Haydn's Haus

[Bogey]

Exactly. For dozens of the symphonies, my initial listen (which has been the only, so far) has yielded little more than This is good, this is not any "juvenile" work, each symphony has its own profile.

I have retained a recollection of the profile of more of the symphonies than I ever had before, Bill, but . . . not that my goal is pure mental recollection of each of the 104 (plus), but recollection of enough to take responsible part in a conversation : )

I believe that is why I want to keep my notes here on each one on a separate document.  Just to go back from time to time.  Also, a few days between each discs worth will help me as well.  And good afternoon, Karl.

[Gurn Blanston]

Could I get to where I could tell someone something that is unique to each....no, but for me that does not diminish the journey.

Exactly. For dozens of the symphonies, my initial listen (which has been the only, so far) has yielded little more than This is good, this is not any "juvenile" work, each symphony has its own profile.

I have retained a recollection of the profile of more of the symphonies than I ever had before, Bill, but . . . not that my goal is pure mental recollection of each of the 104 (plus), but recollection of enough to take responsible part in a conversation : )

I don't know anyone who could recollect a specific movement of any symphony you name. I'm in the same boat as y'all are, possibly even more so since I have gone way beyond oen genre to encompass all of them. Some of the piano trios and some of the string quartets, some solo keyboard works and a few symphonies are the best I have been able to permanently catalog. I think Karl is on the right track in just trying to get a good enough grip to be able to talk about unusual features and the like. That in itself is an accomplishment! 

[Bogey]

Too me Haydn is like a fine wine cellar.  You open a bottle and share it with friends and not worry about if you will have have the same bottle again as there is way too much more to enjoy.

[Bogey]

Just for fun, I searched a few of the labels that lean toward historical recordings (Pearl, Music and Arts, Opus Kura). I could not find (now, I did not search too hard), but nonetheless, I could not find a disc of all Haydn music.  A symphony or cello piece here or there, but not a complete disc.

[Gurn Blanston]

Too me Haydn is like a fine wine cellar.  You open a bottle and share it with friends and not worry about if you will have have the same bottle again as there is way too much more to enjoy.

Ah, the danger-filled wine analogy. Gotta be careful with that one, Bill.   I share the mellow perspective though.   0:)

Just for fun, I searched a few of the labels that lean toward historical recordings (Pearl, Music and Arts, Opus Kura). I could not find (now, I did not search too hard), but nonetheless, I could not find a disc of all Haydn music.  A symphony or cello piece here or there, but not a complete disc.

That's because there were hardly any scores available to those guys to play from. Most certainly there are a few symphonies, for example, and a concerto here and there, but overall if you subtract the string quartets, Haydn's oeuvre is only slightly larger than my own by how it appears before the early 1950's. 

[Mandryka]

In the introductory essay to this series I put that same speculation out, hoping for some sort of discussion on it. I believe it is quite true, actually, and I offer that based on the fact that when small groups are discussed, there is more participation than if 'the symphonies' are thrown out. So, when it's "The London Symphonies" or "The Paris Symphonies", then people seem quite eager to discuss. But the larger volume of the entire oeuvre seems off-putting. But as you are discovering now, even smaller groups like 'the early symphonies' have their fascination.

Haydn's s a composer with a bad rep. You know the sort of thing, he's just some guy who wrote  cheerful tunes. Shallower than Beethoven and less humane than Mozart and he's got no angst like Schubert. Haydn doesn't do tragedy. He just churned out loads of nice soithing music, sometimes with a jolly joke in there too.

This idea of Haydn goes way back to his earliest biographers, who may have had their own reasons for promoting it. I think this idea is reflected in quite a lot of modern performances too. I used to believe it myself.

[Gurn Blanston]

Haydn's s a composer with a bad rep. You know the sort of thing, he's just some guy who wrote  cheerful tunes. Shallower than Beethoven and less humane than Mozart and he's got no angst like Schubert. Haydn doesn't do tragedy. He just churned out loads of nice soithing music, sometimes with a jolly joke in there too.

