Haydn's Haus

[Opus106]

Thank you listing the salient points from the notes, Sarge. I have a couple of questions: what are "authentic performing materials" (as opposed to autographs); and why single out the 'Farewell'?

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

But to some extent, at least in the earliest works, he was still sticking to certain features from the Baroque, wasn't he? Especially the way some pieces was structured like a church sonata and others displaying influences of concerti grossi (Gurn mentioned this possibility a couple of weeks ago).

[Florestan]

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 couldn't find Beghin, but stumbled instead upon this rarity:

http://www.youtube.com/v/lRPkE9QQZCA

Andante & Variations in F minor played by Ignacy Jan Paderewski, rec. 1937

Opinions on this performance, anyone?

[Gurn Blanston]

I couldn't find Beghin, but stumbled instead upon this rarity:

http://www.youtube.com/v/lRPkE9QQZCA

Andante & Variations in F minor played by Ignacy Jan Paderewski, rec. 1937

Opinions on this performance, anyone?

Love that! I have a PDF of the sheet music that he had published of his own playing arrangement. Never thought I would 'hear him play it though! 

 

[Sergeant Rock]

Thank you listing the salient points from the notes, Sarge. I have a couple of questions: what are "authentic performing materials" (as opposed to autographs); and why single out the 'Farewell'?

The original full score manuscript in Haydn's hand (autograph) and the individual sheets of music for each player, I assume. He singled out the Farewell because of the way the symphony progresses in the Finale, with each instrument composed to disappear at the appropriate moment. Two violins end the symphony, not a keyboard, and certainly Haydn would have been the last to leave. So he was probably playing violin.

But to some extent, at least in the earliest works, he was still sticking to certain features from the Baroque, wasn't he? Especially the way some pieces was structured like a church sonata and others displaying influences of concerti grossi (Gurn mentioned this possibility a couple of weeks ago).

I'm not so adamantly opposed to the keyboard in the earliest symphonies. It does sound more appropriate there.

Sarge

[Florestan]

Love that! I have a PDF of the sheet music that he had published of his own playing arrangement. Never thought I would 'hear him play it though! 

How do you find it? Too fast, too slow, idiomatic, Romanticized, Classical, wrong, spot on --- how? I ask all that because he's a representative of the Romantic pianistic school and as such, I would expect you to think his style not quite suited to Haydn's music. TIA.

[Opus106]

The original full score manuscript in Haydn's hand (autograph) and the individual sheets of music for each player, I assume. He singled out the Farewell because of the way the symphony progresses in the Finale, with each instrument composed to disappear at the appropriate moment. Two violins end the symphony, not a keyboard, and certainly Haydn would have been the last to leave. So he was probably playing violin.

Oh, I get it now. Danke schön

I'm not so adamantly opposed to the keyboard in the earliest symphonies. It does sound more appropriate there.

Sarge

Ah, okay. I mentioned it since this line of discussion began with the appearance of disc containing symphonies 1-5.

[Opus106]

How do you find it? Too fast, too slow, idiomatic, Romanticized, Classical, wrong, spot on --- how? I ask all that because he's a representative of the Romantic pianistic school and as such, I would expect you to think his style not quite suited to Haydn's music. TIA.

I'm curious to know as well, for exactly the same reason. (Maybe he's one of the early HIPsters who didn't label himself as such? )

Thanks for the video, in any case, Andrei. I too liked it, despite the obvious shortcomings of the audio quality. Early on, I felt that the rhythm was a bit 'off' at places, although I wasn't sure whether it was the result of the pianist 'being in the moment', or of something intended, or the audio, or simply due to my ear.

[Florestan]

Thanks for the video, in any case, Andrei.

You're welcome, I'm glad you liked it. Youtube is such a treasure trove, ain't it?

[Sergeant Rock]

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.

A very good idea. My entire Haydn symphony collection is a hodge podge    I really enjoy the many different ways the music is realized. Even among the HIPsters each performance sounds utterly different, making the question of who's really authentic a most interesting one.

Sarge

[Gurn Blanston]

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.

Morning, Sarge,
Well, negative evidence it still evidence, I guess. The standard reply to that point is that if Haydn was playing the continuo why would he write it out?  In addition, one would add that the question arises if in fact the Esterházy Orchestra (and the Morzin before them) were so advanced that they were the pioneers in abandoning keyboard continuo when all others around them continued to use it until into the 1770's?  I'm not taking sides one way or the other, since I like it both ways, but despite the fact that Webster is a prominent musicologist (just a youngster when he wrote that though), most of the musicology Establishment still doesn't agree with him. Perhaps the "all or nothing" approach is a bit too sweeping?  That's MY thought.

(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).

