Haydn's Haus

[Wakefield]

The French are very attached to clear structures and periods, for instance centuries. After the Renaissance 16th, the 17th is labeled "Grand Siècle", then the 18th "Siècle des Lumières"... All that doesn't account for much in the minds of current historians of course.

"Orchestre des Lumières" would be a beautiful name for an ensemble, by the way.

Interesting: undoubtedly, those two centuries marked the great French power, preceded by Spain (16th Century) and followed by England (19th Century), and then, well, after some confusion, by our good American friends. Otherwise, we wouldn't be writing in English now.

[Gurn Blanston]

Yes! I recall I was aware of this fact about two years ago, when you expressed some similar idea talking about this same topic. 

The more things change, the more they remain the same, see?     Although this essay was not old, it was new. All part of the process of conforming facts to ideas rather than the opposite.

[kishnevi]

Yes, you are correct about the consensus of how should sound the S&D works. My own opinion is that just because a consensus has been reached, it doesn't mean it is correct! We all like the thrilling sound brought out by various bands over the years, but there is no saying Haydn would have liked it or not, he might be surprised as hell! 

Difficulties. Yes. Only today, I was reading an essay concerning the Greiner salon in Vienna, doing some research for tomorrow's essay. And the author goes on for a few paragraphs about how there are documented readings of Sorrows of Young Werther and other S&D classics, and Haydn was an attendee at this salon, thus the dramatic description by Landon of Haydn's music at this time must be in sequitur. However, I have discovered to my own satisfaction that time is a very linear sort of function, and the works Landon speaks of were composed between 1767 and 1772, while the readings of S&D works described took place no earlier than 1773, and so putative influence is here is dubious at best.

Unless, of course, we would like to attribute the German literary S&D to Haydn's music instead of the reverse...

Alternate hypothesis.   Haydn was like Merlin in TH White.   He grew younger.

[Wakefield]

The more things change, the more they remain the same, see?     Although this essay was not old, it was new. All part of the process of conforming facts to ideas rather than the opposite.

I recall the quake inside me, when being a young boy, I did read in Bertrand Russell that "truth" is merely a logical quality of propositions. Only the propositions are true or false; the facts are not true or false, just exist or don't exist. Ergo, in terms of our everyday language, Truth is just a certain kind of relation among words. It was a revealing discovery for a young. After this, to study Law seemed a natural decision! 

[Gurn Blanston]

I recall the quake inside me, when being a young boy, I did read in Bertrand Russell that "truth" is merely a logical quality of propositions. Only the propositions are true or false; the facts are not true or false, just exist o don't exist. Ergo, in terms of our everyday language, Truth is just a certain kind of relation among words. It was a revealing discovery for a young. After this, to study Law seemed a natural decision! 

As Stephen Colbert calls it, the quality of truthiness. Yes, I can see the natural way this philosophy and this career would entwine. And 'entwine' was the only word to use there, since what is done with the truth after discovery is often an exercise in twining!   0:)

[Wakefield]

As Stephen Colbert calls it, the quality of truthiness. Yes, I can see the natural way this philosophy and this career would entwine. And 'entwine' was the only word to use there, since what is done with the truth after discovery is often an exercise in twining!   0:)

A last digression. I have always had this idea: I think USA is, after Rome, the world potency that has been more deeply marked by its notion of Law. Obviously, this applies just to the internal order because in foreign affairs the American definition has been a bit different. 

[Gurn Blanston]

A last digression. I have always had this idea: I think USA is, after Rome, the world potency that has been more deeply marked by its notion of Law. Obviously, this applies just to the internal order because in foreign affairs the American definition has been a bit different. 

Amen to that! Although the Romans showed that applying their Lex Romana universally resulted in nearly the same result as the USA failing to apply ours that way. Just a thought...

[Mandryka]

Frans Brüggen: Haydn [Sturm und Drang Symphonies - Paris Symphonies - London Symphonies]



CD1-5
Orchestra of the Age of the Enlightenment

I have listened to the five disks of the "Sturm und Drang" symphonies with enormous pleasure.

Conducted by Brüggen with iron fist, these interpretations are more classically oriented than guided by "Storm and Stress" elements.

Anyway, and quite curiously, the music gains a good amount of tension because of the contrast between the music itself (apparently) calling for a more freewheeling interpretation and the great amount of dedication that Brüggen invests in delivering a more classical and detailed approach.

Are you taking the mick?

It's like you're saying that the interesting thing about the performances is that Brüggen misses the point of the music. Otherwise where does the tension come from? I thought Brüggen was well boring in most of those symphonies by the way, apart from the Londons, so I haven't given them much attention.

Give me an example and I'll listen again though.

