Haydn's Haus

[Gurn Blanston]

Okay, now I'd know the answer to this if I'd been paying attention in class, but...

How much does the size of the orchestra vary from Haydn's early symphonies to the late ones (Paris onwards)?

I know he had a larger orchestra in Paris, I just don't know how big the difference is. Or how much variation there was across the Esterhazy years.

The reason I'm asking is because I'm in sampling mode, and listened to some extracts of Hogwood's set on iTunes, and my first thought on trying on some works around symphonies 21 & 22 was "gosh, that sounds a bit thin". And for a minute I thought I was going to find myself in agreement with the fabled Mr Hurwitz...

But when I tried something composed a little later, and it felt like it was a fuller sound. I don't know, maybe it was just a case of my ear adjusting.

And then I listened to Symphony No.1 and it sounded really full!

I can give you exacter numbers later, but early on (Morzin) we are looking at 13 or so players, then early Esterházy maybe 15-17. That grew through the years to the low 20's, which was all he needed before Paris, where they had 50+ players, and London which was even more. So for 21 & 22, which date from 1761 or so, a proper orchestra in Haydn's terms was maybe 15 players. Thin for sure, but all it was written for, 2 oboe parts, 2 horns, 2 violin parts, viola, cello and violone. #22 has trumpets and timpani too, IIRC. It might have, for example, 4 or 5 violins playing the 2 parts, but who can know? 

[Jo498]

If you have a volume of the Hogwood set, there are essays by a musicologist (Webster?) who writes about the orchestra size and Hogwood usually tries to get this right as well. It does sound a bit thin (which might also be due to recording techniques). But if you have his 31 (with the horns) this is very good.
Strings in Esterhazy were something like 3-3-1-1-1 or maybe a little more (or even one violin less). This probably varied a little but as Gurn writes, about 15-20 players.

Of course these pieces were not restricted to Esterhazy but were soon played throughout Europe. BUt except for special occasions most orchestras were probably similarly small.

If Mozart's famous letter about the Paris orchestra is correct, this was more than three times that many players. According to Mozart 40 violins and 10 basses, so this would amount to 60-70 string players, double woodwind, then 2 horns, 2 trumpets and timpani (those would not need doubling).

Most modern recordings have more players for the early symphonies, e.g. strings 6-6-4-3-2 or so, but would use almost the same size for the Paris and London symphonies.

[Madiel]

Thanks for the comments folks, very helpful.

Time and again when I listen to Haydn, I end up thinking "wow, what a great composer". It's Symphony No.92 today.

[Gurn Blanston]

Thanks for the comments folks, very helpful.

Time and again when I listen to Haydn, I end up thinking "wow, what a great composer". It's Symphony No.92 today.

Hard not to think that when listening to #92, one of the Great Symphonies. It was no accident he used it as his doctoral thesis at Oxford, at the time it was one of the 3 finest symphonies ever written! 

[Karl Henning]

Hard not to think that when listening to #92, one of the Great Symphonies. It was no accident he used it as his doctoral thesis at Oxford, at the time it was one of the 3 finest symphonies ever written! 

That's our "Papa":  never one to just phone it in! 

[Florestan]

Wow!

Wow!

Wow!

First listening, work and performance, while driving for an hour and a half to my in--laws home and I´m only halfway through it. Now there is another hour and a half of triple wow awaiting for me for the return driving.

To the already impressive list of Haydn´s achievements I can safely add:

1. the author of an opera which is at least 25 - 30 years ahead of its time
2. the unsung father of belcanto, who could have taught a thing or two even to Bellini or Donizetti
2. the unsung predecessor of Rossini

I. Am. Floored.

[Karl Henning]

Get up off the floor and drive! 

[Florestan]

Get up off the floor and drive! 

I stopped driving long time ago, much to my chagrin because I had to stop the music, too. 

[Sergeant Rock]

I. Am. Floored.

Hello, Florestan the Floored 

Sarge

[Florestan]

Hello, Florestan the Floored 

Aye, aye, Sargeant, Sir! 

[Gurn Blanston]

Wow!

Wow!

Wow!

First listening, work and performance, while driving for an hour and a half to my in--laws home and I´m only halfway through it. Now there is another hour and a half of triple wow awaiting for me for the return driving.

To the already impressive list of Haydn´s achievements I can safely add:

1. the author of an opera which is at least 25 - 30 years ahead of its time
2. the unsung father of belcanto, who could have taught a thing or two even to Bellini or Donizetti
2. the unsung predecessor of Rossini

I. Am. Floored.

I wrote a couple of articles about this opera, the background and all:

The story of the opera

I think it is super, and I'm not even the world's greatest opera fan! Of course, the biggest knock against Haydn's operas is that he isn't Mozart. Of course, 99.9999% of all other opera composers aren't Mozart either. 

Anyway, I'm delighted you share my pleasure.

