Haydn's Haus

[Gurn Blanston]

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.

And of course, this is the truth of the matter. The "right" way is the way you like it. When I insist on an ideal interpretation, I fully realize it is only ideal for me. The actual 'truth' is still on paper, awaiting someone else to play as it pleases them, and hopefully some of their listeners will consider it the truth. Haydn's (and Mozart's et al) music always awaits new ideas for interpretation, but in and of itself, it never changes.

[Karl Henning]

The essential mystery of music, perhaps.

[Gurn Blanston]

The essential mystery of music, perhaps.

If there is one...

The essential mystery of man, perhaps?  0:)

[Florestan]

And of course, this is the truth of the matter. The "right" way is the way you like it. When I insist on an ideal interpretation, I fully realize it is only ideal for me. The actual 'truth' is still on paper, awaiting someone else to play as it pleases them, and hopefully some of their listeners will consider it the truth. Haydn's (and Mozart's et al) music always awaits new ideas for interpretation, but in and of itself, it never changes.

The essential mystery of music, perhaps.

The essential mystery of man, perhaps?  0:)

A triple amen!, gentlemen.

[Pat B]

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.

That has never been in dispute. But in the context of Kam's comments on interpretive freedom, I'm not sure how relevant it is, unless you're insinuating that their compositional styles are actually identical.

Regardless, I hope you are safe.

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.

I mostly agree with your gist. But to be clear, Kam did not say that Mozart should be played straight. What he said was that Mozart withstands being played straight.

[Wakefield]

That has never been in dispute. But in the context of Kam's comments on interpretive freedom, I'm not sure how relevant it is, unless you're insinuating that their compositional styles are actually identical.

No, I would never suggest something like that; but every "musical era" has some relatively standard notions about interpretative proceedings (performance practice), including the margin of freedom allowed to (expected from) the performers. And the musical circles of Haydn and Mozart were, at least, very close, so I wouldn't expect notions strikingly divergent about this issue. That's all.       

[Mandryka]

That has never been in dispute. But in the context of Kam's comments on interpretive freedom, I'm not sure how relevant it is, unless you're insinuating that their compositional styles are actually identical.

Regardless, I hope you are safe.

I mostly agree with your gist. But to be clear, Kam did not say that Mozart should be played straight. What he said was that Mozart withstands being played straight.

I once got into a discussion about rubato on rmcr, in the context of Mozart piano sonatas, and in the end we found two performances which are pretty well rubato free - Pletnev's first recording for Melodyia and Ashkenazy's first recording for EMI I think. Pletnev is hardly straight though - he's such a master of dynamics and piano timbres and voicing that "straight" doesn't fit at all.

Ashkenazy's not a pianist I feel great empathy for, so I don't know his recording as well as Pletnev's, but I can say it's "straighter." I can also say that I'm less clear that it's successful - though I know people who like it.

Anyway it's not obvious to me that Mozart withstands being played straight.

I don't feel confident to comment on Haydn, does anyone play the music straight, no rubato, equal voicing etc?

Claudio Columbo maybe - maybe the Jerusalem quartet should start to make computer generated Mozart recordings.

[El Chupacabra]

in the context of Mozart piano sonatas, and in the end we found two performances which are pretty well rubato free -

May I ask what your aim with a rubato-free Mozart piano sonata performance is?

[Mandryka]

May I ask what your aim with a rubato-free Mozart piano sonata performance is?

It was someone who just said he didn't like rubato in Classical style, a matter of taste that's all I think, not a matter of principle  - so we were exploring things he might like. I was glad to have found the Pletnev (very different from his DG recording) and still play it as frequently as any other Mozart - though it is very odd.

[El Chupacabra]

It was someone who just said he didn't like rubato in Classical style, a matter of taste that's all I think, not a matter of principle  - so we were exploring things he might like. I was glad to have found the Pletnev (very different from his DG recording) and still play it as frequently as any other Mozart - though it is very odd.

'like' should be irrelevant for you(after reading some of your posts). This is not pop music and Mozart states "rubato" in his correspondences in the context of the instruments(fortepianos).