They did, however, have a fine organist at Eisenstadt. In the 1770's, Haydn took over half of that job, but before then there was an everyday player who could most certainly have played continuo if that's what the Boss wanted. There again, continuo was usually realized on the spot, so the fact that it wasn't written out is meaningless. Haydn didn't write out any of these symphonies for publication until 1780, so a lot of playing direction came directly from himself, which is a loss for future musicians, but was highly practical for the Esterházy Band.

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

Tomasini was the Concertmaster. Haydn played harpsichord continuo (on the Big Green Cembalo) at every opera presented in the Esterháza Opera House. Don't know that there is any reason to assume that this practice was restricted to opera, it's just the only one documented.

(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.

Who can argue with that? 

(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]

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)?

Chances are great that it was a fortepiano rather than a harpsichord since this was the period that the Brits were changing over one to the other. However, it wasn't just to give Haydn something to do; it was still their normal practice to have keyboard continuo in concerts. It was totally expected that Haydn would 'lead from the harpsichord'.

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 

Couldn't agree more. I'm not even disagreeing with you, I'm just putting out the opposite side of the argument. As it happens, I prefer my harpsichord continuo, if used, to be discreet. Haydn didn't even bother writing out parts for each instrument in his continuo section. However, it was nearly always cello, violone and bassoon. In works where there is a written out bassoon part (it wouldn't be everywhere) then when the part had a long rest the bassoonist was expected to drop off and play continuo. This was to give some tonal variety and reinforcement to the bass section.  There is so much we don't know that it puts in the shade our ability to make sweeping statements of the "they did this...." type. Fact is, we don't know what they did. Just guessing.

[Gurn Blanston]

A very good idea. My entire Haydn symphony collection is a hodge podge    I really enjoy the many different ways the music is realized. Even among the HIPsters each performance sounds utterly different, making the question of who's really authentic a most interesting one.

Sarge

This is a point I've been pondering for several years. I even stuck my head out one time and said something to the effect that the chances were very good that the great variety of tempos and playing of the same piece by different PI bands was probably a lot more authentic than the current standard of everyone pretty much playing it off the same parts and in the same manner (no matter how nice that manner may be. That wasn't my point). I think that if you had been the peripatetic Dr. Burney traveling Europe in those days for the express purpose of listening to different music and players, you probably heard the same (that is; most popular) pieces many times. And it likely was an entire spectrum of expression. That wouldn't be true today.

Just an idle thought. 

[Gurn Blanston]

How do you find it? Too fast, too slow, idiomatic, Romanticized, Classical, wrong, spot on --- how? I ask all that because he's a representative of the Romantic pianistic school and as such, I would expect you to think his style not quite suited to Haydn's music. TIA.

I can only compare it to what I am used to hearing, which of course this is considerably faster. Probably a bit more ornate too. I note a habit of starting the right hand part before the preceding left hand part is completed, making a net effect of no space between phrases. I don't care too much for that. Overall, it is easy to tell that he was a master pianist, but the style he adopts doesn't suit my taste particularly.

I wish we could still post mp3 clips.... 

[Opus106]

I wish we could still post mp3 clips.... 

Well, you still can, like ALF did some time ago:

Andante con variazioni in F minor, Hob.XVII:6 (Ronald Brautigam, fortepiano):

http://www.divshare.com/flash/playlist?myId=10465746-251

Capriccio in G major, HobXVII-1 'Acht Sauschneider müssen sein' (Christine Schornsheim, harpsichord):

http://www.divshare.com/flash/playlist?myId=10466003-9e2

[Florestan]

I can only compare it to what I am used to hearing, which of course this is considerably faster.

Paderewski's timing is 8:51. There are versions out there even much faster. 

Ingrid Haebler 7:50

http://www.youtube.com/v/c0vgu9O3nkI

Clara Haskil 6:12

http://www.youtube.com/v/fWM4DcrqK4c

The slowest I could find are these:

Rudolf Buchbinder 16:58

http://www.youtube.com/v/60ln0PCEIc0

Vladimir Stoupel 20:02

http://www.youtube.com/v/oYGMG5vMHXE

Are there any repeats in this piece? This might account for such high discrepancies in the timings.

Probably a bit more ornate too. I note a habit of starting the right hand part before the preceding left hand part is completed, making a net effect of no space between phrases. I don't care too much for that. Overall, it is easy to tell that he was a master pianist, but the style he adopts doesn't suit my taste particularly.

Thanks, I expected just that. 

[Gurn Blanston]

Paderewski's timing is 8:51. There are versions out there even much faster. 

Ingrid Haebler 7:50

Clara Haskil 6:12

The slowest I could find are these:

Rudolf Buchbinder 16:58

Vladimir Stoupel 20:02

Are there any repeats in this piece? This might account for such high discrepancies in the timings.

