Haydn's Haus

[Mookalafalas]

I was reading in the "Haydn Symphonies" thread--some talk about Fey.  Criticism and defense.  I've often seen Sarge mention him in "now listening".  I finally started listening myself.  Threw on 83, randomly.     :-*It's working very well for me.   I can generally find something to like in whatever I'm playing, but my first impression is a really nice balance between big and small forces sound--maybe getting the best of both (or is that just because I have the volume up more than usual ?)  Energy, spontaneity, flexibility, and sound and balance almost as good as in the Bruno Weil.   Anyway, I'm going to be playing more of Fey.

[Jo498]

There is probably no doubt that Fey is exciting and I think he is very good in some pieces, including most of the "Paris" set. But he can be mannered like hell, outdoing Harnoncourt in strange tempo shifts and extremes of tempo. Check for instance the 3rd movement of #104 with a crazily fast main section and trio at half speed. Or the finale of #70 where he IMO hurts the somewhat "deadpan" ending with weird tempo shifts.
For many listeners it will be a love him or hate him thing. I find it often interesting but not always convincing and so I became somewhat wary and only slowly bought more of his recordings.

[Mookalafalas]

There is probably no doubt that Fey is exciting and I think he is very good in some pieces, including most of the "Paris" set. But he can be mannered like hell, outdoing Harnoncourt in strange tempo shifts and extremes of tempo. Check for instance the 3rd movement of #104 with a crazily fast main section and trio at half speed. Or the finale of #70 where he IMO hurts the somewhat "deadpan" ending with weird tempo shifts.
For many listeners it will be a love him or hate him thing. I find it often interesting but not always convincing and so I became somewhat wary and only slowly bought more of his recordings.

   I'm not sure I understand the heart of your criticism.  Do you feel what Fey is doing in 104, 70 etc. just doesn't work, or you dislike it because you feel he is not following Haydn's score?

[Gurn Blanston]

When I began looking at 1792, I figured it was just like any other year, I would be done in no time. Ha! Well, now I have wrapped it up, and it only took 10 essays to make it so, because I skipped a bunch of interesting stuff. But what I kept is pretty interesting, since this was the year that started out mourning Mozart, but ended up welcoming Beethoven. have a look, it is my 3rd anniversary post!

Ring out the old, roll in the new!

Thanks,

[Jo498]

   I'm not sure I understand the heart of your criticism.  Do you feel what Fey is doing in 104, 70 etc. just doesn't work, or you dislike it because you feel he is not following Haydn's score?

Rather the former. There is of course nothing in the score to indicate such tempo changes but at least in the case of menuetto vs. trio section it can maybe made plausible that those sometimes were played differently. Harnoncourt does the same in some movements, e.g. very obviously in Mozart's 39 and 40 where the trios would probably be unlistenable or unplayable at the tempo he takes for the main menuetto sections.
(To my knowledge the dominant position among researchers is that there was no tempo change between menuetto and trio, unless indicated, but I am not a musicologist. At least Beethoven explicitly writes a slower tempo for some trios (e.g. in the 4th and 7th symphonies) which could be taken as an indication that normally there was no tempo change. Against this, I think, Harnoncourt argues that there were different types of menuetts and a trio could belong to a different type than the main section and contemporary musicians would have recognized the more lyrical type of the trio and accordingly played it more slowly.)

I am fine with trying out lots of things and taking liberties but it has to "work" for me. Fey is often going for maximal contrasts which is often effective and dramatic but some of what he does I find simply mannered and irritating with repeated listening. And there is almost always a pay-off between destroying continuity and coherence to some extent and exaggerating details for dramatic effect.

technical note: I do not quite understand why you did not respond in the thread on symphonies. Wouldn't it have fit better there?

[Mookalafalas]

Rather the former. There is of course nothing in the score to indicate such tempo changes but at least in the case of menuetto vs. trio section it can maybe made plausible that those sometimes were played differently. Harnoncourt does the same in some movements, e.g. very obviously in Mozart's 39 and 40 where the trio would probably be unlistenable or unplayable at the tempo he takes for the main menuetto section.

