Haydn's Haus

[Jo498]

It was just a custom. Of course there are plenty of exceptions (I think Purcell had a collection with 10 sonatas and one Buxtehude and one Handel opus have 7 (probably fault of a publisher); Handel's keyboard suites are 8 in the 1st volume, 9 in the 2nd. And it apparently depends on what kind of works as well. Shorter keyboard pieces would probably not follow that custom.

Haydn kept the 6 groups for string quartets until op.76 but the piano trios are all in groups of 3. CPE Bach has one collection of 4 symphonies, one of 6 (the Hamburg string symphonies) and e.g. the late trios/quatuors are a group of 3.

Mozart got only to a few groups of 6, I think (one each for piano sonatas, two ? of violin sonatas and one of string quartets). He has a few more groups of three (Prussian quartets, last 3 symphonies), but several of two. E.g. two times two string quintets, although he arranged the c minor senerade to make 3 for publication together with the g minor and C major quintet. Many other pieces of Mozart's do not seem to be part of a group.

[Madiel]

Mozart got only to a few groups of 6, I think (one each for piano sonatas, two ? of violin sonatas and one of string quartets).

You might in fact find more groups than that when one looks at publication, rather than composition. Haydn is the same, in that for example there is at least one set of 6 piano sonatas which consists of 5 newly composed works and 1 older one.

We tend to not notice because for these composers the opus numbers, assigned at the time of publication, have largely faded into the background.

[Mandryka]

Mozart <snip>has a few more groups of three (<snip>last 3 symphonies)

Were the last three symphonies a group? (I ask because of Harnoncourt's ideas, which as far as I know he has never justified publically.)

[Gurn Blanston]

You might in fact find more groups than that when one looks at publication, rather than composition. Haydn is the same, in that for example there is at least one set of 6 piano sonatas which consists of 5 newly composed works and 1 older one.

We tend to not notice because for these composers the opus numbers, assigned at the time of publication, have largely faded into the background.

This is very true. I have been surprised several times to find Haydn actually had an opus of 6 published, when I only know the components as individual works. The sonatas you refer to are the 'Auenbruegger Sonatas. The older work was actually just a good start on a first movement, he completed it for this opus and it is a critical part of his plan for how it lays out. Before that, his "Anno 1776" sonatas were also composed and published as a group of 6. Before that, his '6 Sonatas for Prince Esterházy', well... And the 6 Sonatas for Violin & Viola. There are, earlier times, quite a few groups of sonatas (especially trios) which fall out into 6's, but not enough is known about them to say definitively they were intended that way. And there is a group of 3 divertimentos dating as early as 1755 for the same group of instruments, although since they are in F, G & G, I would wonder about the intent.

I have also seen Harnoncourt's thoughts on Mozart's last 3 symphonies. I'll tell you this: if proof were ever found that he intended them to be an interlocked set and played as one long work, I would be the least surprised person in Texas. Whenever I play them, that's how I do, and have done for years, simply because they sound great like that.

[Karl Henning]

Were the last three symphonies a group?

I suppose it depends on what one means by a group.  He certainly wrote these three the same summer, and for performance on the same concert series.  I think it would be peculiarly fussy to maintain that the three symphonies do not comprise some sort of group.

[Karl Henning]

I have also seen Harnoncourt's thoughts on Mozart's last 3 symphonies. I'll tell you this: if proof were ever found that he intended them to be an interlocked set and played as one long work, I would be the least surprised person in Texas.

Even if not, they could make a group, I am sure we agree 

[Mandryka]

When Harnoncourt says they make a group, he means that they are a single work, with a single order, aim, plan, meaning. That's obviously much stronger than saying that, eg, the Auenbrügger sonatas refer to each other, or op 50 shows off Haydn's range of expression. One thing that's very frustrating about Harnoncourt is that he constantly refers to a Telemann oratorio which is supposed to have been the inspiration for Mozart in those last symphonies, but he doesn't spell it out, so I'm left wondering what he knows that I don't.

[Florestan]

When Harnoncourt says they make a group, he means that they are a single work, with a single order, aim, plan, meaning.

