Haydn's Haus

[Gurn Blanston]

I always found that op.50 was at most a very indirect reaction to Mozart's quartets dedicated to Haydn. While op.33 was overall rather short and "light" (compared to op.20), Mozart took it as an inspiration for large scale serious works, sometimes with almost operatic gestures. Take for instance the "siciliano" variations in op.33/5 compared to the dead serious variation finale in K 421 d minor (which is also about twice as long).

So Haydn now himself wrote works on a larger scale and sometimes in more dramatic mood but not as expansive as Mozart's, rather focussing on his particular strengths: dense, and often monothematic sonata movements (despite sometimes very ordinary, "trivial" material, like the first movement of the B flat major) and variations (4 of 6 slow movements in op.50 have elements of variations).
But he might have done this anyway, even without Mozart, because in retrospect the terse and comical op.33 is the exception (in some respects).

I completely agree with this. Especially the last sentence. Somewhere, a long time ago ,someone came up with the idea of Op 50 being a response to Mozart, and ever since then, some people are intent on 'proving' it. Impossible, of course, even if it were true.

[Gurn Blanston]

No, I was wrong to say it's excruciating. Or rather, if I listen on a cheap piece of portable equipment (like I did first time) it is, but not through a good system. Really people who write reviews should say what equipment they're using!

Anyway I relistened to op 50/2 through the good system and thought it was excellent, particularly in the finale, but really everywhere - a quartet which is not so easy to get off the page IMO.

I wonder what got into Haydn to write such a dark piece as op 50/4 - is this the most uncomfortable music Haydn wrote? That icy change in harmony in the middle of the minuet, quite extraordinarily uncomfortable. I mention it partly because I think The Lindsays were right in their element in that one - there's a live recording as well as the set

Agreed.

I'm not really sure about why the f# quartet presents that mood. I would think that Haydn wouldn't be averse to spanning a range of emotions within the opus. It isn't as though the works were intended to stand alone, rather, they were intended to be played as a cycle. I read a fascinating essay on this topic very recently, and I'll cite it here when I get home. There are many places where thoughts which are begun in one work are completed in a different one. I am supposing that an evening at a 'quartet party' was spent exploring an entire opus as though it was one long work. Thus, a balance of moods and thoughts. Just an idea...

[Mandryka]

Agreed.

I'm not really sure about why the f# quartet presents that mood. I would think that Haydn wouldn't be averse to spanning a range of emotions within the opus. It isn't as though the works were intended to stand alone, rather, they were intended to be played as a cycle. I read a fascinating essay on this topic very recently, and I'll cite it here when I get home. There are many places where thoughts which are begun in one work are completed in a different one. I am supposing that an evening at a 'quartet party' was spent exploring an entire opus as though it was one long work. Thus, a balance of moods and thoughts. Just an idea...

That's an extremely interesting idea, please pursue.

[Gurn Blanston]

That's an extremely interesting idea, please pursue.

I will, more later (I'm at work ). It's actually something I intend to write an essay about, but I may not be knowledgeable enough for that, so tossing what I know in here will allow for some discussion. 

[Gurn Blanston]

That's an extremely interesting idea, please pursue.

Well, time is pressing right now, but here is the book in which the essay appeared that started me thinking about all this:

[asin]0964031752[/asin]

The essay is called Six of one: The Opus Concept in the Eighteenth Century by Elaine Sisman. Possibly this book is available to you at the library, or mayhap you already have it. Lots of interesting essays in it, of which this is but one. Sisman is a well-known Haydn expert, but the essay itself is not specifically about him, just incidentally.

I need to re-read it, and also find some other documentation, but I will be looking for it.   

[Madiel]

I don't think there's any doubt that groups of 6 works were considered exactly that: a group.  The number recurs so often in the works of so many composers that it's clear it was seen as the equivalent of an 'album' for 20th century pop music.

[Mandryka]

Well, time is pressing right now, but here is the book in which the essay appeared that started me thinking about all this:

[asin]0964031752[/asin]

The essay is called Six of one: The Opus Concept in the Eighteenth Century by Elaine Sisman. Possibly this book is available to you at the library, or mayhap you already have it. Lots of interesting essays in it, of which this is but one. Sisman is a well-known Haydn expert, but the essay itself is not specifically about him, just incidentally.

I need to re-read it, and also find some other documentation, but I will be looking for it.   

Ah yes, I remember seeing her mentioned by Beghin in connection with the Auerbruggen sonatas. There's an uncomfortable sonata there (36), I mention it because of the f sharp minor quartet.

Does everyone see the similarity in mood between the quartet and the sonata? Maybe I'm fooling myself. Anyway, it would be intersting to make a list of Haydn's uncomfortable music, just to confound those who say he was always cheerful.

[Mandryka]

I don't think there's any doubt that groups of 6 works were considered exactly that: a group.  The number recurs so often in the works of so many composers that it's clear it was seen as the equivalent of an 'album' for 20th century pop music.

I think the idea is that the parts respond to each other, converse with each other.