Not sure they are repeats. They may not play every variation though. Here are the ones I have;

Badura-Skoda  15:13
Oort                 14:56
Brautigam        15:09
Cerasi              17:05
Adlam              16:05
Cooper            15:45
Kipnis               17:21
Leach              15:50
Heard              16:05
Staier              15:43
Beghin             15:33

So you can see, pretty consistent. And some of them play parts as fast as Paderewski does (although maybe not all of it). The difference seems to be in 'taking a breath' between phrases, and possibly the number of variations played. It's an andante after all, no one would play it fast enough to half the time! 

[Gurn Blanston]

Well, you still can, like ALF did some time ago:

I'll have to ask him how he did that. Rob mentioned just a few days ago that this version of the software doesn't support it. Maybe that's what's taking us down! 

[Mandryka]

I couldn't find Beghin, but stumbled instead upon this rarity:

http://www.youtube.com/v/lRPkE9QQZCA

Andante & Variations in F minor played by Ignacy Jan Paderewski, rec. 1937

Opinions on this performance, anyone?

It's a romantic performance, with the emphasis on un- interrupted long phrasing. I think it's rather prettified and emotionally subdued, and he seems reluctant to use the piano's dynamic range. Probably influenced by the idea that Haydn was really not capable of anything but the most congenial, charming, elegant, sunny  and soothing music.

Here's the start of Beghin playing it

http://www.goear.com/files/external.swf?file=24d8aa9

I remember also liking Van Oort.

[Mandryka]

A very good idea. My entire Haydn symphony collection is a hodge podge    I really enjoy the many different ways the music is realized. Even among the HIPsters each performance sounds utterly different, making the question of who's really authentic a most interesting one.

Sarge

Yes. You get the same phenomenon with Baroque music. One reason is that ideas about authentic style leave some things  open to the performer's discretion. Another is that people think that some performers are HIP, when they may have moved away from the idea. The third is that even with basic things like articulation, there's still a lot of uncertainty about what is authentic. When Haydn marks a movement cantabile, he presumably means "song like", but how did people sing in those days?

[Florestan]

When Haydn marks a movement cantabile, he presumably means "song like", but how did people sing in those days?

We have no idea whatsoever. We also have no idea whatsoever how they played violin, keyboard, flute or any other instrument. We have no idea whatsoever how fast / slow was their Andante, nor do we know if it was consistent (was a Haydn Andante always the same speed as a Mozart one? Gurn just told us that not even a Haydn Andante was the same in every place where the music was performed). As Sarge said, HIP performances differ widely; which is the right one?

Therefore I think that the goal of performing the music exactly as it was performed back then is completely unattainable and trying to achieve at all costs is more an obsession than a meaningful and legitimate artistic pursuit.

I would go further still and say that even what Haydn or Mozart or anyone else had in mind when composing anything is absolutely irrelevant: a work of art, once made public, begins a life of its own. What we have today is a musical "text" (the score) and as such, it is open to multiple interpretations, according to the personality of the interpreter --- and we, as receivers, naturally tend to like whatever suits our own personality. And this is a very good thing, because if there would be a way to determine exactly how a piece of music should be played by everyone, everywhere, at every time, that very moment it will die as a work of art and start its new life as a bore.

[Gurn Blanston]

Actually there is quite a bit of documentary evidence about all the things you say we have no idea whatsoever.  You seem to be advocating Regietheater for performing Haydn.

My thought precisely.

We have tons of documentary evidence how music was performed at a certain place and at a certain time by a certain group of players. But we would be guppies to assume that this held true for a different group in the next town over. That's the problem with verbal descriptions of auditory events. And it brings up certain things that are clearly at odds with the situation as it existed at the time. For example, when Mozart wrote to his father that he greatly enjoyed one of his symphonies being played by the Tönkunstler Society at their annual charity benefit  with triple and quadruple instruments, a lot of people who don't really think too deeply take that to mean that his preference was to move ahead to the future and have the full Berlin Philharmonic / Karajan playing all his symphonies. Silly?  I've seen it written, not only here but in books too.

A fair generalization that you can make is that whenever a piece was played, they did the best they could to play it as written. And if they didn't have enough violas, or clarinets or whatever, then they used what they had. The reason that tempo markings became more complicated with time is precisely because a composer would write 'Allegro' with the thought in mind of how fast 'Allegro' was where he lived, or for his own band even.  When he discovered that in Paris they were playing it a third faster or slower, he started adding modifiers like 'poco' or 'ma non troppo' or 'molto'.  You simply can't make generalizations, that's where the traps are, the ones that take you to that bad place where music itself becomes 'general' (read: boring).