I bet you'd love Gould's Chopin for similar reasons.

[Mandryka]

The issue with Brüggen is that he was so careful about how much work he put into his interpretations that he recorded many of these symphonies one by one (sometimes live, sometimes in studio) and that led to great recordings, but then he had to finish cycles and he recorded sometimes 3 or 4 symphonies in a single session and the result is not as good, in terms of interpretative depth and (also) of engineering. So you might love a symphony, for instance, say, his wonderful acount of no. 98, and then you won't understand what happened with no. 95... But overall very few of these readings are less than excellent.

How do you know? Which other ones did he cram into the session when he recorded 95? (I don't have the booklet for the recordings by the way, in case the session details are there.)

[Jo498]

truth is not a relation between words (at least not according to Russell), but between propositions (which are more than mere words, rather the common content expressed by both "snow is white", "neige est blanc" and "Schnee ist weiß" etc.) and facts (that snow is actually white).
In a 18th century internet (and probably most of the 19th) we would be writing French, in a 17th century Latin.

Whatever, IIRC all of Brüggen's London symphonies are live recordings. Maybe spliced together from several concerts, but crammed recording sessions were not a factor here. It may be different with the Sturm & Drang set.
In any case the set would be worth EUR 30 only for the London set, I think

[Cosi bel do]

How do you know? Which other ones did he cram into the session when he recorded 95? (I don't have the booklet for the recordings by the way, in case the session details are there.)

Well, my booklet is not precise with these details. But I know dates and locations of these recordings are very remote, and was able to explain some of these differencies in the result when I saw these details on individual CDs, and it explained a lot. I then cited two examples of an excellent and a very less satisfying reading, but I didn't really check the session details.
Now Jo says all of them are live, but I was quite sure some of the London at least were studios. But my memory might betray me.
Turns out 95 and 98 were apparently recorded the same year, 1992. But where, when precisely ? Anyway, comparing the result is interesting. In 95, the sound is very reverberated, cold, fuzzy, the worst movement being the menuetto that lacks rythmic precision and where the cello solo in the trio is too far away and doesn't sound very clean. Listening to it again, one could think engineering is responsible for most of the problems here. Then 98 has a comparable sound, but this time it doesn't impede Brüggen's band to be precise articulated, with contrasts, tension. Comparing directly the two Minuets is spectacular, in 98 everything is still smooth, elegant, but you can hear all the detail, and the trio is a lot more charming and subtle. So not everything is the fault of microphones in 95 in the end...

[Jo498]

My booklet is not so explicit either, but it says that 82-87 and 90-104 were recorded live (the rest apparently not) and it claims October 92 for 98 and May 93 for 95 and 96. It seems the same hall (Vredenburg, Utrecht), though I wouldn't bet on that as the info is quite condensed.

In any case, I think that live recordings (maybe spliced together) are a very plausible cause for rather uneven sonics and other features. So your impression, Discobolus, is very compatible with live recordings.

[Sergeant Rock]

I have the original Philips Sturm und Drang set:




Recordings at Blackheath Concert Halls, London (but no mention if these were live before an audience):

9/94    39, 41, 49
10/95  35, 44, 46, 51
1/96    38, 47, 48
2/96    43, 50, 65
12/96  26, 58, 59
3/97    42, 45, 52   


Sarge

[Wakefield]

Are you taking the mick?

It's like you're saying that the interesting thing about the performances is that Brüggen misses the point of the music. Otherwise where does the tension come from? I thought Brüggen was well boring in most of those symphonies by the way, apart from the Londons, so I haven't given them much attention.

Give me an example and I'll listen again though.

I bet you'd love Gould's Chopin for similar reasons.

No, I simply said that Brüggen conducts this music as if it were (as it is!) part of the road towards the construction of the Classical style, with the inner logic and self-control that it implies, and not as if it were an exercise of proto-Romanticism.

Believe it or not, I did write what I wrote precisely as a sort of warning to people searching for different things that those provided by Brüggen's performances.

And for the record: IMO, Brüggen is right, both Baroque and Classical style (with clear differences, of course) essentially talk about order in the world, about things put in the right place and not about the uncomfortable position of the artist in the world. Bach and Haydn (for the case, they work out as "representative men") never considered themselves as "misunderstood geniuses". No doubt they had a clear insight of their personal value and a lot of problems, but their entire life had a common denominator and goal: how to accomplish the requirements of their professional duties into a well regulated world (well, Haydn's last years were a bit different, I know). 

You don't like this approach? No surprise because this vision is almost the contrary of presenting Haydn as a sort of John the Baptist, merely preparing the arriving of Beethoven and all that stuff of the "tormented artist" fighting against the world that doesn't understand him.