[Mandryka]

'like' should be irrelevant for you(after reading some of your posts). This is not pop music and Mozart states "rubato" in his correspondences in the context of the instruments(fortepianos).

Yes you're right. Nevertheless I'm very glad to have the Pletnev CD. Just as I'm very glad to have other uninformed performances, like Walcha and Munchinger in Bach.

[El Chupacabra]

Nevertheless I'm very glad to have the Pletnev CD. Just as I'm very glad to have other uninformed performances, like Walcha and Munchinger in Bach.

Pletnev's only K570 works for me.
"Uninformed" Bach and "uninformed" Mozart are completely different things in performance science. We have expressive information from Mozart, Bach is almost "all you can eat".

[Mandryka]

"Uninformed" Bach and "uninformed" Mozart are completely different things in performance science. We have expressive information from Mozart, Bach is almost "all you can eat".

Yes you may be right, though obviously the contemporary instruments provide limitations and the contemporary writing (not by Bach, but by people he knew about) provides possibilities.  The question is complex because what's informed expression for a sarabande or a prelude may not be for a fugue or a canon. I know nothing about expression on Mozart or Haydn.

By the way, what's your dog picture? -- I'm sure I've seen it somewhere, in a gallery maybe.

[Pat B]

No, I would never suggest something like that; but every "musical era" has some relatively standard notions about interpretative proceedings (performance practice), including the margin of freedom allowed to (expected from) the performers. And the musical circles of Haydn and Mozart were, at least, very close, so I wouldn't expect notions strikingly divergent about this issue. That's all.     

I appreciate the thoughtful response. I think it's worth noting again that the Jerusalem Quartet's recordings don't treat Haydn and Mozart drastically differently as far as I can tell.

I look at it as analogous to Bach and Vivaldi. They lived simultaneously, Bach studied Vivaldi's works, and most performers will treat them roughly similarly. But if a performer believes there is some nuance that works better in one than the other (or is more important in one than the other), then I don't see any problem with that -- even if the historical record doesn't specifically mention it.

Anyway it's not obvious to me that Mozart withstands being played straight.

I don't feel confident to comment on Haydn, does anyone play the music straight, no rubato, equal voicing etc?

Claudio Columbo maybe - maybe the Jerusalem quartet should start to make computer generated Mozart recordings.

Claudio Columbo, LOL.

Interesting comments about Pletnev and Ashkenazy. You might be right about Mozart, I don't know, but I'm glad we've gotten around to addressing what Kam actually said.

I spotified a bit of the Pro Arte Quartet in op.33#3. Compared to Jerusalem in the same work, PA sounded very much like just the notes. I wasn't into it at all. I listened to Budapest in something else (without comparison), and it seemed better but still not very inflected.

[Pat B]

what's informed expression for a sarabande or a prelude may not be for a fugue or a canon.

Yes! Even if they were originally performed by the same person.

[Jo498]

As both Pletnev and Ashkenazy were playing instruments rather different from the ones existing in Mozart's time, it is hard for me to imagine that more or less rubato would be the biggest difference to a probable interpretation by the composer or a contemporary.

We know that orchestral music by Haydn and Mozart was often played with hardly any rehearsals. So these interpretations had to be fairly straightforward compared to the "micro-management" we get from 20th/21st century interpretations (emphatically including some HIP musicians).

Solo (piano) music might have been played comparably "free" and there were probably different "schools" with diverging styles. Some slow movements always demanded embellishing and when one was called "a strong adagio player" it was meant that one was good at making up original embellishments for those movements.
Apparently the young Beethoven had not liked Mozart's more "detached" piano playing style although he revered the composer (and Mozart disliked Clementi's).

A string quartet would have allowed a little more freedom than orchestral music but as these were also often played without much rehearsal time, I guess that here rather straight playing would also have been normal.

OTOH many structures and textures are common among classical style solo piano, chamber and orchestral music, so it does not seem likely that they were played in wildly diverging ways.

[prémont]

.....other uninformed performances, like Walcha and Munchinger in Bach.

