Haydn's Haus

[Gurn Blanston]

That's not playing fair! (but I like it!)

Oh, it doesn't matter to me what anyone thinks about the QM. But painting them as a clown outfit is a gross mischaracterization. That's all.

They play very well in either case. The neck ruff doesn't seem to throw them off...

[Gurn Blanston]

Speaking of PI, I think this disk claims a careful consideration:

[asin]ASIN: B001FENZAW[/asin]

Opus 77 & Opus 103

Delightful playing in fantastic sound quality.

http://edding-quartet.com/en/edding-quartet/

Yes, that is a very commendable recording. There are lots of PI recordings (I have most of them) which make me wish their authors had gone a bit further. The Schuppanzigh's are another.

[Dancing Divertimentian]

My point was between the lines in Gurn's previous post, but not related to Gurn's comment about intention (which isn't even true for me). My statement was a simple one about the difference between small venues and large venues, and the relationship between performer and audience.

God help me if I must read between the lines and it isn't written in english.

If you can't detect any trade-off in larger venues then we should probably agree to disagree.

And that's what you define as a step backward? A simple trade-off?

[Dancing Divertimentian]

They play very well in either case. The neck ruff doesn't seem to throw them off...

Out of the living room and into Barnum & Bailey...

[Gurn Blanston]

My point was between the lines in Gurn's previous post, but not related to Gurn's comment about intention (which isn't even true for me). My statement was a simple one about the difference between small venues and large venues, and the relationship between performer and audience.

If you can't detect any trade-off in larger venues then we should probably agree to disagree.

Yes, that's it essentially; I just prefer the sound, feel and bit of informality involved in smaller venues. The reason string instruments went to steel strings and pianos became as large a taxicabs and wooden flutes became silver etc. is exactly because of larger venues. So if you are now having a PI group playing Carnegie Hall and splicing 'takes' to make them perfect, this, then, becomes the height of inauthenticity, the worst of all possible scenarios. A wart here and there and a warm, intimate sound is infinitely preferable, IMO.

[Karl Henning]

Carnegie Hall is quite cozy, actually. Bruce and I heard some Vivaldi there;  I think you would have enjoyed it!

Edit

The main hall at C.H. seats 2,804 on five levels. (There are also two more intimate halls, seating 599 and 268, respectively.)  Boston's Symphony Hall, with two balconies, seats 2,625.

[Gurn Blanston]

Carnegie Hall is quite cozy, actually. Bruce and I heard some Vivaldi there;  I think you would have enjoyed it!

Edit

The main hall at C.H. seats 2,804 on five levels. (There are also two more intimate halls, seating 599 and 268, respectively.)  Boston's Symphony Hall, with two balconies, seats 2,625.

I have a DVD of Gardiner et al playing Beethoven's 9th there, it's fabulous. Bigger than a living room, or my front porch, though.

[Karl Henning]

I've heard two Haydn symphonies at Symphony Hall; MI, of course, but reduced band.  One I should call "okay" (Spano leading the Hob. I/104); the other, "good" (Jimmy leading the Hob. I/22).

Examples of smaller bands I've heard there are:  the Wagner Siegfried-Idyll, the Berg Kammerkonzert (pf, vn & 13 winds), and the Mozart Gran Partita.  Granted, we were not a great distance from the stage;  but I didn't feel that the pieces were Lost in [the] Space.

(Spano, I am sure, can do better;  I am sure that he had limited time for rehearsal -- guests always do -- and no doubt the Haydn drew the short straw.  Again, it was okay, but a good conductor and the BSO could have done better, with another even partial rehearsal.)

[Gurn Blanston]

I've heard two Haydn symphonies at Symphony Hall; MI, of course, but reduced band.  One I should call "okay" (Spano leading the Hob. I/104); the other, "good" (Jimmy leading the Hob. I/22).

Examples of smaller bands I've heard there are:  the Wagner Siegfried-Idyll, the Berg Kammerkonzert (pf, vn & 13 winds), and the Mozart Gran Partita.  Granted, we were not a great distance from the stage;  but I didn't feel that the pieces were Lost in [the] Space.

(Spano, I am sure, can do better;  I am sure that he had limited time for rehearsal -- guests always do -- and no doubt the Haydn drew the short straw.  Again, it was okay, but a good conductor and the BSO could have done better, with another even partial rehearsal.)

I saw the Atlanta Symphony do #98 with Yoel Levi in his last year, at their Symphony Hall. They were reduced to 35 players, which was great for a London symphony from the first tour, but even on MI they were slightly 'over-housed'. They played frightfully well though.

[Dancing Divertimentian]

Yes, that's it essentially; I just prefer the sound, feel and bit of informality involved in smaller venues. The reason string instruments went to steel strings and pianos became as large a taxicabs and wooden flutes became silver etc. is exactly because of larger venues. So if you are now having a PI group playing Carnegie Hall and splicing 'takes' to make them perfect, this, then, becomes the height of inauthenticity, the worst of all possible scenarios. A wart here and there and a warm, intimate sound is infinitely preferable, IMO.