This idea of Haydn goes way back to his earliest biographers, who may have had their own reasons for promoting it. I think this idea is reflected in quite a lot of modern performances too. I used to believe it myself.

Absolutely what I was thinking of. Despite the fact that we have become better educated about music history in the last 40 years, those things are so ingrained that they will take another 40 years to disappear, it seems. I don't name names, but when I first started posting on this list over 10 years ago, there were people who would happily tell you without turning a hair that you would be a fool to get the entire (for example) BAT trios (at that time still the only complete cycle out there) because only the very last ones were musically worth your while. The pervasive idea of only listening to the crème de la crème was still in full flower at that time, which is fine, I suppose, but the ideas attached to it, like no Haydn before the Paris Symphonies, and no Mozart before he moved to Vienna and nothing but Late Beethoven even!! That's air that is too rarefied for me to breathe, I'm afraid.     I'm an animal; I love it!   

[Bogey]

Absolutely what I was thinking of. Despite the fact that we have become better educated about music history in the last 40 years, those things are so ingrained that they will take another 40 years to disappear, it seems. I don't name names, but when I first started posting on this list over 10 years ago, there were people who would happily tell you without turning a hair that you would be a fool to get the entire (for example) BAT trios (at that time still the only complete cycle out there) because only the very last ones were musically worth your while. The pervasive idea of only listening to the crème de la crème was still in full flower at that time, which is fine, I suppose, but the ideas attached to it, like no Haydn before the Paris Symphonies, and no Mozart before he moved to Vienna and nothing but Late Beethoven even!! That's air that is too rarefied for me to breathe, I'm afraid.     I'm an animal; I love it!   

Yeah, but Bach gets all the breaks.

The suites were not widely known before the 1900s, and for a long time it was generally thought that the pieces were intended to be studies. However, after discovering Grützmacher's edition in a thrift shop in Barcelona, Spain at age 13, Pablo Casals began studying them. Although he would later perform the works publicly, it was not until 1925, when he was 48, that he agreed to record the pieces, becoming the first to record all six suites. Their popularity soared soon after, and Casals' original recording is still widely available today.

So, is our listening and enjoyment still in the pioneer era of enjoying Haydn, Gurn?  Or are we its second generation?

[Bogey]

Ah, the danger-filled wine analogy. Gotta be careful with that one, Bill.   I share the mellow perspective though.   0:)

That's because there were hardly any scores available to those guys to play from. Most certainly there are a few symphonies, for example, and a concerto here and there, but overall if you subtract the string quartets, Haydn's oeuvre is only slightly larger than my own by how it appears before the early 1950's. 

I live on the edge, buddy!

As for the scores, that explains it and I will relax on putting together a historical run.....maybe. 

[Karl Henning]

Absolutely what I was thinking of. Despite the fact that we have become better educated about music history in the last 40 years, those things are so ingrained that they will take another 40 years to disappear, it seems. I don't name names, but when I first started posting on this list over 10 years ago, there were people who would happily tell you without turning a hair that you would be a fool to get the entire (for example) BAT trios (at that time still the only complete cycle out there) because only the very last ones were musically worth your while. The pervasive idea of only listening to the crème de la crème was still in full flower at that time, which is fine, I suppose, but the ideas attached to it, like no Haydn before the Paris Symphonies, and no Mozart before he moved to Vienna and nothing but Late Beethoven even!! That's air that is too rarefied for me to breathe, I'm afraid.     I'm an animal; I love it!   

Well, and let's say for the sake of discussion that there is some portion of the Mozart œuvre which is genuine juvenilia, i.e., music written while he was yet so young, that you'd need to be obsessive (even if professionally) to take an interest in it.

a) If someone approaches "Papa's" œuvre with the minimal knowledge which is not unusual even for a great many music professionals, and:

b) That someone tries mentally to "fill in" with "Wolferl" as a model:

— voilà! you have the ready prejudice that there must be large patches of Haydn before a certain date which we can safely disregard.