[Florestan]

The story of the opera

I can vivdly imagine the storm, the Prince, his anger and the ensuing confusion of his Grenadiers and other employees... That in itself would be a very good topic for an opera buffa... say, La tempesta di Estoras, ossia Le precauzione inutile. 

Of course, the biggest knock against Haydn's operas is that he isn't Mozart. Of course, 99.9999% of all other opera composers aren't Mozart either. 

You kidding? No Mozart opera is ahead of its time musically, --- but take separate numbers from "La fedelta premiata" and present them anonimously to unsuspecting listeners: if they wouldn´t guess Rossini, Bellini or Donizetti then I know nothing about opera in general and belcanto in particular. 

[Karl Henning]

No Mozart opera is ahead of its time musically, --- but take separate numbers from "La fedelta premiata" and present them anonimously to unsuspecting listeners: if they wouldn´t guess Rossini, Bellini or Donizetti then I know nothing about opera in general and belcanto in particular. 

Well, but it may be that both Haydn, in sounding like Rossini, Bellini or Donizetti before the fact, and Mozart, in sounding like himself, wrote opera which was ahead of the respective time of each 

[Florestan]

Well, but it may be that both Haydn, in sounding like Rossini, Bellini or Donizetti before the fact, and Mozart, in sounding like himself, wrote opera which was ahead of the respective time of each 

Well, yes, right --- but there´s nobody more a fanatic than a new convert.   

[Karl Henning]

Enthusiasm is always in season, here in da Haus!   0:)

[Wakefield]

You kidding? No Mozart opera is ahead of its time musically, --- but take separate numbers from "La fedelta premiata" and present them anonimously to unsuspecting listeners: if they wouldn´t guess Rossini, Bellini or Donizetti then I know nothing about opera in general and belcanto in particular. 

I have expressed this opinion other times: I don't believe in "progress" in music or in art in general. Perfection is the full realization of a certain form, not the anticipation of forms to come. Even a mediocre artist is able to anticipate some forms of the future.

Additionally, although I'm not an opera fan, I agree with Gurn about Mozart being a supreme master of this genre. I think the reason is that Mozart's output, even the instrumental part, has a certain constant cantabile feature (this is a feeling of mine and I can't explain it properly). On the other hand, the prevalent feature of Haydn isn't cantabile, but "conversational", intended to express ideas always changing, jokes, deep feelings and so on, not always easy to put into the adequate metric.

[Karl Henning]

I have expressed this opinion other times: I don't believe in "progress" in music or in art in general. Perfection is the full realization of a certain form, not the anticipation of forms to come.

To I don't believe in "progress" in music or in art in general . . . yes, and no.  If we think of Progress merely in terms of building upon / benefiting from the work already in existence, certainly.  If we lapse into thinking of Progress as "necessarily better than what was before," frequently problematic, and often outright false.

To Perfection is the full realization of a certain form, not the anticipation of forms to come . . . perfectly true, and expertly phrased.

[Gurn Blanston]

Yes, progress is such an odd word to try to cope with, because it leads to expectations which are not always met, but doesn't define whether those expectations were realistic to begin with. It is especially true with Haydn's earlier works, which in and of themselves were complete fulfillments of the state of the art such as it was at the time. Often they are ascribed to such inappropriate categories as 'juvenilia' when they are anything but that.

As for Haydn's operas, a fair comparison would be, instead, to the works of Anfossi, Cimarosa, Salieri, or any of another dozen recognized masters of dramma giocoso from that time period. Haydn's works are equal to the best of them. It always helps to remember one thing: by the time Mozart wrote Le Nozze di Figaro, Haydn had already written all the operas he was going to write except for an opera seria for London. So there really is no reasonable comparison. One could ask 'what if Haydn had heard ...Figaro before writing another opera, would it have changed the outcome?'. And of course, we could never know, but knowing Haydn, he would have absorbed whatever good ideas he saw in Figaro and used them to his advantage. He would have been a fool to do otherwise, and he was never that!

[Karl Henning]

There's also a valid sense of Progress within a given composer's career;  that said, it may be a forest, not a straight line . . . .

[Wakefield]

There's also a valid sense of Progress within a given composer's career;  that said, it may be a forest, not a straight line . . . .

I don't like the notion of "progress" because it usually involves the assumption that, in a timeline, "the next thing is always a better thing."

From a philosophical point of view, one of the greatest ideals of the XVIII Century (Haydn's century) was the "indefinite progress": the view of human history as a triumphal march towards perfection. But, for instance, after the horrors of nazism and stalinism, just to mention two notorious examples, it's quite difficult to state the superiority of the last century compared to the previous ones. Even into a single human life, sometimes the better things are placed at the very beginning, not at the end or in the middle, and notoriously many geniuses are born almost as a "finished product", so even their early works are "mature" (as Gurn suggested previously).

But I recognize that, at some extent, this is just probably a personal linguistic preference.