Haydn's Haus

[Karl Henning]

Yes, but only at a very slight extent, IMO, because the soloist as a figure "opposed" to the orchestra, playing "against" the orchestral mass, it's not a Baroque notion, but a Romantic idea.

Seek the truth, and resist easy revisionism. The "opposition" is part of the term concerto, and has always been part of the genre.

There may well be ideas which accreted at the time of the Romantics, but . . . the "struggle" aspect was there, at the egg.

[Wakefield]

Seek the truth, and resist easy revisionism. The "opposition" is part of the term concerto, and has always been part of the genre.

There may well be ideas which accreted at the time of the Romantics, but . . . the "struggle" aspect was there, at the egg.

Sorry if this hurts your received ideas, but although it's not evident, I have dedicated some time to think about this.

I have even quoted on this board this revelatory passage written by Sigiswald Kuijken - precisely on Haydn's cello concerto - regarding this new relationship (from the end of late Classicism onwards) between soloist and orchestra:

All this results in a quite different effect from what we have been used to up to now in these concertos: the 19th (and 20th) century concerto tradition with its (nearly) always inherent aspect of 'heroism' (the individual artist against the background of a mighty orchestra, a kind of David and Goliath principle) is abandoned altogether here, and we are confronted with a much more gentle and intimate 'conversation' between the soloist and his colleagues - or with a discretely and efficiently supported 'monologue' spoken by the main actor. I am convinced that this solution is far more in keeping with the spirit of Haydn's music and indeed with the musical practice of his time as a whole."

[Gurn Blanston]

"All this results in a quite different effect from what we have been used to up to now in these concertos: the 19th (and 20th) century concerto tradition with its (nearly) always inherent aspect of 'heroism' (the individual artist against the background of a mighty orchestra, a kind of David and Goliath principle) is abandoned altogether here, and we are confronted with a much more gentle and intimate 'conversation' between the soloist and his colleagues - or with a discretely and efficiently supported 'monologue' spoken by the main actor. I am convinced that this solution is far more in keeping with the spirit of Haydn's music and indeed with the musical practice of his time as a whole."

I have long been convinced of the same thing. Glad I'm in good company! Didn't we have this discussion when discussing the first cello concerto, where Bylsma & Co play it as a solo concerto and Suzuki et al play it more as a chamber work? I ended up going with Suzuki for #1 and Bylsma for #2 (from the 1780's) for that reason.

[Wakefield]

I have long been convinced of the same thing. Glad I'm in good company! Didn't we have this discussion when discussing the first cello concerto, where Bylsma & Co play it as a solo concerto and Suzuki et al play it more as a chamber work? I ended up going with Suzuki for #1 and Bylsma for #2 (from the 1780's) for that reason.

It's probable. Although it's not always too much clear  , we still think quite in the same way on essential matters of performance.     

[Karl Henning]

Sorry if this hurts your received ideas, but although it's not evident, I have dedicated some time to think about this.

Naturally; you've dedicated some time to think about this. Unlike myself, you tidily imply.

[Wakefield]

Naturally; you've dedicated some time to think about this. Unlike myself, you tidily imply.

Do I need to recall your previous: "Seek the truth, and resist easy revisionism"?

Maybe it's just my literal reading of a foreign language, but I did read your message like a quite (unnecessarily) hostile statement. So my reference to "acquired" or "received ideas" should be considered just as a merely defensive rhetorical device.   

[Karl Henning]

Concerto [fr. Italian concertare, to join together; pres. part. concertante, past part. concertato; related to Lat. concertare, to fight or contend]. (1) In the 16th through the early 18th centuries, a diverse ensemble of voices, instruments, or both, or a composition for such an ensemble. This ussge is derived from the original Italian meaning of concertare and its derivatives, "to join together" or "unite," a meaning present in English in such phrases as "to work in concert" and "concerted effort." The performers "joined together" in an early concerto are usually heterogeneous in some sense: soloists and chorus, two separate choruses, different instruments, or (most commonly of all) voices and instruments. In the course of the 17th century, the term concerto took on the additional Latin meaning of "fighting" or "contending," referring to the opposition between soloist(s) and orchestra of the modern concerto [see (2), below]. Which of the meanings of concerto and its derivatives was intended in a particular instance can often be determined only from the context.

[...]

(2) From the latter part of the 17th century to the present, a multi-movement (occasionally multi-sectional) work for soloist or soloists and orchestra [...]

[ later, from the same article ]

Mozart's 23 original piano concertos — 17 from his Viennese period — represent the crowning achievement of the 18th-century concerto. Most of the works written for Vienna are of a type tat himself called "grand concertos"; these were intended for performance at his own subscription concerts, which were held in sizable halls. They thus call for an orchestra that is much larger and more diverse than that of the typical chamber concerto, especially in the expanded role assigned to the winds — an orchestra fully capable of sustaining a dramatic confrontation with the virtuosity and individuality of the soloist. In the same way, Mozart's approach in these concertos is often clearly symphonic, not only in the adorementioned application of formal principles associated with the symphony, but also in an almost Haydnesque interest in thematic derivation and unity in the later concertos. Finally, the range and style and expression is incomparably greater than that of most other concertos of the period, extending from the comic-opera elements of K. 467 to the Italianate lyricism of K. 488, the tragic character of K. 466 and 491, and the Beethovenian heroism of K.503. Haydn's concertos, with the exception of the Piano Concerto in D, the Cello Concerto in D (once attributed to Anton Kraft), and the Trumpet Concerto, are generally early and conventional.

