mozart above all masters, in all centuries and in all the arts.

Saint-Saens: Give Mozart a fairy tale and he creates without effort an immortal masterpiece.

Dvorak: Mozart is sweet sunshine.

Faure: Mozart's music is particularly difficult to perform. His admirable clarity exacts absolute cleanness: the slightest mistake in it stands out like black on white. It is music in which all the notes must be heard.

Chopin: Mozart encompasses the entire domain of musical creation, but I've got only the keyboard in my poor head.

Gounod: As with all great artists, Mozart expressed not only the soul, the taste and the aroma of his epoch, but also the spiritual world of man-man for all ages, in all the complexity of his desires, his struggles and ambivalence. Some of us, who only identify in Mozart a certain aristocratic refinement, may find these words strange. Often we meet with a condescending attitude towards him, to his music, reminiscent of chiming bells in a music box! ...'It's very nice, but not for me' say such people, 'give me passion - Beethoven, Brahms, tragic, monumental...' Such comments only reveal one thing, these people don't know Mozart.


And speaking of Pinnock, don't forget this one:

[Opus106]

Whose opinions?

The critics', if I interpreted Gurn correctly.

[Florestan]

The 18th century aesthetic was completely different than the 19th century, and the music filled up as much as it was asked to do. There simply is no comparison, not just from a musicological standpoint, but from a whole socioeconomic one. Generally speaking, I think that people tend to prefer one viewpoint over the other. Whether they will admit it to themselves or not. Although I notice a much greater eagerness on the part of Romantics to admit disliking Classical music than vice-versa. Not sure why that is.  Hmmm....

I am a Romantic who admits loving Classicism.

No, wait, I am a Classicist who admits loving Romanticism.

Actually, no, I'm a Baroque who admits loving both Classicism and Romanticism.

Urmmmm... never mind.

The critics', if I interpreted Gurn correctly.

Bah, what do they know about music? 

[mc ukrneal]

I am a Romantic who admits loving Classicism.

No, wait, I am a Classicist who admits loving Romanticism.

Actually, no, I'm a Baroque who admits loving both Classicism and Romanticism.

Urmmmm... never mind.

Very well said!