Haydn's Haus

[jlaurson]

I don't agree that this information is important to the music. 

A case could be made that it was important to Schumann and Clara Wieck - but the music ought to, and does, stand on its own without any need for this context.   And I doubt you can make a convincing argument that someone who knows this context enjoys or understands or appreciates the music better than someone who is ignorant of the context.   In fact, I would argue that the ignorant listener would not be bound within that box and might find that there are more things in Kreisleriana, [Floristan], than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

But... it's absurd heterodox to think that naivete is really quite so blissful, or that less information is better than more. The above information is not necessarily important to the music...

Just think of listening to Parsifal or the Ring as a naif -- one would miss so obviously so much that it may (and does) keep one from enjoying the music altogether. The importance of context can be different, according to the kind of music and also to what one wants to get out of music... but it is never not also important. In Haydn just the same, of sorts, although the knowledge would be of a different kind. If you know the ditty "Geh' im Gasserl auf und nunter, hängen schwarze Kirschen runter, schwarze Kirschen ess ich gern, die Jungefer Nanni hätt ich gern" you might get more out of Sy.94... more of a smile. Similarly, if you don't know the conventions of repetitions and such, there's no joke in false starts or false endings. This is all extra-musical information, and yet it all enhances our listening. I'd love to listen with 'virgin ears' to many a piece, one more time. But I wouldn't trade whatever knowledge I have for that privilege.

[Florestan]

And yet I totally believed it of you...

Wow! Am I really that good? 

[Gurn Blanston]

But... it's absurd heterodox to think that naivete is really quite so blissful, or that less information is better than more. The above information is not necessarily important to the music...

Just think of listening to Parsifal or the Ring as a naif -- one would miss so obviously so much that it may (and does) keep one from enjoying the music altogether. The importance of context can be different, according to the kind of music and also to what one wants to get out of music... but it is never not also important. In Haydn just the same, of sorts, although the knowledge would be of a different kind. If you know the ditty "Geh' im Gasserl auf und nunter, hängen schwarze Kirschen runter, schwarze Kirschen ess ich gern, die Jungefer Nanni hätt ich gern" you might get more out of Sy.94... more of a smile. Similarly, if you don't know the conventions of repetitions and such, there's no joke in false starts or false endings. This is all extra-musical information, and yet it all enhances our listening. I'd love to listen with 'virgin ears' to many a piece, one more time. But I wouldn't trade whatever knowledge I have for that privilege.

Knowledge is wonderful, and irreplaceable too. But I am pretty sure that what San is saying, and what I agree with, is that in the case of Schumann's piano music, not knowing that it is a love paean to Clara doesn't hurt your enjoyment. I would submit that the case of listening to a opera of any stripe without knowing anything about it is in an entirely different league, and I completely agree with you about that aspect.

[Gurn Blanston]

Wow! Am I really that good? 

Good, bad... actually, I meant that you shared that sentimental ideal, not that you were a button pusher. Although now that you mention it...

[Mandryka]

Absolutely. One doesn't need to know anything about Haydn's personal life in order to enjoy his music; while someone ignoring completely the details of Schumann's personality and life, although he might enjoy Davidsbundlertanze in purely musical terms, yet he will entirely miss its very meaning. 

The same goes for Kreisleriana, of which Schumann wrote to Clara Wieck: But, Clara, I'm overflowing with music and beautiful melodies now—imagine, since my last letter I've finished another whole notebook of new pieces. I intend to call it Kreisleriana. You and one of your ideas play the main role in it, and I want to dedicate it to you—yes, to you and nobody else—and then you will smile so sweetly when you discover yourself in it (emphasis mine). Being aware of that, I feel that listening to it is like reading a love letter which was not addressed to me and therefore concerns me not at all: it is almost an impudence.   

I always thought that Kreisleriana was about Hoffmann's book.

Davidsbundlertanze comes with some words by the composer, so you get some clues as to what he intended that way, it's not obvious to me how looking to Schumann's life will help there.

On the other hand knowing about Haydn's emotional life can help make sense of some of the music. Listen to how he proclaims his personal anguish at the death of Maria Anna von Genzinger in the F minor variations. Listen to Beghin.

[Florestan]

Good, bad... actually, I meant that you shared that sentimental ideal, not that you were a button pusher. Although now that you mention it...

Oh, my bad. I inferred the other way around.

I do share "sentimentalism" indeed. It's only that a little auto-irony now and then is salutary.  Sticking to just one point of view smells of dogmatism.

I always thought that Kreisleriana was about Hoffmann's book.

It is, and this also raises the question: is it necessary to read Hoffmann's The Life and Opinions of Tomcat Murr in order to enjoy / understand it?

You might find this analysis of interest: http://pianosociety.com/cms/index.php?section=635

Davidsbundlertanze comes with some words by the composer, so you get some clues as to what he intended that way, it's not obvious to me how looking to Schumann's life will help there.

It helps knowing about his split personality (Florestan / Eusebius), which is the driving force behind them.

On the other hand knowing about Haydn's emotional life can help make sense of some of the music. Listen to how he proclaims his personal anguish at the death of Maria Anna von Genzinger in the F minor variations. Listen to Beghin.

I will, thank you for the rec.

Just to clarify: Schumann is one of my favorite composers; my very username attests to that. 

[Florestan]

the music should be able to stand on its own.  And good music does.

I agree (seriously).

[Florestan]

If only your pure and clean mind could touch me, dear Haydn, nobody has a greater reverence for you than I have. --- Franz Schubert

[kishnevi]

Just to clarify: Schumann is one of my favorite composers; my very username attests to that. 

