Haydn's Haus

[Pat B]

And the Haydn was no museum piece.  First violinists do not tap their toes and dance in their seats in company with the second violinist in museum pieces...

In this regard I guess I do want Mozart and Haydn performed similarly.

[Gurn Blanston]

I may be out of my league here (I haven't even heard the Jerusalem recordings) but I read that quote, particularly the part about a computer playing, as referring to things like accents and agogics more than ornaments. Regardless I don't see why we should assume that any stylistic or formal similarity between Mozart's and Haydn's compositions implies that they must necessarily be performed similarly.

True as far as it goes, but back in the day, they were performed by the same people, often back-to-back. One would naturally assume no great divergence in playing style. God only knows what the 19th century did to either or both of them, though.   

There are records (written, not phonograph) of Haydn and Mozart actually playing each others works at quartet parties, once, along with Ditters and Vanhal, and other times with Leopold present and then with Maximilian Stadler (they played Mozart's quintets that time). So stylistically, I would expect, umm... similarity. 

[Jo498]

I did not mean that Haydn and Mozart should be performed exactly the same. But as everybody knows they were contemporaries and friends so it seems preposterous to claim that Haydn "was still in the baroque style" and should therefore be played differently from Mozart.
Except for some church music both have very little to do with the baroque style.
So if the claim is that there are important continuities between the baroque and late 18th century style (none of which seem apparent in the way I heard the Jerusalem Q play Haydn on CD - I have not heard their Mozart) these should either hold for both Haydn and Mozart or for neither.
(BTW there are plenty of listeners (not me) who tend to find Mozart boring or "shallow", so one could claim in exactly the same way as Ori Kam does for Haydn that his music does not "play itself" anymore than most other music.)

[Mandryka]

I don't really know much about classical style, but I trust Tom Beghin and he uses rubato and agogics in Mozart as well as Haydn. As far as quartet playing goes, I don't know if there's anyone who I trust: are any of them scholars as well as fiddlers?

It does seem very odd to say that Haydn is "in the baroque" but Mozart isn't. I haven't really thought about this before.

One characteristic of baroque is complex contrapuntal music. I hadn't noticed this in Haydn much, he seems more about sensual accessible tunes like Mozart or any other galant composer.

[Gurn Blanston]

I did not mean that Haydn and Mozart should be performed exactly the same. But as everybody knows they were contemporaries and friends so it seems preposterous to claim that Haydn "was still in the baroque style" and should therefore be played differently from Mozart.
Except for some church music both have very little to do with the baroque style.
So if the claim is that there are important continuities between the baroque and late 18th century style (none of which seem apparent in the way I heard the Jerusalem Q play Haydn on CD - I have not heard their Mozart) these should either hold for both Haydn and Mozart or for neither.
(BTW there are plenty of listeners (not me) who tend to find Mozart boring or "shallow", so one could claim in exactly the same way as Ori Kam does for Haydn that his music does not "play itself" anymore than most other music.)

I think there is a pretty big difference between early and late Haydn. I can't imagine that the Op 1, 2, 9 or 17 quartets would play just like the Op 50, 64 or 77's. Certainly early Haydn (which is what I had in mind when I agreed with the original post) is indeed a continuation of late Baroque styles, moreso in some genres than others. Like the early keyboard trios and sonatas, for example. If not Baroque, it is hard to call them more than pre-Classical, whatever the hell that means! 

I've heard that boring and shallow claim too, usually from people who are, themselves, boring and shallow. Just sayin'.   0:)

[Pat B]

True as far as it goes, but back in the day, they were performed by the same people, often back-to-back. One would naturally assume no great divergence in playing style. God only knows what the 19th century did to either or both of them, though.   

There are records (written, not phonograph) of Haydn and Mozart actually playing each others works at quartet parties, once, along with Ditters and Vanhal, and other times with Leopold present and then with Maximilian Stadler (they played Mozart's quintets that time). So stylistically, I would expect, umm... similarity. 

If the Jerusalem Quartet can determine that an interventionist style suits Haydn and a straighter style suits Mozart, why should we assume that Haydn and Mozart themselves were unable to make any such distinction? Very possibly what the 19th century did to them was homogenization.

[Pat B]

I did not mean that Haydn and Mozart should be performed exactly the same. But as everybody knows they were contemporaries and friends so it seems preposterous to claim that Haydn "was still in the baroque style" and should therefore be played differently from Mozart.

1. He didn't claim that Haydn was "in" the baroque style. He claimed that Haydn was rooted in the baroque style, specifically with regards to interpretive freedom.

2. If "it seems preposterous to claim that Haydn should be played differently than Mozart" does not mean that they "should be performed exactly the same," then what does it mean?

[Mandryka]

By the way I have heard the Jerusalem Quartet play Mozart and Haydn and I can't say I noticed a different approach to expression, articulation etc. But I may well have missed something.

[Pat B]

I don't really know much about classical style, but I trust Tom Beghin and he uses rubato and agogics in Mozart as well as Haydn. As far as quartet playing goes, I don't know if there's anyone who I trust: are any of them scholars as well as fiddlers?

It does seem very odd to say that Haydn is "in the baroque" but Mozart isn't. I haven't really thought about this before.

One characteristic of baroque is complex contrapuntal music. I hadn't noticed this in Haydn much, he seems more about sensual accessible tunes like Mozart or any other galant composer.

I don't think anybody is claiming that Mozart must be played straight. In general I don't believe that there is One Right Way to perform anything. With that in mind, it is possible that Beghin's performances and Kam's statements are both valid.

I think you all are reading way too much into Kam's use of the word "baroque." It is entirely clear to me that he was talking about interpretive freedom and not complex counterpoint.