[Jo498]

I would have to re-listen to the menuetto movement but I never found the f# minor quartet all that "uncomfortable". E.g. the first movement is vigorous but despite the "Beethoven 5th" beginning it goes to the major mode fairly soon. Overall a dramatic piece but not depressive or fatalist, I think.
(For me I guess the most dramatic or uncomfortable quartet is the g minor from op.20. Another movement I find "awkward" is the finale of op.17/4 (c minor).

As for the bundles of six (like eggs and beer bottles), this apparently started because publishing was expensive and buyers of music wanted to get their money worth. The concerti and sonatas around 1700 were shorter so it was usually a dozen to each publication. Some of them (e.g. all of Handel's except op.6 and also Haydn's op.1+2) were compiled by publishers.

For others, as for all Haydn quartets from op.9 the composer clearly wanted to show his diversity within a certain framework. Therefore all pieces in different keys etc. (The most "regular" case is op.33 with two different "patterns" for movement sequence and then a certain variety within these patterns as well. E.g. op.33, 5 has a 6/8 finale and a 2/4 first movement whereas #6 begins with a 6/8 movement and closes with a 2/4 finale. Both have the slow movement in the minor mode whereas the other 4 don't etc.

But I do not think that all six works of an opus were supposed to be played in a row or on one evening or so.

[Mandryka]

I would have to re-listen to the menuetto movement but I never found the f# minor quartet all that "uncomfortable". E.g. the first movement is vigorous but despite the "Beethoven 5th" beginning it goes to the major mode fairly soon. Overall a dramatic piece but not depressive or fatalist, I think.
(For me I guess the most dramatic or uncomfortable quartet is the g minor from op.20. Another movement I find "awkward" is the finale of op.17/4 (c minor).

As for the bundles of six (like eggs and beer bottles), this apparently started because publishing was expensive and buyers of music wanted to get their money worth. The concerti and sonatas around 1700 were shorter so it was usually a dozen to each publication. Some of them (e.g. all of Handel's except op.6 and also Haydn's op.1+2) were compiled by publishers.

For others, as for all Haydn quartets from op.9 the composer clearly wanted to show his diversity within a certain framework. Therefore all pieces in different keys etc. (The most "regular" case is op.33 with two different "patterns" for movement sequence and then a certain variety within these patterns as well. E.g. op.33, 5 has a 6/8 finale and a 2/4 first movement whereas #6 begins with a 6/8 movement and closes with a 2/4 finale. Both have the slow movement in the minor mode whereas the other 4 don't etc.

But I do not think that all six works of an opus were supposed to be played in a row or on one evening or so.

It's not just the first movement, it's the modulation in the minuet. Bach wrote lots of sets of 6, and for him all numbers are meaningful. 2 lots of the trinity maybe.

Some groups smooth out the uncomfortableness in the quartet, which I think is a shame. Try to hear the Lindsays if you can.

[Gurn Blanston]

As for the bundles of six (like eggs and beer bottles), this apparently started because publishing was expensive and buyers of music wanted to get their money worth. The concerti and sonatas around 1700 were shorter so it was usually a dozen to each publication. Some of them (e.g. all of Handel's except op.6 and also Haydn's op.1+2) were compiled by publishers.

For others, as for all Haydn quartets from op.9 the composer clearly wanted to show his diversity within a certain framework. Therefore all pieces in different keys etc. (The most "regular" case is op.33 with two different "patterns" for movement sequence and then a certain variety within these patterns as well. E.g. op.33, 5 has a 6/8 finale and a 2/4 first movement whereas #6 begins with a 6/8 movement and closes with a 2/4 finale. Both have the slow movement in the minor mode whereas the other 4 don't etc.

But I do not think that all six works of an opus were supposed to be played in a row or on one evening or so.

It is a good rule of thumb to not undersell our forefathers, Jo! Actually selling parts had little if anything to do with choosing 12 as the standard number for opuses. 3 and 6 are only there as factors, and 24 as a multiple, but 12 is the magic number. It's true that Haydn's Op 1 & 2 were compiled by Chardonniere in Paris in 1764, but even then, HE added some non-quartet works (Symphony B and the 2 divertimentos for strings and 2 horns, which he dropped the horn parts from) to make the magic number. It was far more important to them than just selling parts.

Yes, Haydn DID want to show diversity within an opus. Thus his choices of key and mode, as well as a variety of moods. I will ask you just this one logic puzzle question since I don't have time for more right now: if Haydn wanted to show variety within an opus, and he keyed them accordingly, how then does it follow that the works are not supposed to be played together? Variety isn't exposed in a vacuum, there has to be something there to juxtapose it against other than your dim memory of what something sounded like a few weeks ago when you heard it last. You didn't have the CD at the house in those day, eh?  Oh sure, you could stream it, but... 

Anyway, I commend this essay to anyone who can get it at their library. It has a nice section about Bach and Corelli too.

