Haydn's Haus

[Gurn Blanston]

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 90 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.

Agreed. That's all I was wanting to say anyway. It is hard to assert that 88 & 92 don't deserve accolades; they are indisputable masterpieces. This doesn't make everything else around them terrible though, which is how they get treated many times.  It is along the lines of something I've often thought when people say they want new music: listen to some Haydn; I bet 80% of it is totally new to you! (not anyone here, of course; we've heard it all!) 

[Jo498]

BTW I finally got the Kloecker/Consortium Classicum disc (cpo) with the 6 Notturni and it exceeded my expectations.
I think the organ positive (or what they are using) works extremely well and I prefer this to the 2 pieces I had heard in the oboe/flute? versions. The music is light but nevertheless mature Haydn with lots of wit, charming details and so on and completely spoiled me for two other discs with woodwind music I also got a few weeks ago, namely JC Bach's woodwind "symphonies" (w/ Consortium classicum) and Krommer's octets (with Sabine Meyer and friends) that seem rather trite in comparison despite being well played and reasonably entertaining.

[Gurn Blanston]

BTW I finally got the Kloecker/Consortium Classicum disc (cpo) with the 6 Notturni and it exceeded my expectations.
I think the organ positive (or what they are using) works extremely well and I prefer this to the 2 pieces I had heard in the oboe/flute? versions. The music is light but nevertheless mature Haydn with lots of wit, charming details and so on and completely spoiled me for two other discs with woodwind music I also got a few weeks ago, namely JC Bach's woodwind "symphonies" (w/ Consortium classicum) and Krommer's octets (with Sabine Meyer and friends) that seem rather trite in comparison despite being well played and reasonably entertaining.

That was my very first disk of the notturnos, and it hasn't been surpassed by getting all of the others since then. I agree, the little organ positiv sounds very fine, but also Haydn's original orchestration included clarinets, which are also missing in the 'London' versions usually heard. These must have been most entertaining works at their original venue! 

[Jo498]

yes, it's the sound created by the mix of the little organ with the clarinets that I love. I expected not much more than a curiosity but it's both lot of fun and also more substantial music than I would have thought.

[Madiel]

I use a name if it clearly comes from the music. I mean, "Military" and "Clock" in particular... there's just no way those names weren't going to come up.

[Gurn Blanston]

I use a name if it clearly comes from the music. I mean, "Military" and "Clock" in particular... there's just no way those names weren't going to come up.

Someone (Sarge?) mentioned earlier that the names were handy for him when he was a newbie, which is exactly the mnemonic sort of usage you are implying here. 100 & 101 are also not too hard to remember, though... or 94, 92, 45, 22....   

[Jo498]

Of course it is not really the "fault" of the the named symphonies that their neighbors are not as well known. But often it starts some kind of self-amplifying process leading to even more prominence of the named and famous works and pushing some of the others even further into obscurity. Very few Haydn symphonies have defied such a development, the most famous without a name is probably 88 (because all the unnamed "London" symphonies still belong to the London set which is almost like an individual name).
It's even worse with the string quartets, I think. And it affects recordings and even reissues of recordings. The Eder Quartet recorded op.76 complete for Teldec in the 1980s and the complete set also appeared on CD later on but it is almost impossible to find whereas there have been about five different re-issues by Teldec/warner of the three named pieces (Fifths, Emperor, Sunrise).
And there are uncountable "Larks" and "Riders" but the rest of opp.71,74 and 64 is not all that well covered on disc.

It's worst with the piano trios where I do not find the piece that is by far the most famous and included in almost every 1-2 disc anthology, the "gypsy' trio" G major, all that remarkable, there's probably a dozen Haydn trios I clearly prefer

[Gurn Blanston]

Of course it is not really the "fault" of the the named symphonies that their neighbors are not as well known. But often it starts some kind of self-amplifying process leading to even more prominence of the named and famous works and pushing some of the others even further into obscurity. Very few Haydn symphonies have defied such a development, the most famous without a name is probably 88 (because all the unnamed "London" symphonies still belong to the London set which is almost like an individual name).
It's even worse with the string quartets, I think. And it affects recordings and even reissues of recordings. The Eder Quartet recorded op.76 complete for Teldec in the 1980s and the complete set also appeared on CD later on but it is almost impossible to find whereas there have been about five different re-issues by Teldec/warner of the three named pieces (Fifths, Emperor, Sunrise).
And there are uncountable "Larks" and "Riders" but the rest of opp.71,74 and 64 is not all that well covered on disc.

It's worst with the piano trios where I do not find the piece that is by far the most famous and included in almost every 1-2 disc anthology, the "gypsy' trio" G major, all that remarkable, there's probably a dozen Haydn trios I clearly prefer

And this is where we arrive at the root of the issue for me. There is only so much 'Haydn Interest' to go around, practically speaking, and 75% of it (at least) is lavished on those works which are named. This is not only on record, witness the sets of 'named symphonies' for example, but also in live performance. I have only been to 2 recitals which included Haydn quartets, one of them included 'The Emperor' and the other 'The Lark'. So when people looking at music on a macroscopic scale complain that only the familiar gets played, well the same is true on a microcosmic scale, done to 1 composer in only a few genres, only a few pieces. 