Therefore, I'm not saying (at all) that Brüggen is doing things against the directions of Haydn, but simply that Brüggen had a solid insight of the complete landscape and he didn't buy the proto-Romantic ticket. And this is powerful because the last quarter the second half of the 18th Century had, of course (and is well documented), its own inner tensions, sorrows and pains to tell, using its own language.

About Chopin? Gould? Nah (almost because of the same reasons aforementioned)... call me mainstream, but I prefer people like Arrau and Rubinstein, or even Pollini or Ashkenazy. 

[Wakefield]

truth is not a relation between words (at least not according to Russell), but between propositions (which are more than mere words, rather the common content expressed by both "snow is white", "neige est blanc" and "Schnee ist weiß" etc.) and facts (that snow is actually white).

Exactly what I said if you read my words. 

[Mandryka]

No, I simply said that Brüggen conducts this music as if it were (as it is!) part of the road towards the construction of the Classical style, with the inner logic and self-control that it implies, and not as if it were an exercise of proto-Romanticism.

Believe it or not, I did write what I wrote precisely as a sort of warning to people searching for different things that those provided by Brüggen's performances.

And for the record: IMO, Brüggen is right, both Baroque and Classical style (with clear differences, of course) essentially talk about order in the world, about things put in the right place and not about the uncomfortable position of the artist in the world. Bach and Haydn (for the case, they work out as "representative men") never considered themselves as "misunderstood geniuses". No doubt they had a clear insight of their personal value and a lot of problems, but their entire life had a common denominator and goal: how to accomplish the requirements of their professional duties into a well regulated world (well, Haydn's last years were a bit different, I know). 

You don't like this approach? No surprise because this vision is almost the contrary of presenting Haydn as a sort of John the Baptist, merely preparing the arriving of Beethoven and all that stuff of the "tormented artist" fighting against the world that doesn't understand him.

Therefore, I'm not saying (at all) that Brüggen is doing things against the directions of Haydn, but simply that Brüggen had a solid insight of the complete landscape and he didn't buy the proto-Romantic ticket. And this is powerful because the last quarter the second half of the 18th Century had, of course (and is well documented), its own inner tensions, sorrows and pains to tell, using its own language.

About Chopin? Gould? Nah (almost because of the same reasons aforementioned)... call me mainstream, but I prefer people like Arrau and Rubinstein, or even Pollini or Ashkenazy. 

What's odd though is that sometimes -- like in 86 -- he's so much more intense. I think -- see whether you agree -- I'm never really sure I understand these style ideas -- romantic, classical etc. 

Sometimes Mozart's music seems quite uncomfortable in some performances (PC 24, 20; K310; K563). I don't know enough about the classical period to comment about how stylish (to use premont's wonderful word)Bezuidenhout is.  The view that baroque style is really about order -- is that disputed by academics? It wouldn't be hard to find examples of performances which were't particularly stable, which were more abut unresolved tensions in counterpoint etc. But how stylish they are I wouldn't like to say.

Even Gould didn't like Gould in Chopin. He didn't want to have the recording released but his estate defied his wishes.  I too quite like Arrau in the 3rd sonata -- best of all in the live one on youtube.

Just standing back a little, I've seen people say that they are interested in HIP becauae HIP performances have proved the most satisfying. At least I've heard them say that hen talking about Bach. If you're right about Haydn and Bruggen, then the HIP way isn't the best way for me today in Haydn -- I would say.

I hope you're wrong about Haydn.

[Jo498]

Isn't there a person on the forum with a quote that baroque means after all "too much"? Is baroque music about reflecting a pre-established harmony of the universe or rather about fancy and emotions running wild? I think it is always too simplistic to use certain buzzwords for whole stylistic epochs (and of course those epochs are artefacts of vulgar historiography). The Baroque lasted almost 150 years and has very different kinds of music. So has the 19th century and it is about as misleading to claim that "romantic" composers usually saw themselves as  misunderstood geniuses as it would be to reduce Haydn to a servile fulfiller of his prince's wishes.

Haydn was about 50 years active as a composer and it's almost 35 from the "morning, noon, evening" to the 2nd London set. Clearly his late works were seen as powerful, sublime and dramatic in their time. This is obvious from the reviews of the London premieres. But it is also true that 20 years later for Hoffmann Haydn was mostly about Arcadian children playing in green pastures and not about the ineffable realm of spirits one would experience when listening to Beethoven.

So another 200 years later the musician playing or directing Haydn cannot deny what happened since then. But neither should he forget that Haydn's music was the Avantgarde of its day.