[Bogey]

Well, and let's say for the sake of discussion that there is some portion of the Mozart œuvre which is genuine juvenilia, i.e., music written while he was yet so young, that you'd need to be obsessive (even if professionally) to take an interest in it.

a) If someone approaches "Papa's" œuvre with the minimal knowledge which is not unusual even for a great many music professionals, and:

b) That someone tries mentally to "fill in" with "Wolferl" as a model:

— voilà! you have the ready prejudice that there must be large patches of Haydn before a certain date which we can safely disregard.[/glow]

Definitely need to stay away from that, at least in my case, as many composers, including LvB, I enjoy their more youthful output as much, if not more than their later.

[Karl Henning]

Well, Bill, in “Papa’s” case, it may simply not apply. Gurn must perforce know better than I, but the earliest pieces of Haydn’s which I have heard, are the work of a mature professional.

[Bogey]

Well, Bill, in "Papa's" case, it may simply not apply. Gurn must perforce know better than I, but the earliest pieces of Haydn's which I have heard, are the work of a mature professional.

Oh, I follow you now.  Very little in the youth output you were talking.

[Gurn Blanston]

Well, and let's say for the sake of discussion that there is some portion of the Mozart œuvre which is genuine juvenilia, i.e., music written while he was yet so young, that you'd need to be obsessive (even if professionally) to take an interest in it.

a) If someone approaches "Papa's" œuvre with the minimal knowledge which is not unusual even for a great many music professionals, and:

b) That someone tries mentally to "fill in" with "Wolferl" as a model:

— voilà! you have the ready prejudice that there must be large patches of Haydn before a certain date which we can safely disregard.

Very much so. They don't take into account that Mozart started to compose when he was 5, so his juvenilia actually IS juvenilia. Haydn was a working musician when he was 7 or 8, but he didn't really start to compose on his own until he was 20, and he was already nearly 30 when he hired on with the Esterházy's! 

O point that I haven't really hit on, but one which I have only come to realize through intensive listening is that Haydn's early music was not really indicative of a learning process that culminated with his London style, or whatever you consider to be the arrival of Viennese Classicism in his works. His early symphonies, and his early quartets and trios and keyboard sonatas are fully mature works in their own right. They aren't the beginning of a road going to where he ended up. I guess what I mean is that it isn't as though he "saw" Classicism as a goal and worked out the puzzles it took to get there. It is instead as though he was simply taking what was there and trying to be the best at dealing with that. It's like evolution; a fish wasn't trying to become a mammal, he just did.

[Wakefield]

Yeah, but Bach gets all the breaks.

The suites were not widely known before the 1900s, and for a long time it was generally thought that the pieces were intended to be studies. However, after discovering Grützmacher's edition in a thrift shop in Barcelona, Spain at age 13, Pablo Casals began studying them. Although he would later perform the works publicly, it was not until 1925, when he was 48, that he agreed to record the pieces, becoming the first to record all six suites. Their popularity soared soon after, and Casals' original recording is still widely available today.

So, is our listening and enjoyment still in the pioneer era of enjoying Haydn, Gurn?  Or are we its second generation?

Second generation, no doubt. Today Internet has generated a sort of collective intelligence/colaborative knowledge, which develops and spreads new tendencies in a way incomparably easier and fast than in the past, when they are accepted. Haydn is no more "Papa" Haydn, as those 10 years referred by Gurn are, in this matter, roughly 40 years of the past.

[kishnevi]

As promised, I gave that Fey CD a new listen this evening.
The precise CD involved is Volume 8, with Symphonies 41, 44 and 47

Result:

Not so meh as previous, but still doesn't make me want to run out and get the others in this series. 

The performances themselves seemed good,  but not outstanding.  But possibly someone with a smaller pile of music calling out to be given a listen would be more enthusiastic about them.

[Mandryka]

As promised, I gave that Fey CD a new listen this evening.
The precise CD involved is Volume 8, with Symphonies 41, 44 and 47

Result:

Not so meh as previous, but still doesn't make me want to run out and get the others in this series. 

The performances themselves seemed good,  but not outstanding.  But possibly someone with a smaller pile of music calling out to be given a listen would be more enthusiastic about them.