Sad really, and one of the big reasons I write so much, to try to encourage people to listen to something they haven't heard before and discover the off-the-path works too.



PS - you don't like 'The Letter V' for #88? It is so descriptive!  Well, descriptive of the sort of desperation which drives people to name things.

[Karl Henning]

V for Vavoom!

[Sergeant Rock]

This is not only on record, witness the sets of 'named symphonies' for example, but also in live performance. I have only been to 2 recitals which included Haydn quartets, one of them included 'The Emperor' and the other 'The Lark'.

True. in 50 years of concert going I've only heard a few items outside the obvious (i.e., named) symphonies

Aldo Ceccato/Cleveland No.75
Lane/Cleveland No.90

compared to the named:

Szell/Cleveland No.94 "Surprise"
Szell/Cleveland No. 96 "Miracle"
Welser-Möst/LPO No.101 "Clock"
Celibidache/Stuttgart No.104 "London"
Boulez/Cleveland No.26 "Lamentatione"
Kunzel/Cleveland No.45 "Farewell"
Dorati/Cleveland No.60 "Il Distratto"
Kubelik/Cleveland No.98 (one of the Londons)

The only Haydn quartet I've heard live is Op.77/1, not named but still an obvious choice? In any case, it's my favorite; I consider myself lucky to have heard it.

Sarge

[Karl Henning]

We're all affirming that the nicknames are an easy magnet, and that worthy music suffers from un-nicknamed neglect.

Oh, I didn't add anything, did I?  0:)

[Gurn Blanston]

We're all affirming that the nicknames are an easy magnet, and that worthy music suffers from un-nicknamed neglect.

Oh, I didn't add anything, did I?  0:)

That's OK, Karl, no one expected you to.      But anyway, yes we are.   

True. in 50 years of concert going I've only heard a few items outside the obvious (i.e., named) symphonies

Aldo Ceccato/Cleveland No.75
Lane/Cleveland No.90

compared to the named:

Szell/Cleveland No.94 "Surprise"
Szell/Cleveland No. 96 "Miracle"
Welser-Möst/LPO No.101 "Clock"
Celibidache/Stuttgart No.104 "London"
Boulez/Cleveland No.26 "Lamentatione"
Kunzel/Cleveland No.45 "Farewell"
Dorati/Cleveland No.60 "Il Distratto"
Kubelik/Cleveland No.98 (one of the Londons)

The only Haydn quartet I've heard live is Op.77/1, not named but still an obvious choice? In any case, it's my favorite; I consider myself lucky to have heard it.

Sarge

QED 

[Karl Henning]

That's OK, Karl, no one expected you to.     

Yikes, a good job I knows we're all mates here 

[Gurn Blanston]

Yikes, a good job I knows we're all mates here 

  If your friends can't jab you, who can?    0:)

[Pat B]

The obvious solution is to give everything a nickname. That way, no pieces will be underperformed due to not having a nickname.

[Sergeant Rock]

The obvious solution is to give everything a nickname. That way, no pieces will be underperformed due to not having a nickname.

Some in the Haus are attempting just that 

Sarge

[Gurn Blanston]

The obvious solution is to give everything a nickname. That way, no pieces will be underperformed due to not having a nickname.

How will you remember all those names??

Just FYI; the plague even extends to the Baryton Trios!    #97, the so called 'Birthday Trio' appears on every single baryton trio disk I have, except in multiple sets where it only appears on one disk of the set. I personally own 10 versions of it. Want one?   

[Brian]

Hmm, I know I have seen the Pavel Haas Quartet perform a Haydn quartet, but can't remember which one. My listening log at home would contain the answer.

The PHQ toured last year with Op. 76 No. 5 in D.

[Karl Henning]

Hmm, I know I have seen the Pavel Haas Quartet perform a Haydn quartet, but can't remember which one. My listening log at home would contain the answer.

The PHQ toured last year with Op. 76 No. 5 in D.

The only time I recall hearing a quartet performed live, it was the Brentano Quartet (on a program which included the Schoenberg Ode to Napoleon Buonaparte and the première of the Wuorinen Second Pf Quintet) playing the "Fifths."

[Camphy]

Although I do not disagree with the general points being made, my own experiences have been slightly different. I have been to four chamber recitals featuring a Haydn quartet, and none of those quartets were of the very popular group: SQ 76/1, 76/5, 71/1 & 50/2. Granted, 76/5 has a nickname, but it does not belong to the most popular quartets of that opus.
Unfortunately, at the time when I heard SQ 50/2 (played by the Quatuor Mosaiques) I hadn't explored Haydn at all. While now a Haydn quartet would be a standout feature for me on almost any chamber programme, my reason back then for attending the recital was a performance of Beethoven's Op. 135. I remember being impressed by the Beethoven performance, but I can't recall anything of hearing the Haydn quartet.