Haydn's Haus

[Gurn Blanston]

Yes, I am aware that 40 and 72 are contemporaneous with the lower numbers, but may written my post in indicate otherwise.  I was just mentioning which symphonies were on the third disc.

Speaking of divertimenti, I just got this and love it:

[asin]B000031X8Y[/asin]

Ah, of course you are! My bad.

I've been looking at that disk for a while now, trying to make a choice on it. It does look interesting, I must say.

[Gurn Blanston]

Well, as promised, I have begun revising and upgrading the earliest essays in the series.

Revised Part 1 - 1749 - 50

I really wasn't sure how to go about all that, and so I simply overcopied the original with the revision. In order to make it easier I include a link to allow easy access. If anyone feels like a different format would be better (like just posting them here at the end, so to speak) and has another idea, let me know. I do hope you will find these revisions an improvement. I've learned a lot since this all began! 

[Karl Henning]

 Quote from: Gurnatron5500 on February 28, 2012, 10:58:58 PM

Well, as promised, I have begun revising and upgrading the earliest essays in the series.

 
Cool!

[Karl Henning]

 Quote from: Gurnatron5500 on October 22, 2011, 12:09:58 PM

. . . One would have to believe that for all intents and purposes, if Haydn wrote it himself it was probably pretty much accurate (although he starts off in the first sentence saying that he was born in 1733 rather than '32... ).

 
Say, Gurn . . . what was his birthdate? (Later I shall reveal the driver for my question . . . .)

[Gurn Blanston]

Quote from: Gurnatron5500 on October 22, 2011, 12:09:58 PM

. . . One would have to believe that for all intents and purposes, if Haydn wrote it himself it was probably pretty much accurate (although he starts off in the first sentence saying that he was born in 1733 rather than '32... ).

 
Say, Gurn . . . what was his birthdate? (Later I shall reveal the driver for my question . . . .)

Either March 31 or April 1, 1732. His situation precisely parallels Beethoven's; baptism date recorded, birthdate not. He, himself, wasn't actually sure.

[Karl Henning]

Well, the idea I had in the back of my mind probably does not come into it. I was thinking the fact that in England, New Year's day was 25 March (the Feast of the Annunication) until England adopted the Gregorian calendar in 1752, which made for the curiosity of one day being 24 March 1731, and the very next day, 25 March 1732.  But as the Austrian Empire was Catholic, and had presumably adopted the Gregorian calendar at the outset in 1582, I don't suppose that quirk of the calendar can have come into play.

Unless . . . since Haydn was born on the Hungarian frontier, his village was still on the Julian calendar [?]

[Gurn Blanston]

Well, the idea I had in the back of my mind probably does not come into it. I was thinking the fact that in England, New Year's day was 25 March (the Feast of the Annunication) until England adopted the Gregorian calendar in 1752, which made for the curiosity of one day being 24 March 1731, and the very next day, 25 March 1732.  But as the Austrian Empire was Catholic, and had presumably adopted the Gregorian calendar at the outset in 1582, I don't suppose that quirk of the calendar can have come into play.

Unless . . . since Haydn was born on the Hungarian frontier, his village was still on the Julian calendar [?]

Well, Austria-Hungary was the seat of the Holy Roman Empire at that time. They were, in fact, the same country, so to speak.

I did read something just recently that was based on that calendrical anomaly though. I'll flog my brain to come up with it and get back here. It wasn't to do with Haydn though...

[Karl Henning]

Geo. Washington, maybe.  I should have called it "Austria-Hungary," too, but if my cursory reading on Wikipedia is to be believed, that may be an anachronism . . . the Austro-Hungarian Empire (they say) did not exist per se until 1867;  that even the designation "Austrian Empire" emerged only late in Haydn's life (1804).  So that for most of Haydn's life, he was a subject of the Habsburgs, to be sure.

In 1711, Austrian Emperor Charles VI became the next ruler of Hungary. From this time on, the designation Royal Hungary was abandoned, and the area was once again referred to as the Kingdom of Hungary.[citation needed] Throughout the 18th century, the Kingdom of Hungary had its own Diet (parliament) and constitution, but the members of the Governor's Council (Helytartótanács, the office of the palatine) were appointed by the Habsburg monarch, and the superior economic institution, the Hungarian Chamber, was directly subordinated to the Court Chamber in Vienna.

[Gurn Blanston]

Geo. Washington, maybe.  I should have called it "Austria-Hungary," too, but if my cursory reading on Wikipedia is to be believed, that may be an anachronism . . . the Austro-Hungarian Empire (they say) did not exist per se until 1867;  that even the designation "Austrian Empire" emerged only late in Haydn's life (1804).  So that for most of Haydn's life, he was a subject of the Habsburgs, to be sure.