[Gurn Blanston]

Isn't there a person on the forum with a quote that baroque means after all "too much"? Is baroque music about reflecting a pre-established harmony of the universe or rather about fancy and emotions running wild? I think it is always too simplistic to use certain buzzwords for whole stylistic epochs (and of course those epochs are artifacts of vulgar historiography). The Baroque lasted almost 150 years and has very different kinds of music. So has the 19th century and it is about as misleading to claim that "romantic" composers usually saw themselves as  misunderstood geniuses as it would be to reduce Haydn to a servile fulfiller of his prince's wishes.

Haydn was about 50 years active as a composer and it's almost 35 from the "morning, noon, evening" to the 2nd London set. Clearly his late works were seen as powerful, sublime and dramatic in their time. This is obvious from the reviews of the London premieres. But it is also true that 20 years later for Hoffmann Haydn was mostly about Arcadian children playing in green pastures and not about the ineffable realm of spirits one would experience when listening to Beethoven.

So another 200 years later the musician playing or directing Haydn cannot deny what happened since then. But neither should he forget that Haydn's music was the Avant-garde of its day.

I was wondering if anyone would say that about the Baroque. Indeed, it meant, as we would say today, over the top! I personally have, now and always, deplored putting labels on music for just the reasons you cite. The simplistic answers which can be derived after labeling make it difficult to remove them though, So we are stuck. Do you think we can stop using Sturm und Drang for a while, at least until after I die, perhaps? Après moi le déluge...

It is an unfortunate fact of life (that 'time's arrow thing again) that we can't un-hear the music we have heard, which arose and was realized since Haydn's death. Perhaps if we could do so, then the sorts of realizations which don't satisfy our post-Romantic expectations would present an entirely different aspect. If Brüggen doesn't play it like Karajan, it can also be fairly said he doesn't play it like Pinnock or Solomons, and from my perspective, who wants no two credible performances to sound the same, this is a luxury both for the ears and the brain.

I was delighted when Disco took all of this talk to performance thread, although I suppose it is inevitable it ends up here after all.

[Mandryka]

No, I simply said that Brüggen conducts this music as if it were (as it is!) part of the road towards the construction of the Classical style, with the inner logic and self-control that it implies, and not as if it were an exercise of proto-Romanticism.

Believe it or not, I did write what I wrote precisely as a sort of warning to people searching for different things that those provided by Brüggen's performances.

And for the record: IMO, Brüggen is right, both Baroque and Classical style (with clear differences, of course) essentially talk about order in the world, about things put in the right place and not about the uncomfortable position of the artist in the world. Bach and Haydn (for the case, they work out as "representative men") never considered themselves as "misunderstood geniuses". No doubt they had a clear insight of their personal value and a lot of problems, but their entire life had a common denominator and goal: how to accomplish the requirements of their professional duties into a well regulated world (well, Haydn's last years were a bit different, I know). 

You don't like this approach? No surprise because this vision is almost the contrary of presenting Haydn as a sort of John the Baptist, merely preparing the arriving of Beethoven and all that stuff of the "tormented artist" fighting against the world that doesn't understand him.

Therefore, I'm not saying (at all) that Brüggen is doing things against the directions of Haydn, but simply that Brüggen had a solid insight of the complete landscape and he didn't buy the proto-Romantic ticket. And this is powerful because the last quarter the second half of the 18th Century had, of course (and is well documented), its own inner tensions, sorrows and pains to tell, using its own language.

About Chopin? Gould? Nah (almost because of the same reasons aforementioned)... call me mainstream, but I prefer people like Arrau and Rubinstein, or even Pollini or Ashkenazy. 

I forgot to pont out some little non sequiturs in your post here.

It may be true that Haydn had as an objective to discharge his professional duties. It doesn't follow that it was his sole objective, or his dominant objective, or that, even if it was his dominant objective, that he was successful at writing music which was in line with it.

It may have been that the a dominant world picture of his times put order at the heart of things. It doesn't follow that Haydn wasn't expressing what he felt about his world, or that his music was a reflection of that (simplistic) world picture.

I'm speaking generally here about a point in logic, I don't know enough about the history of ideas to comment any further.

[Wakefield]

Unfortunately, I'm in a hurry at this moment (damn family!  ), so by now I'll just say: I know the last messages reflect a feeling popular these days, particularly among clever people interested in the specifics of certain things. But, as a matter of fact, critical thought and scientific research are impossible without general categories. However, general categories and classifications are only instruments. No intelligent man will consider them as an end or goal in themselves. They are just starting points to particular reflections about concrete concerns... That's the case with notions as baroque, classical and romantic; none of them forbids all the distinctions imaginable by the human mind because are just a general guide towards the history of ideas. At least, this is the way as I see this issue.