Go figure! Mozart was not only a circumstantial Freemoason, he was a devout Cabalist. 

One thing that's very frustrating about Harnoncourt is that he constantly refers to a Telemann oratorio which is supposed to have been the inspiration for Mozart in those last symphonies, but he doesn't spell it out, so I'm left wondering what he knows that I don't.

Apparently, he knows much more marketing techniques than you do. 

[Karl Henning]

When Harnoncourt says they make a group, he means that they are a single work, with a single order, aim, plan, meaning.

My opinion is that this is bizarrely overstating the relation among the three late great symphonies.

[Karl Henning]

But I'll take one (and probably only one) of whatever that gentleman has been drinking!

[Florestan]

But I'll take one (and probably only one) of whatever that gentleman has been drinking!

I´ll have two, just for fun --- and probably make it three to his Schubert´s set. 

[Mandryka]

It wasn't a Telemann oratorio, I was misremembering, it was a CPEB one, Die Auferstehung und Himmelfahrt Jesu.

Is there "tertiary rhetoric" between the three last symphonies?  Do they share ideas in some way?

[Mandryka]

Apparently, he knows much more marketing techniques than you do. 

Marketing is my profession.

[Madiel]

It wasn't a Telemann oratorio, I was misremembering, it was a CPEB one, Die Auferstehung und Himmelfahrt Jesu.

Is there "tertiary rhetoric" between the three last symphonies?  Do they share ideas in some way?

They may well share ideas in some way. They wouldn't be the only pieces to do so. For example, Barry Cooper points out in a perfectly reasonable fashion that there are key relationships within Beethoven's "Razumovsky" string quartets that point to a connection between all 3 of them (as well as them having a Russian theme or Russian-sounding one). And he also traces how movements evolved between the last few string quartets.

What he doesn't do is turn it into a gimmicky discovery.

[Jo498]

I think Harnoncourt is wrong here (although I have not read more of his ideas about the last 3 Mozart symphonies than is easily available online which might be second hand). But it can still be plausible that they form a somewhat tighter "unit" than e.g. Haydn's "Paris" set, especially because for the latter the order of composition is different from today's order and the last piece, #87 is one of the "lighter" ones, the weightiest pieces with elaborate finales are 86 and 82 (and 82 was one of the last of the 6 to be written).

It is not implausible that the extraordinary finale of the "Jupiter" serves in a fashion as finale for the whole triad. Similarly the first piece is the only one with a real and longish introduction. Still, I disagree that the finale of the E flat major is not a proper finale and the g minor should follow immediately. This seems gimmicky to me.

[Karl Henning]

... For example, Barry Cooper points out in a perfectly reasonable fashion that there are key relationships within Beethoven's "Razumovsky" string quartets that point to a connection between all 3 of them (as well as them having a Russian theme or Russian-sounding one).

(Not that you are saying so here, but) the fact that there are key relations between them, does not mean "the composer meant for them all to be performed attacca."


The four Brahms symphonies make a nice harmonic suite (C - D - F - E — incidentally, apparently echoing the last movement of the K.551) but who is going to suggest that the composer meant for the four to be played all together at the same performance?

[Gurn Blanston]

(Not that you are saying so here, but) the fact that there are key relations between them, does not mean "the composer meant for them all to be performed attacca."


The four Brahms symphonies make a nice harmonic suite (C - D - F - E — incidentally, apparently echoing the last movement of the K.551) but who is going to suggest that the composer meant for the four to be played all together at the same performance?

But the Brahms were composed over the course of years; the Mozart one within a space of 6 weeks one summer.

[Karl Henning]

Brahms may have been playing The Long Game! 

[Mandryka]

But the Brahms were composed over the course of years; the Mozart one within a space of 6 weeks one summer.

I once met someone who argued that the four Brahms symphonies should be thought of as a single mega-symphony. She was serious, an academic at Oxford University's Music Dept.

Re tertiary rhetoric, there's a lot of inter-textuality between WTC 2 and WTC 1.

[Gurn Blanston]

Brahms may have been playing The Long Game! 

True enough. He would have never lasted working for the Esterházys!