Quote from: Wikipedia

    In 1711, Austrian Emperor Charles VI became the next ruler of Hungary. From this time on, the designation Royal Hungary was abandoned, and the area was once again referred to as the Kingdom of Hungary.[citation needed] Throughout the 18th century, the Kingdom of Hungary had its own Diet (parliament) and constitution, but the members of the Governor's Council (Helytartótanács, the office of the palatine) were appointed by the Habsburg monarch, and the superior economic institution, the Hungarian Chamber, was directly subordinated to the Court Chamber in Vienna.

It can be very confusing, although I think that bolded sentence is the arbiter of the situation. There was no doubt in the mind of Prince Esterházy that he reported to and was subordinate to Empress Maria Theresa, Emperor Joseph, etc. It may well have been an unwilling subjugation, but no matter. Rohrau, however, is undoubtedly not in Hungary, and Haydn himself was from South German ethnic stock, despite the proximity of Hungarians, Croats and all sorts during his growing up years. There was a lot of 'learned' bull$hit written early in the 20th century about Haydn actually being a Croat and that's why there was a hint of that sort of folk idiom in his music, but that sort of thing has been thoroughly discredited.  No matter though what the area was called at any given time, there was always a Hungarian element and a Germanic one.

[Karl Henning]

Aye, just so.  He may just have got the date wrong, himself, strange though we should find that in our own context.

[kishnevi]

Either March 31 or April 1, 1732. His situation precisely parallels Beethoven's; baptism date recorded, birthdate not. He, himself, wasn't actually sure.

Obviously March 31, since he certainly was no fool.

BTW, Hungary would have gone on the Gregorian calendar when Pope Gregory promulgated it back in fifteen-whatever year it was, like all Catholic countries.  The UK, being a Protestant country, stuck to the Julian calender for another century plus;  Russia/Soviet Union did not switch until after the fall of the Czars, since they were Eastern Orthodox, which is why the October Revolution did not actually happen in October (on the Gregorian calendar). The Eastern Orthodox churches and countries stuck to the Julian calendar until the 20th century, and there is still a group of Orthodox churches which sticks to the Julian calendar for liturgical purposes on the grounds that no one currently has the right to make the switch.

And Shakespeare was another person for whom we know the date of baptism, but we have no idea of the actual date of birth.  April 23 was picked because it was the date of his death, so that made it symbolically nice, and was close enough to the baptismal date to be a reasonable choice. 

[snyprrr]

Why didn't someone tell me the LHQ recorded Op.20?!?!

anyone?

anyone?

[kishnevi]

Why didn't someone tell me the LHQ recorded Op.20?!?!

anyone?

anyone?

I posted when I ordered it from Prestoclassical (I think it was Presto)--probably in Haydn's Haus.  And at least one other GMGer did the same.

If you want to keep an eye on LHQ check Hyperion's website once a month or so;   they have a webpage which lists upcoming releases, usually about a month beforehand.

[Gurn Blanston]

Why didn't someone tell me the LHQ recorded Op.20?!?!

anyone?

anyone?

Jeffrey, Sonic Dave and I discussed it in Haydn Haus several ... months (/) ago now. Been a while anyway. That's what you get for not keeping in touch with the hottest thread on the forum....

[Karl Henning]

snypsss snypsssed hisself out of the loop!

Separately . . . now my other Quatuor Mosaïques box is in!

[Gurn Blanston]

snypsss snypsssed hisself out of the loop!

Separately . . . now my other Quatuor Mosaïques box is in!

Excellent! I trust you will find it equally compelling as the first. Umm, second... other one.

[Karl Henning]

Well, not that this will surprise a veteran Haydnista sich as yerself, O Gurn, but I am delighted to find that the earlier quartets are not merely charming, but already sturdy, good musicking.  And of course, I already know that the playing of the Mosaïques is well to my taste.

[Karl Henning]

The ending of the finale of the E^b quartet, Op.33 № 2, is delightfully witty.  You've probably known this forever, Gurn ; )

[Gurn Blanston]

The ending of the finale of the E^b quartet, Op.33 № 2, is delightfully witty.  You've probably known this forever, Gurn ; )

*music plays*
*music stops*

YEAH!!!

*music plays again*


*music stops*
(Ha, won't fool me again)...
*music stays stopped*


YEAH!!!

[Leo K.]

Well, not that this will surprise a veteran Haydnista sich as yerself, O Gurn, but I am delighted to find that the earlier quartets are not merely charming, but already sturdy, good musicking.  And of course, I already know that the playing of the Mosaïques is well to my taste.

The early quartets were a revelation to me too, amazing quality they have in abundance!