But a piano "the size of a taxicab" still sounds wonderful in small spaces. This I know. Ditto other modern instruments.

So the idea that change (in musical instruments/venues/whatever) is "a step backward", as Pat B put it, is inaccurate.

That people prefer one thing over another is indisputable but I'm still trying to wrap my head around the whole "step backward" thing.   

(Not to mention that humans being humans instruments were bound to evolve no matter the changes in the size of venues).

[Gurn Blanston]

But a piano "the size of a taxicab" still sounds wonderful in small spaces. This I know. Ditto other modern instruments.

So the idea that change (in musical instruments/venues/whatever) is "a step backward", as Pat B put it, is inaccurate.

That people prefer one thing over another is indisputable but I'm still trying to wrap my head around the whole "step backward" thing.   

(Not to mention that humans being humans instruments were bound to evolve no matter the changes in the size of venues).

Well, we won't get into the evolution thing. It was a direct result of social pressures: increased audience size for varying reasons leading to increased  venue size to accommodate them. This isn't arguable, it just is.

I think the step backward came more from trying to port the older music over to the new instruments and venues and finding it inadequate to the situation. If you were to research the subject, you would find that the 19th century found 18th century music too puny for most purposes. Most music before Beethoven was rarely played, and this includes Haydn and Mozart. Bach enjoyed a resurgence, but he wouldn't have recognized his music, as most pre-1975 Brandenburg Concerto recordings will demonstrate.

Haydn didn't enjoy a resurgence until the PI revolution came about. If there is a cause and effect here, I'm not sure really which is the cause and which is the effect. But Haydn is more popular now than he has been at any time since his death. This is also not really arguable, in that I am only stating a fact, not trying to prove anything by it.

Maybe MY thinking would be like: if you are gong to go down the PI road and play period instruments, and play all the repeats, and try to bow your fiddle in 18th century style &c., then why not go ahead and change the context of your playing from a strictly perfect competitive recital atmosphere to a more relaxed, friendly gathering, a 'conversation among friends' as it was called in 1785, and see how that goes?  This is why the style of the Festetics appeals to some people more than that of the QM, and it is also why the style of the QM appeals to some people more than the style of the Festetics.

[Karl Henning]

Relaxed & friendly is period practice for Henningmusick, too!

[Pat B]

So the idea that change (in musical instruments/venues/whatever) is "a step backward", as Pat B put it, is inaccurate.

That people prefer one thing over another is indisputable but I'm still trying to wrap my head around the whole "step backward" thing.   

Well, I sent you a PM, but...

If you can't perceive or imagine any possible disadvantage of a larger venue vs. a smaller venue, then my statement will never make sense and you should stop wasting time on it.

[Dancing Divertimentian]

Well, we won't get into the evolution thing. It was a direct result of social pressures: increased audience size for varying reasons leading to increased  venue size to accommodate them. This isn't arguable, it just is.

Ok, we won't go into it but you brought it up. Certainly social factors play a role in the change of many things but that doesn't necessarily equate to retrograde (which is what I'm reading into your comment).   

I think the step backward came more from trying to port the older music over to the new instruments and venues and finding it inadequate to the situation. If you were to research the subject, you would find that the 19th century found 18th century music too puny for most purposes. Most music before Beethoven was rarely played, and this includes Haydn and Mozart. Bach enjoyed a resurgence, but he wouldn't have recognized his music, as most pre-1975 Brandenburg Concerto recordings will demonstrate.

None of that is a step backward. As you say, it is/was what it is/was. As 18th c. music became more widely disseminated the old prejudices fell, obviously. But you can't blame the 19th and 20th c. musical organizations for their startup efforts in uncovering past music. If they had it wrong in the beginning it's because they had little to go on. That's also easy to uncover with a little bit of research.       

Haydn didn't enjoy a resurgence until the PI revolution came about. If there is a cause and effect here, I'm not sure really which is the cause and which is the effect. But Haydn is more popular now than he has been at any time since his death. This is also not really arguable, in that I am only stating a fact, not trying to prove anything by it.

This kind of thing gives Haydn far too little credit. You do, in fact, Gurn, sound exactly like someone trying to prove something. PI has its place of course but the music itself is what counts.

Maybe MY thinking would be like: if you are gong to go down the PI road and play period instruments, and play all the repeats, and try to bow your fiddle in 18th century style &c., then why not go ahead and change the context of your playing from a strictly perfect competitive recital atmosphere to a more relaxed, friendly gathering, a 'conversation among friends' as it was called in 1785, and see how that goes?  This is why the style of the Festetics appeals to some people more than that of the QM, and it is also why the style of the QM appeals to some people more than the style of the Festetics.

I think we've established that a person's preferences are their own (at least I did). Yes, so I agree with the above. I'm only happy when you're happy, Gurn!


 

[Dancing Divertimentian]

Well, I sent you a PM, but...

If you can't perceive or imagine any possible disadvantage of a larger venue vs. a smaller venue, then my statement will never make sense and you should stop wasting time on it.

What the...

Dude, you didn't give me the chance to respond to your PM.

So now that we're here I'd be more than happy to hear about what you think are the "steps forward" you're referring to.