[Jo498]

The variety was shown on a more abstract level, for the players of the music who would play the whole opus within a few weeks or months. And of course also for other composers.
If the essay you mention has historical sources that show that it was customary to play all six of an opus in one sitting, I stand corrected. But I think the main reasons were related to publishing not to the practice of playing. There are several cases when Mozart only wrote three or less of a planned opus of 6 pieces. I think this applies to the "Prussian" quartets and the piano quartets (only 2).

I seem to recall that when some of op.71/74 were played in London concerts, those concerts were the usually crazy mix, including one or two symphonies, a concerto, a couple of arias and also a piano solo or a string quartet. Not six symphonies or six quartets all night long.

[Gurn Blanston]

The variety was shown on a more abstract level, for the players of the music who would play the whole opus within a few weeks or months. And of course also for other composers.
If the essay you mention has historical sources that show that it was customary to play all six of an opus in one sitting, I stand corrected. But I think the main reasons were related to publishing not to the practice of playing. There are several cases when Mozart only wrote three or less of a planned opus of 6 pieces. I think this applies to the "Prussian" quartets and the piano quartets (only 2).

That is what Mozart produced in the long run, but if you read his letters concerning them, they were planned to be sets of 3 or 6. He just didn't finish them. His first 6 sonatas, he mentions many times in his letters to Leopold as 'I played my 6 sonatas at Cannabich's...' and 'I played my 6 sonatas last night...'.

I seem to recall that when some of op.71/74 were played in London concerts, those concerts were the usually crazy mix, including one or two symphonies, a concerto, a couple of arias and also a piano solo or a string quartet. Not six symphonies or six quartets all night long.

The so called Op 54/55 and 71/74 were both composed as sets of 6. They were separated by publishers (sort of the opposite to what you are saying!). Originally, Op 64 & 76 were also broken into 2 sets of 3 by publishers. Op 77 was intended to be a set of 3, but Op 103 was never finished.

ALL large public concerts were set up like the London concerts back then. I have some lists of works played, even in Vienna in the 1780s which are set up that way. The only difference in London was that it was the only place to ever have string quartets performed on a stage in front of an audience, much the way they are done now. At the much more typical Viennese and Parisian salons, they would have set up in a room full of people who either listened or didn't as they saw fit. 

[Mandryka]

As far as I can see just by looking at extracts from Beghin's new book on the web, the key idea in Sisman's paper, tertiary rhetoric, is independent of whether the pieces were actually played together or indeed whether they were intended by the composer to be played in a single sitting. It's a semantic idea -- basically saying that the works in a single opus may refer to each other and respond to each other, echo each other  and be inspired by each other, that sort of thing.

It sounds like something very new to me. I've never heard about this for early music -- sets of suites or sets of preludes or fugues for example. Nor for later music -- even though some people claim a holistic quality for Chopin op 28, I don't think it's ever been argued for.

[Gurn Blanston]

As far as I can see just by looking at extracts from Beghin's new book on the web, the key idea in Sisman's paper, tertiary rhetoric, is independent of whether the pieces were actually played together or indeed whether they were intended by the composer to be played in a single sitting. It's a semantic idea -- basically saying that the works in a single opus may refer to each other and respond to each other, echo each other  and be inspired by each other, that sort of thing.

It sounds like something very new to me. I've never heard about this for early music -- sets of suites or sets of preludes or fugues for example. Nor for later music -- even though some people claim a holistic quality for Chopin op 28, I don't think it's ever been argued for.

Which new book is that, Mandrake? I have his book on rhetoric, I believe she contributed an essay to it. Has he written a new one? That would be cool, his last had an eclectic group of essays, very interesting.  She did indeed write an essay on tertiary rhetoric for his first book, but this one is quite different, perhaps an expansion of the other. I'll go back and reread it, it has been over a year and I forget the details.

[Mandryka]

This new book




http://www.amazon.com/Virtual-Haydn-Paradox-Twenty-First-Century-Keyboardist/dp/022615677X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1433876473&sr=8-1&keywords=virtual+haydn+beghin+book

[Gurn Blanston]

This new book




http://www.amazon.com/Virtual-Haydn-Paradox-Twenty-First-Century-Keyboardist/dp/022615677X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1433876473&sr=8-1&keywords=virtual+haydn+beghin+book

Cool! I have both versions of the performances, as well as his other book and some essays he wrote, so it seems like a no-brainer to snap this up! Thanks for pointing it out.

[Madiel]

It sounds like something very new to me. I've never heard about this for early music -- sets of suites or sets of preludes or fugues for example. Nor for later music -- even though some people claim a holistic quality for Chopin op 28, I don't think it's ever been argued for.

...

...You split up Chopin's preludes??

*faints*

[Wakefield]

Cool! I have both versions of the performances, as well as his other book and some essays he wrote, so it seems like a no-brainer to snap this up! Thanks for pointing it out.

That book looks exciting, indeed. I'm even considering the expensive Kindle version. 

[Gurn Blanston]

That book looks exciting, indeed. I'm even considering the expensive Kindle version.

The last one had a great DVD in it with all the examples. Things like that are the one downside of the Kindle version, although maybe not this time. You're right though, cost is almost the same as hardcover!!