[Karl Henning]

Part of my point with this fundamental reminder is:

1. In the genre of the concerto, it is not a simplistic matter of either "joining together" or "contending."  Both elements are on display in examples of the genre from the outset.  It is, after all, a Baroque genre, and the Baroque also saw the birth of the dramatic genre of opera.

2. While it is generally an error to "write off" dramatic opposition as a principle within the concerto as the Heroic Style generally associated with Beethoven, note Wolf's reference to Beethoven w/r/t the K. 503.

3. This thread is Haydn's place, and here's to it. It is worth reflecting that developing a sympathy with the environment and proper practice of Haydn's music should not be misapplied as a Procrustean bed, more broadly.

And now . . . .

[Karl Henning]

This being da Haus, I must almost apologize for the slap embedded in the opening sentence here . . . but Rosen more than makes up for it in his appreciation for "Papa's" affective powers.

Mozart's most signal triumphs took place where Haydn failed: in the dramatic forms of the opera and the concerto, which pit the individual voice against the sonority of the mass. At first glance, the disparity of achievement may seem inexplicable. The surface of Haydn's music is, if anything, more, not less, dramatic than Mozart's.  It is the elder composer who is inclined to the coup de théâtre, the surprise modulation, the sudden farcical deflation of pomposity, the scandalously excessive dynamic accent. It may even be argued that Mozart's melodies are not only more conventional than Haydn's, but in general less 'characteristic,' less imediately descriptive of a specific sentiment or action. Mozart's musical references rarely descend to the particularity of Haydn's tone-painting and sentiment-painting in his two great oratorios. The 'characteristic' moments that we find throughout Haydn's symphonies differ from the tone-painting in the Seasons only in their lack of explicit reference, and they are no less marked and individual. The personages of an opera by Mozart live with a presence never found in Haydn's operatic work, but their music is neither more dramatic nor more 'expressive.' And while Mozart's psychological penetration may seem to give a satisfying explanation of his success in opera, it cannot account for his equal success in the closely related form of the concerto.

Mozart's early career as an international virtuoso performing concertos and his first-hand acquaintance with opera in all the capitals of Europe are experiences that Haydn missed. Nevertheless, Haydn's knowledge of opera should not be underestimated, and his interest in spectacular instrumental virtuosity in some ways surpassed Mozart's. Haydn was neither indifferent to virtuosity nor unable to handle it, and his relative insecurity with concerto form must have other roots.  How evident this is may be seen by comparing the tame display of his last piano concerto, a good but unremarkable work, with the extravagant virtuosity of his piano trios and late sonatas, and the surprisingly complex demands he made upon the solo orchestral players in the symphonies, both early and late. Haydn's interest in virtuosity evidently flowered best in chamber music and in the symphony. The reasons for Mozart's superiority to Haydn in opera and concerto are more specifically musical than wider experience, or a taste for viruosity and dramatic expression: they must be sought both in his handling of long-range movement and in the direct physical impact of his music.

From The Classical Style: Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, p.185.

[Gurn Blanston]

This being da Haus, I must almost apologize for the slap embedded in the opening sentence here . . . but Rosen more than makes up for it in his appreciation for "Papa's" affective powers.
 

From The Classical Style: Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, p.185.

I do feel, and always have, that the form simply had little appeal for Haydn, for whatever reason. In his early career, the Baroque style of it was still predominant. Witness his organ concertos for a logical extension of Baroque into early Classical/Galant. However, I really don't think that he felt any compelling need to be the pioneer here in leading the concerto out of the Baroque. I have no doubt that he could have done, just as he did with so many other forms. But I see no indication that the Prince had any interest in concertos, even the choice ones he wrote early times for Tomasini et al. Thus he didn't repeat the process to any degree. The 'modern' form of the concerto, pitting soloist against orchestra with various forms of sonata style and all the accoutrements was Mozart. He had the talent, but more importantly, he stood to gain something from it, which Haydn did not. I feel that this is the fabled straw that broke the concertos back.

Just my opinion, of course, but at least partly provoked by the above paragraph several years ago.

[Karl Henning]

I do feel, and always have, that the form simply had little appeal for Haydn, for whatever reason. In his early career, the Baroque style of it was still predominant. Witness his organ concertos for a logical extension of Baroque into early Classical/Galant. However, I really don't think that he felt any compelling need to be the pioneer here in leading the concerto out of the Baroque. I have no doubt that he could have done, just as he did with so many other forms. But I see no indication that the Prince had any interest in concertos, even the choice ones he wrote early times for Tomasini et al. Thus he didn't repeat the process to any degree. The 'modern' form of the concerto, pitting soloist against orchestra with various forms of sonata style and all the accoutrements was Mozart. He had the talent, but more importantly, he stood to gain something from it, which Haydn did not. I feel that this is the fabled straw that broke the concertos back.