It could also attest to a high opinion of Fidelio (especially in line with your political opinions)

[Bogey]

Finally landed.  I will begin playing this along side the Fischer.  I did take a quick listen to the beginning of No. 1.  Is it me, or does the harpsichord come through here more than the Fischer?

[Gurn Blanston]

Finally landed.  I will begin playing this along side the Fischer.  I did take a quick listen to the beginning of No. 1.  Is it me, or does the harpsichord come through here more than the Fischer?

People say it does. Hearing harpsichord when it is played as continuo is difficult for me, it falls into an audio range that I struggle with. I base my positive opinion of the disk on the other instruments, which I can hear very well.   

[Bogey]

People say it does. Hearing harpsichord when it is played as continuo is difficult for me, it falls into an audio range that I struggle with. I base my positive opinion of the disk on the other instruments, which I can hear very well.   

On the No. 1, it almost sounds like a concerto for harpsichord at points....which I do not mind.

[Gurn Blanston]

On the No. 1, it almost sounds like a concerto for harpsichord at points....which I do not mind.

Interesting. I hadn't heard that sort of comment previously. I'll go back and adjust my player to make it more prominent and see what they have to say.

[Florestan]

It could also attest to a high opinion of Fidelio (especially in line with your political opinions)

That's also true, but when I chose my username I thought of Schumann's character, not Beethoven's.

[Sergeant Rock]

Interesting. I hadn't heard that sort of comment previously.

Yes you have. I've often complained in the Haydn threads about Goodman's overmiked harpsichord. In the listening thread I'll say I'm listening to, for example, Haydn's 70th Harpsichord Concerto   It's also been a frequent criticism of his cycle from professional reviewers. At least he usually sticks to using it as a real continuo, supporting the bass instruments and usually, in the words of Hurwitz, resisting "the temptation to decorate the music with all sorts of vulgar musical graffiti" like Pinnock and others.

On the negative side, Goodman too often just sounds like mindless hammering that overpowers, and greatly detracts from, the instruments that Haydn actually wrote music for. Since no harpsichordist was employed by the Prince, the use of the harpsichord in Haydn symphonies today is probably inauthentic--and enters the realm of total nonsense when added to the Paris, Chunnel and Londons.

I want to add, though, that, other than the use of the keyboard, I do like Goodman's way with Haydn and the sound of his Band. I just wish he'd followed Hogwood's example.

Sarge

[Florestan]

Since no harpsichordist was employed by the Prince, the use of the harpsichord in Haydn symphonies today is probably inauthentic--and enters the realm of total nonsense when added to the Paris, Chunnel and Londons.

Couldn't it be the case that Haydn himself played the harpsichord in symphonies? Besides, If I understand Gurn correctly, there is a harpsichord part in the scores of the symphonies up to, and including, # 98.

[Sergeant Rock]

Couldn't it be the case that Haydn himself played the harpsichord in symphonies? Besides, If I understand Gurn correctly, there is a harpsichord part in the scores of the symphonies up to, and including, # 98.

I realize this is controversial. Hogwood says there are no harpsichord parts (perhaps I'm misremembering  ...I'll see if I can dig up the quote). Some surmise Haydn conducted from the violin (his primary instrument). The short harpsichord part in 98 is a joke, right?

Sarge

[Opus106]

I realize this is controversial. Hogwood says there are no harpsichord parts (perhaps I'm misremembering  ...I'll see if I can dig up the quote).

Sarge

Here's one quote where he simply states his preference:

"I like hearing the symphonies without the harpsichord continuo, and I would be just the one to hate it," said Mr. Hogwood, who himself played continuo in the Mozart symphony recordings. "I haven't come across any places where I thought a harpsichord would help, and there are a great many movements where you're terribly relieved that the harpsichord isn't plinking away."

Quoted from this NYT article.

That last part, to see it come one of the original HIPsters, is simply priceless.

[Bogey]

Yes you have.

I missed this as well, Sarge.  I will have to play this disc through and re-report.  I am not sure I am opposed to this sound as there is plenty of Haydn without it. 

Someone already gave me the advice though that if I put together another cycle to go along with Fischer's, that I should hodge podge it together.  I believe that this is a solid idea.

[Sergeant Rock]

Here's one quote where he simply states his preference:

Thanks for that. I hadn't read that before. Here is what James Webster says in the booklet for Volume 4 of the Hogwood cycle:

Haydn almost certainly used no keyboard instrument in his symphonies, except in London. This view, which differs from earlier ones but is now widely held among scholars, is based on the following criteria:

(1) Haydn's symphony autographs include no figures or indications of a keyboard instrument whatever, whereas those for other orchestral genres do so in abundance.

(2) The authentic performing materials include absolutely no keyboard parts, figures or references to keyboard instruments.

(3) There is no evidence that the Esterhazy court ever employed a separate keyboard or continuo player (other than Haydn himself) and some evidence that Haydn led the ensemble from the violin (by his own admission, he was a good enough violinist to perform as the soloist in concertos).

(4) The Finale of the Farewell Symphony includes no keyboard music and ends with two unaccompanied violins (presumably Haydn and his concertmaster).

(5) Aspects of the style which formerly were thought to demand filling-out by a continuo (lean orchestrations) are now viewed as characteristic and desirable.

(6) Even with respect to the London Symphonies - where Haydn did indeed preside at the keyboard - the continental sources, including those prepared under his direction, include no keyboard part.

I assume Hogwood agrees with all that. About the London performances: What kind of keyboard was used? And was it, perhaps, used only so Haydn had something to do on stage (as the guest composer and celebrity)?

But there is plenty of room for disagreement, and I fault no one who enjoys hearing the silly tinkling    But it is redundant and does, to my ears, make the music sound old-fashioned rather than cutting edge (for the period). It's as if the music is stuck in the Baroque.

Sarge