Haydn's Haus

[SonicMan46]

This book just got dropped into the mailbox by the seller:



853 pages!!   

I should receive it next week, it was recommended to me by Denis McCaldin, choral guru and Haydnist.   

Hi Gurn - now I love Papa Joe, as you know, but that nearly thousand page book would be a torture for me! 

NOW, not that I dislike Masses - just checked my database and own 15 discs of Haydn masses and enjoy - I grew up as a Catholic and assume that most (if not all - not sure) of these works are to the same liturgy of that church (please correct me since I've not devoted a lot of reading time to these works vs. simply listening to the wonderful music) - SO, I will be VERY interested in what this book will further add to the great details of your thread - looking forward to your comments!  Dave

[Gurn Blanston]

Hi Gurn - now I love Papa Joe, as you know, but that nearly thousand page book would be a torture for me! 

NOW, not that I dislike Masses - just checked my database and own 15 discs of Haydn masses and enjoy - I grew up as a Catholic and assume that most (if not all - not sure) of these works are to the same liturgy of that church (please correct me since I've not devoted a lot of reading time to these works vs. simply listening to the wonderful music) - SO, I will be VERY interested in what this book will further add to the great details of your thread - looking forward to your comments!  Dave

Hi, Dave,

Yes, all Roman Catholic. Austria, you know. I'll be honest with you, I can do 853 pages standing on my head. The cumulative total of Landon's Chronicle and Works is around 4500, and I have actually read much of it several times. 

I'm not entirely sure what this book will add; it is sort of like firing a rocket into space; you do it on spec and hope there is a payoff. What I'm really hoping is that there are some chapters devoted to the 'lesser sacred works', since there is little or nothing about them in the books I have now. Also, as you know, one of my 'sub-hobbies' is collecting (read: learning about) 18th century Austrian sacred music, and it would be hard to imagine a book of this scope treating Haydn's output as though it existed in a vacuum, so it will be another source of learning material there, too.

Anyway, my Haydn library rivals many major institutions, so filling a glaring gap can only be a good thing, yes? 

[Karl Henning]

Anyway, my Haydn library rivals many major institutions [...]

That, I have long suspected!  May be the most significant Haydn library south of Raleigh-Durham . . . .

[Gurn Blanston]

Who knows why some works get praised to the heavens while others, of equal quality, tend to gather dust on the shelves? This week I look at a couple of symphonies that tend to get rather dustier than they deserve. Dear god, if they had only gotten a name!!   

The competition must be fierce!

Check it out if you like,
Thanks,

[Karl Henning]

Who knows why some works get praised to the heavens while others, of equal quality, tend to gather dust on the shelves? This week I look at a couple of symphonies that tend to get rather dustier than they deserve. Dear god, if they had only gotten a name!!   

The competition must be fierce!

Check it out if you like,
Thanks,

Most enjoyable post (and the music, too, of course).

[Gurn Blanston]

Most enjoyable post (and the music, too, of course).

Thanks, amigo. That one was hard, due to the paucity of information! 

[Jo498]

#90 is one of my favorite pieces. I think I prefer it to about half of the "London" set and it certainly deserves to be better known. #91 is less spectacular, a witty piece with the little counterpoint tricks already in the main theme. But I like it quite a bit as well (also the trill apotheosis at the end of the slow mvmt) and there finally is a blazing recording by Jacobs (with the deservedly famous #92).

[Gurn Blanston]

#90 is one of my favorite pieces. I think I prefer it to about half of the "London" set and it certainly deserves to be better known. #91 is less spectacular, a witty piece with the little counterpoint tricks already in the main theme. But I like it quite a bit as well (also the trill apotheosis at the end of the slow mvmt) and there finally is a blazing recording by Jacobs (with the deservedly famous #92).

Just the reason I wonder why there isn't more love to spare for these 2 symphonies (along with #89). I find them most enjoyable, including the Jacobs recording. I'm telling you, if they just had a name...

[Jo498]

Didn't some people in the forum come up with goofy names for several hitherto unnamed Haydn symphonies?

[Gurn Blanston]

Didn't some people in the forum come up with goofy names for several hitherto unnamed Haydn symphonies?

Phrased that way, it is difficult to agree with you... 

Personally, I hate named works. But the practice does seem to add to their popularity. For example, #55 (The Schoolmaster) certainly outstrips its (far better IMO) mate, #57 in popularity. And the name is meaningless. Also, again IMO, #43 over #42. Mercury? Seriously?   

[Sergeant Rock]

For example, #55 (The Schoolmaster) certainly outstrips its (far better IMO) mate, #57 in popularity. And the name is meaningless. Also, again IMO, #43 over #42. Mercury? Seriously?   

100 over 99, just because it's nicknamed the Warmonger? Insanity!!  That's why we all have to promote 99 as the "Cat" 

Sarge

[Wakefield]

Personally, I hate named works.

I never thought to live to read this. 

[Sergeant Rock]

Didn't some people in the forum come up with goofy names for several hitherto unnamed Haydn symphonies?

The best was Lethe's name for 78: The Stumbling Goat. And she was serious 

Sarge

[Gurn Blanston]

100 over 99, just because it's nicknamed the Warmonger? Insanity!!  That's why we all have to promote 99 as the "Cat" 

Sarge

  Yeah, but 100 actually deserves its fame, name or no. Of course, 99 is no slouch.   

[Gurn Blanston]

I never thought to live to read this. 

Note though, you never see me use names, unless it is just a point to clarify for someone who doesn't know Hoboken or Opus numbers. I do accept the 1 or 2 actual names Haydn put out there though. Like Tempora mutantur.  0:)

[Gurn Blanston]

The best was Lethe's name for 78: The Stumbling Goat. And she was serious 

Sarge

Yeah, but that's just a great name for anything from tone poems to stumbling goats! 

[Wakefield]

Note though, you never see me use names, unless it is just a point to clarify for someone who doesn't know Hoboken or Opus numbers. I do accept the 1 or 2 actual names Haydn put out there though. Like Tempora mutantur.  0:)

Oh, yes! It has been perfectly clear for years now. I was just referring the difference between hating the named works themselves and hating the act of assigning them a nickname. Bad joke because it needed an explanation. 

[Dancing Divertimentian]

The best was Lethe's name for 78: The Stumbling Goat. And she was serious 

Sarge

[Sergeant Rock]

Like Tempora mutantur.  0:)

...yeah he wouldn't be nearly as popular without that nickname.

I do like most of the nicknames though, especially the ones that make me instantly hear the music in my head (e.g., Bear, Hen, Clock, Military, Surprise). Not so important today, when I know the music more intimately, but a big help keeping track of the immensity of Haydn's output in my early days.

Sarge

[Jo498]

54,56,57 are all more impressive than that stuffy old schoolmaster for me. I also prefer 42, 46 and 47 to 43.

Regarding 88-92, it's to some extent understandable that the towering masterpieces 88 and 92 overshadow the other three because it is hard to deny that these 2 belong to the very best works of Haydn (and their slow movements are more impressive than even most of the London bunch). But for 90 is almost in their class and while I'd put 91 and the somewhat lighter 89 somewhat below that exalted bunch I do not think they are lesser pieces compared to e.g. 87 or 96 both of which are far better known because they belong to the Paris and London sets.