Just my opinion, of course, but at least partly provoked by the above paragraph several years ago.

I think you're perfectly right here, Gurn. Rosen is quite rough on “Papa” with the verb failed.  Clearly they are genres in which “Wolferl” was superior, and (at the least in the matter of opera) “Papa” with characteristic sobriety was happy to acknowledge that. (I don't mean to imply that things were otherwise with the concerto . . . I just think of a specific remark of “Papa's” in which he pointed out “Wolferl's” great success in comic opera.)

Anyway, now that I have at least a surface familiarity with the Haydn quartets, I can now read more of the Rosen with sharper intelligence : )

[Gurn Blanston]

I think you're perfectly right here, Gurn. Rosen is quite rough on "Papa" with the verb failed.  Clearly they are genres in which "Wolferl" was superior, and (at the least in the matter of opera) "Papa" with characteristic sobriety was happy to acknowledge that. (I don't mean to imply that things were otherwise with the concerto . . . I just think of a specific remark of "Papa's" in which he pointed out "Wolferl's" great success in comic opera.)

Anyway, now that I have at least a surface familiarity with the Haydn quartets, I can now read more of the Rosen with sharper intelligence : )

It would be unfortunate to read Rosen and not realize that he has an agenda too. Not that I could say exactly what it is, but he frequently is like a handler at the terrier show who feels compelled to face-off his contenders. As for Haydn's remark about Mozart, there are also several of Mozart's remarks about Haydn, equally complimentary. It was mutual respect and friendship at all times.

[Bogey]

Early Symphonies:

Shephard, Doráti, Gallois or Goodman?  Preference?  Would Hogwood trump them all?

[Gurn Blanston]

Early Symphonies:

Shephard, Doráti, Gallois or Goodman?  Preference?  Would Hogwood trump them all?

Goodman for me. Excellent series, actually. I feel as badly about its termination as I do about Hogwood's.

[Bogey]

Thanks, Gurn.  I twas leaning that way for something different.

Just finished up Symphony 3 (18). 

Started pretty much Haydnish.  However, the second movement had a sauntering about it that drew me in.  The third movement I was hoping for more bass or depth, but instead got that "classical" third movement.  It smacked a bit of his "Clock" symphony, but maybe there are many that do for the third movement.  I did not note the time on the final movement before listening and was not prepared for a two minute drill.  Was this common?

Also, I am beginning to note a layering to Fischer's recordings.  By this I mean that instruments seemed to be miked in such a way that some have a more distant sound....like they are next door at points.  I like this effect and wonder if others use it.

[Bogey]

Just ordered:

[Bogey]

But I see no indication that the Prince had any interest in concertos,

And that is all we really need to know to be accurate with our inferences.

[kishnevi]

I don't know which CD you heard that invoked such a meh response! It surprises me. Fey's interpretations are unusual, unique: brilliant, intense, fiery, even, at times, over the top. Fey and band polarize opinion. Love 'em or hate 'em seems to be the case here. They aren't a modern instrument orchestra, by the way, but rather a hybrid: modern strings and woodwinds, period brass.

Sarge

Okay, you guys made me go dig it out.

Volume 8: Nos. 31, 44 and 47

I promise to give it a second chance soon,  on the premise that perhaps I was having what I call a 'bad ear' day.

But me being "meh" about it shouldn't be read as saying something negative about it.   It simply didn't impress me enough to want more from this conductor and orchestra.   Had I fewer recordings of Haydn's symphonies--including the Fischer cycle--and were I not more interested in PI than MI performances,  I would be more enthusiastic.

[Gurn Blanston]

Thanks, Gurn.  I twas leaning that way for something different.

Just finished up Symphony 3 (18). 

Started pretty much Haydnish.  However, the second movement had a sauntering about it that drew me in.  The third movement I was hoping for more bass or depth, but instead got that "classical" third movement.  It smacked a bit of his "Clock" symphony, but maybe there are many that do for the third movement.  I did not note the time on the final movement before listening and was not prepared for a two minute drill.  Was this common?

Also, I am beginning to note a layering to Fischer's recordings.  By this I mean that instruments seemed to be miked in such a way that some have a more distant sound....like they are next door at points.  I like this effect and wonder if others use it.

Yes, it was very common. There was little or no emphasis placed on the final movement at that time. All the weight was on the first movement. This was one of the big accomplishments that both Haydn and Mozart contributed was shifting the emphasis away from the first movement and giving some balance to the whole. Not just true of symphonies, if you'll note...

Just ordered:

You'll like it, I'm confident. Nice disk.

[mc ukrneal]

Just ordered:

Just fyi - perhaps more for those in the US, Berkshire has 16 of the Haydn Goodman discs available (for 4.99+shipping), including 1-21 (over 5 discs).