[Gurn Blanston]

Ok, we won't go into it but you brought it up. Certainly social factors play a role in the change of many things but that doesn't necessarily equate to retrograde (which is what I'm reading into your comment). 

It isn't necessarily retrograde, the only step backward that I am referring to is abandoning 18th century music for 100 years because it didn't fit in with 19th century prejudices. And I didn't even say it in this context. The music changed to fit the new reality, that all. They wrote new music and abandoned the old. Or they tried to modify it to make Mozart's Jupiter or Haydn's #104 sound post-Beethovenian. That's not a step backward, it just sucks.

None of that is a step backward. As you say, it is/was what it is/was. As 18th c. music became more widely disseminated the old prejudices fell, obviously. But you can't blame the 19th and 20th c. musical organizations for their startup efforts in uncovering past music. If they had it wrong in the beginning it's because they had little to go on. That's also easy to uncover with a little bit of research.

We are talking about two different things. I'm talking about initially screwing it up, you're talking about taking small steps towards recovery. I agree with what you are saying, but it in no way invalidates what I said. We are talking 75 years difference in time!

This kind of thing gives Haydn far too little credit. You do, in fact, Gurn, sound exactly like someone trying to prove something. PI has its place of course but the music itself is what counts.

On the contrary, I give Haydn all the credit in the world. But even HE couldn't overcome some of the travesties committed against him. See if you can Google up the book 'Cambridge Companion to Haydn', and there is an essay in there called 'The Long 19th Century'. It's interesting, and sad. Also, there is a really interesting one about Donald Tovey and his attempts to recover Haydn in the 1920's and 30's. SOme of the quotes from critics and such about Haydn will stand your hair up. Just because we today have a more equable view, it doesn't men things have been this way for a long time, or even in our lifetime. Also, just because I don't hold it against earlier 20th century musicians who may have stumbled a bit, albeit with good intentions, it doesn't mean that in a spirit of forgiveness I should promote their efforts. Does it? Am I wrong there?

I think we've established that a person's preferences are their own (at least I did). Yes, so I agree with the above. I'm only happy when you're happy, Gurn!

That's a wonderfully sensible finale, DD. I've always said you were an eminently reasonable man.

[Dancing Divertimentian]

It isn't necessarily retrograde, the only step backward that I am referring to is abandoning 18th century music for 100 years because it didn't fit in with 19th century prejudices. And I didn't even say it in this context. The music changed to fit the new reality, that all. They wrote new music and abandoned the old. Or they tried to modify it to make Mozart's Jupiter or Haydn's #104 sound post-Beethovenian. That's not a step backward, it just sucks.

How much 14th c music was played by Haydn and his contemporaries? And even if they played it what would it sound like? Would they even try to establish something akin to "authentic performances"? Not likely. This whole concept of PI and "authenticity" is decidedly a product of OUR generation. Good thing, but that doesn't invalidate anything that came before it.

We are talking about two different things. I'm talking about initially screwing it up, you're talking about taking small steps towards recovery. I agree with what you are saying, but it in no way invalidates what I said. We are talking 75 years difference in time!

Well, as far as I can tell we're talking about exactly the same thing. I wrote "if they had it wrong in the beginning it's because they had little to go on". That's a direct reference to "initially screwing it up", as you put it. My "recovery" comments were an effort to put a positive spin on things. 

On the contrary, I give Haydn all the credit in the world. But even HE couldn't overcome some of the travesties committed against him. See if you can Google up the book 'Cambridge Companion to Haydn', and there is an essay in there called 'The Long 19th Century'. It's interesting, and sad. Also, there is a really interesting one about Donald Tovey and his attempts to recover Haydn in the 1920's and 30's. SOme of the quotes from critics and such about Haydn will stand your hair up. Just because we today have a more equable view, it doesn't men things have been this way for a long time, or even in our lifetime. Also, just because I don't hold it against earlier 20th century musicians who may have stumbled a bit, albeit with good intentions, it doesn't mean that in a spirit of forgiveness I should promote their efforts. Does it? Am I wrong there?

"Travesties"? Is this another attempt to ensnare me? Again, I refer you to my initial comments. What would 14th c. music have sounded like in Haydn's time? Let's keep things in perspective, here.

That's a wonderfully sensible finale, DD. I've always said you were an eminently reasonable man.

I aims to please...

[Pat B]

What the...

Dude, you didn't give me the chance to respond to your PM.

So now that we're here I'd be more than happy to hear about what you think are the "steps forward" you're referring to.

I thought your post here was after my PM. Couldn't confirm since sent PMs aren't saved.

When moving from living room to concert hall, the increase in accessibility is the two steps forward. The loss of intimacy is the one step back. It was a simple statement, probably not worth any further dissection or rehashing.

Now Gurn is saying the step back was the stylistic change of the 19th century which isn't what I was talking about at all.

[Dancing Divertimentian]

When moving from living room to concert hall, the increase in accessibility is the two steps forward. The loss of intimacy is the one step back. It was a simple statement, probably not worth any further dissection or rehashing.

Oh, gotcha.

[Karl Henning]

And: a gain, overall!