Walcha and Münchinger, who began their recording careers in the late 1940es (Walcha: Jacobi,Lübeck 1947 and Münchinger: Brandenburg concertos 1949). were relatively informed for their time, certainly the best the 1940es could draw upon . The problem with them was from a HIP point of view, that they stayed loyal to their original concepts, without trying to renew themselves according to the musicological research of the 1950es and on. They probably considered HIP too museal. This is more a question of standpoint than a question of musicology. It is sad to think of how great musicians, they might have become, if they had adopted the HIP style.

[El Chupacabra]

This is more a question of standpoint than a question of musicology. It is sad to think of how great musicians, they might have become, if they had adopted the HIP style.

Actually, this is what I am trying to distinguish whenever I can. The "performer's standpoint" is inclined to create faults as they, almost without exception, tend to like engaging in the creative process. One might claim that if they (as a performer) obey the instructions and texts of a particular composer they feel that they won't be representing the classical style (in Mozart example). In Mozart, for instance, somewhere in the middle of K330 there is a departure from the on-going expressive way in the middle section, he obviously designates/writes 'da capo' on the manuscript, does he mean 'note-for-note repeat the original' or does he mean 'repeat basically the same music as the opening'? that, the performer can decide (my view) and that changes with time because the contemporary evidence which points the latter was not known, say, 100 years ago. But what I personally am against is, Mozart gives the whole embellishments for most of the sonatas, for instance, K309's adagio's is complete, the performer should not intervene at all. Commonly, Mozart's sonatas are intervened in three kinds, with generic ornamentations, diminutions and recompositions (at appropriate cadential pauses). I'm against all three unless Mozart himself refrains. For Baroque it is completely another story. My opinion is if they happened to have applied HIP from the beginning, for instance, Telemann would be a much more respected and popular composer. He is one composer with modern style and a completely different one with its style applied. I invite everyone to give it a try by way of comparison.

[El Chupacabra]

By the way, what's your dog picture? -- I'm sure I've seen it somewhere, in a gallery maybe.

It's a very well groomed and smart rascal, an American Pit Bull Terrier. I'd be very surprised if you did.

[Gurn Blanston]

Actually, this is what I am trying to distinguish whenever I can. The "performer's standpoint" is inclined to create faults as they, almost without exception, tend to like engaging in the creative process. One might claim that if they (as a performer) obey the instructions and texts of a particular composer they feel that they won't be representing the classical style (in Mozart example). In Mozart, for instance, somewhere in the middle of K330 there is a departure from the on-going expressive way in the middle section, he obviously designates/writes 'da capo' on the manuscript, does he mean 'note-for-note repeat the original' or does he mean 'repeat basically the same music as the opening'? that, the performer can decide (my view) and that changes with time because the contemporary evidence which points the latter was not known, say, 100 years ago. But what I personally am against is, Mozart gives the whole embellishments for most of the sonatas, for instance, K309's adagio's is complete, the performer should not intervene at all. Commonly, Mozart's sonatas are intervened in three kinds, with generic ornamentations, diminutions and recompositions (at appropriate cadential pauses). I'm against all three unless Mozart himself refrains. For Baroque it is completely another story. My opinion is if they happened to have applied HIP from the beginning, for instance, Telemann would be a much more respected and popular composer. He is one composer with modern style and a completely different one with its style applied. I invite everyone to give it a try by way of comparison.

I'm not sure I follow completely your line here, but Tom Beghin, in discussing Haydn's sonatas, discusses this dilemma for the player. In the middle (1775-82) Haydn sonatas, Haydn writes things out fully embellished, then marks it da capo. So the decision for the player is what? Do I play it fully embellished twice? Or what do I do?  Beghin's solution is that he feels Haydn is indicating what ornamentation should be used. He isn't writing for professional pianists. Neither is Mozart. In 1775, professional pianists would have been embarrassed to play someone else's work. They were writing for good amateurs, and showing them how to ornament properly. So Beghin tends to play it the first time through without the ornaments, or with minimal ornaments. On the da capo, then, he can properly play it as written. I have every PI/HIP piano sonata disk of Haydn, and most of Mozart, and Beghin is in my top few in terms of realistic interpretation.