What I would say is that the more I  listen to Fey, and the more I listen comparatively, the more I appreciate what he does. Especially in terms of tempos and rhythms: he's much more nuanced than I gave him credit for on first listening.  And sometimes (like in the andante of 41 for example) I think he's unforgettable. For me the bright sound of the ensemble was a bit of a problem, I wanted something a bit richer.

Having said that there's a CD of symphonies conducted by Gary Cooper which overlaps considerably with this Fey one, and which I enjoyed too. In some bits (like the allegro of 44 I enjoyed Cooper much more than Fey)

By the way, I'm sure I once heard a really amazing 47, but I just can't remember where. Fey's pretty good there I think.

I'll just mention, since the topic is Haydn, that I've been enjoying Gielen's 103 recently. Worth catching on spotify I would say.

[Mandryka]

Yeah, but Bach gets all the breaks.

The suites were not widely known before the 1900s, and for a long time it was generally thought that the pieces were intended to be studies. However, after discovering Grützmacher's edition in a thrift shop in Barcelona, Spain at age 13, Pablo Casals began studying them. Although he would later perform the works publicly, it was not until 1925, when he was 48, that he agreed to record the pieces, becoming the first to record all six suites. Their popularity soared soon after, and Casals' original recording is still widely available today.

So, is our listening and enjoyment still in the pioneer era of enjoying Haydn, Gurn?  Or are we its second generation?

Harnoncourt stands to Haydn as Casals stands to Bach. In the Paris Symphonies. Suddenly in Harnoncourt's hands these pices become so much more challenging, provoking than was imagined before. Everyone previously had played then as a sequence of  tunes with some stuff going on in the background. In my opinion that's unacceptable.

I would like to hear all Haydn symphonies played like Harnoncourt plays 84.

[Octave]

Harnoncourt stands to Haydn as Casals stands to Bach. In the Paris Symphonies. Suddenly in Harnoncourt's hands these pices become so much more challenging, provoking than was imagined before. Everyone previously had played then as a sequence of  tunes with some stuff going on in the background. In my opinion that's unacceptable.

I would like to hear all Haydn symphonies played like Harnoncourt plays 84.

Harnoncourt's 'Paris' recordings aren't completely sui generis, though, are they?  What is the difference between his conception of the Paris symphonies and the prior/other 'tunes/stuff'-foreground/background approach?  I'm not sure I understand the thrust of your argument, but it seems that you're saying that virtually all older recordings (not necessarily all modern-instruments recordings, but all pre-HIP-golden-age recordings) are not of interest to you, is that right?  What changed in interpretations?

I thought the conversation was moving in the direction of a sea-change in our understanding of Haydn's music and the way we listened to it and read it; but Mandryka seems to suggest that what's interesting in Haydn is missing from basically everyone's performances.  Specific examples would help me here.

[mszczuj]

I must confess you what my problem with listening to Haydn is like.

After the Great Haydn Era in my life in 1996 when I had bought all symphonies, concertos, masses, oratorios, quartets, trios, piano sonatas and Eszterhaza operas, I tried to come back to this music several times. The most practical way to do it was of course listen to all the quartets. So I started listening with Op. 1 in recording of Kodaly Quartet (yes, I know these works are not really quartets) - and then I listened to this opus for week or two and couldn't go further because I found it so unbelievably beauty, perfect and full of incredibly tasty details. And then the pile of new records wanted to be heard so there was no way to stay with my Haydn project.

Trying to begin with real quartets or with symphonies didn't make things better any more.

Haydn is not my favorite composer. Beethoven the thinker and Bach the computer are for me above all the others. But only slightly above Mozart the most perfect and the most subtle ear and Haydn the man of the music as it should be or just the music as it really is.

Of course I appreciate all the subtlety and intelligence of Haydn's music. He made the new era with his ability to give all the things in brackets - in thousands kinds of brackets and milions kinds of brackets in brackets. But there is something beside this intelligence of his music mind - the very special gift to achieve all that could be achieved in the most simple way.