[Mandryka]

I don't think anybody is claiming that Mozart must be played straight. In general I don't believe that there is One Right Way to perform anything. With that in mind, it is possible that Beghin's performances and Kam's statements are both valid.

I think you all are reading way too much into Kam's use of the word "baroque." It is entirely clear to me that he was talking about interpretive freedom and not complex counterpoint.

So what exactly is the idea, Kam's idea? Can you just say it?

[Pat B]

By the way I have heard the Jerusalem Quartet play Mozart and Haydn and I can't say I noticed a different approach to expression, articulation etc. But I may well have missed something.

I just sampled a bit of it and I thought the Haydn sounded a tad more demonstrative. It wasn't a huge difference though. Actually I'm not very enamored of their Haydn style (from the bit I heard), but that doesn't make their musical decisions or the thought process behind them wrong.

[Pat B]

So what exactly is the idea, Kam's idea? Can you just say it?

As I understood it, his idea is that Mozart sounds good played straight and that Haydn requires more interpretation.

Which you might disagree with. But he wasn't saying anything about counterpoint or period instruments.

[Mandryka]

As I understood it, his idea is that Mozart sounds good played straight and that Haydn requires more interpretation.
.

OK, but we don't seem to hear it very clearly in the performances.

[Jo498]

In which way different? Which kinds of freedom and how related to the "baroque roots"? I do not see the latter any stronger in Haydns mature works than in Mozart. And even less do I see how this could or should impact the way of interpretation of Haydn vs. Mozart. Do we know all that much about how interpretive freedom was different in 1790 than in 1730?

Maybe I simply disagree but I just do not see the arguments for Kam's claims.

Musicians like Harnoncourt or Jacobs who go for a very rhetorical, sometimes exaggerated style sometimes claimed to be rooted in baroque "affects" do this in Haydn pretty much in the same fashion as in Mozart. And more straightforward interpretations, e.g. Hogwood's, don't make much of a difference either, i.e. they are similarly straight in Haydn as in Mozart.
As Mozart is sometimes more "opera-like" or more obviously passionate and dramatic one could claim that Mozart had to be played with more freedom or different/stronger gestures than the more "intellectual" or "witty" music of Haydn. (I am not sure, but I think this would be more plausible than the other way round.)

If he simply means that Haydn's music can become boring in boring interpretations, I cannot disagree. But I don't see how Haydn differs from Mozart in this respect.

[Pat B]

If he simply means that Haydn's music can become boring in boring interpretations, I cannot disagree. But I don't see how Haydn differs from Mozart in this respect.

I think this is the crux of your disagreement with him. He apparently thinks there is no such thing as a boring interpretation of Mozart (or maybe he thinks that there is such a thing but that a performer has to work hard to achieve it ). And obviously he didn't like whatever historical Haydn recordings he heard.

I don't know whether he has any academic historical justification for his (their?) distinction between Mozart and Haydn interpretation. Maybe he does and the interviewer didn't address it, or maybe it is simply what he thinks works musically.

I do, however, support their choice to play Haydn differently than Mozart, in general principle regardless of whether I like their specific results. I also support Harnoncourt's, Jacobs's, Hogwood's, and Beghin's choice to play them similarly.

[kishnevi]

OK, but we don't seem to hear it very clearly in the performances.

Bear in mind when listening to their CDs that Kam is not an original member of the quartet, and did not participate in the Haydn recordings.  I don't think he was with them for the Mozart CD, but don't have it handy to be sure.

That said,  I don't think there was any real difference between the performance last Thursday and the CD performance.  If there was, it escaped my ears.

[Wakefield]

True as far as it goes, but back in the day, they were performed by the same people, often back-to-back. One would naturally assume no great divergence in playing style. God only knows what the 19th century did to either or both of them, though.   

There are records (written, not phonograph) of Haydn and Mozart actually playing each others works at quartet parties, once, along with Ditters and Vanhal, and other times with Leopold present and then with Maximilian Stadler (they played Mozart's quintets that time). So stylistically, I would expect, umm... similarity. 

Well, I'm late in this discussion, but this is brilliant and decisive to me. They (Mozart and Haydn) shared a common background and musical language... and they perfectly knew it.

[Gurn Blanston]

Well, I'm late in this discussion, but this is brilliant and decisive to me. They (Mozart and Haydn) shared a common background and musical language... and they perfectly knew it.

It is hard to come up with any example which puts this in the wrong. Just as you say, common language, common playing style; it is very fair to say that Mozart's quartet style is based on Haydn's, added to which is his own personal idiom. It is almost like members of the Jerusalem Quartet, except they wrote their own.

Very nice to see you back, Gordo. No mas terremotos! 

[Wakefield]

Very nice to see you back, Gordo. No mas terremotos! 

No, dear friend. It's not so easy. My country is geographically fucked up. This very same morning we had a "little earthquake", just to remind us of our condition. 

[Florestan]

As I understood it, his idea is that Mozart sounds good played straight

I think it depends on the works --- and on the listener, of course. To my ears, the early piano sonatas sound best when played straight, their profound spirituality being embedded in their very simplicity (it might not be mere coincidence that their best performances are by women: Haebler, Kraus, Pires --- haven´t heard Uchida yet.). On the other hand, the best set of violin sonatas I know it´s the one by Mutter and Orkis, and to say that there is no dearth of interpretation there would be a gross understatement. Then there is the Bohm´s war recording of Jupiter Symphony, as angst-ridden, ominous and ambiguous as anything Shostakovich wrote at about the same time.

IMHO there is no one single right way to perform this or that music, certainly not with Mozart and Haydn, whose work is so vast and multifaceted that they openly defy any uniformity.