I am fine with trying out lots of things and taking liberties but it has to "work" for me. Fey is often going for maximal contrasts which is often effective and dramatic but some of what he does I find simply mannered and irritating with repeated listening. And there is almost always a pay-off between destroying continuity and coherence to some extent and exaggerating details for dramatic effect.

technical note: I do not quite understand why you did not respond in the thread on symphonies. Wouldn't it have fit better there?

  I appreciate your answer. Thanks.
  About the thread, I originally meant to post it in the other, but just saw this one first. 

[Mandryka]

Can someone comment on Ludger Rémy's recording? Like, is it interesting and why?

[Gurn Blanston]

Can someone comment on Ludger Rémy's recording? Like, is it interesting and why?

Depends on your interests. He is a very competent pianist, but these are the most often recorded sonatas, so nothing new there, lots of competition. I like it because he plays on an original 1795 Broadwood pianoforte with quite its own sound. If you don't already have 18 versions of these works (I do), this is as nice as any of them so it would make a nice 'keeper' for you.

[Mandryka]

Depends on your interests. He is a very competent pianist, but these are the most often recorded sonatas, so nothing new there, lots of competition. I like it because he plays on an original 1795 Broadwood pianoforte with quite its own sound. If you don't already have 18 versions of these works (I do), this is as nice as any of them so it would make a nice 'keeper' for you.

It's the last sonata that interests me. It all started listening to two performers -- Beghin (the one on the English well tempered piano) and McCabe -- what I saw was that so many of the other pianists are clueless about the rhetoric of the first movement (that's Beghin's strength -- the colours of the piano seem to help him present the music as an argument, a discourse), and clueless about the music's affects (that's McCabe's strength, he plays the first movement as if it's as full of feeling as something by Beethoven -- not just a bit of papa's witty banter.)

I'd be particularly interested in the Remy if it is interesting from the point of view of the affects.

[Parsifal]

I figure it must not be so on iTunes. Perhaps they lease the Nimbus version, which was, like 3 or 4 disks in a box, IIRC.    Although I do figure that if you will have modern instruments, Fischer is the one to have.

Davies is my favorite (for symphonies with no Harnoncourt recording, of course). 

[carlito77]

Wow, I wasn't aware that the Austrian and German national anthem was originally written by Haydn, at least the melody part of it. Was reading some interesting facts about Haydn and discovered this. So, Austria and Germany both share the same national anthem with different lyrics? Very interesting.

[Que]

Wow, I wasn't aware that the Austrian and German national anthem was originally written by Haydn, at least the melody part of it. Was reading some interesting facts about Haydn and discovered this. So, Austria and Germany both share the same national anthem with different lyrics? Very interesting.

Currently just Germany, if I'm correct.

More about the Kaiserhymne here:. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gott_erhalte_Franz_den_Kaiser

Q

[Jo498]

As it was "Gott erhalte Franz den Kaiser", the hymn was gone when the Austrian Empire  fell in 1918. This is not true. I looked it up. The melody was used in the 1920 with a different text. The current anthem was established in 1946.

The current anthem is "Land der Berge, Land am Strome" and the melody was rumored to be by Mozart (as "Bundeslied"), but this is by now doubtful.

BTW before the German anthem with the Haydn melody was used, there was also a hymn to the emperor with the melody of God save the King, namely "Heil dir im Siegerkranz"

[Madiel]

This is most peculiar. Suddenly I own Haydn compositions that were written before the 1780s.

[asin]B002IVRBBU[/asin]

I decided I might as well explore these chronologically. So right now I'm experiencing Haydn circa 1749. Egads. That Mozart kid hasn't even born yet.

[Gurn Blanston]

This is most peculiar. Suddenly I own Haydn compositions that were written before the 1780s.

[asin]B002IVRBBU[/asin]

I decided I might as well explore these chronologically. So right now I'm experiencing Haydn circa 1749. Egads. That Mozart kid hasn't even born yet.

You got the right box for that exploration too, Orfeo. Among other things, it contains Haydn's very first complete composition (the F major Mass) and his very last one (the Harmoniemese). Excellent performances too. I started listening to masses because I felt I had a duty to do it, but I ended up listening to them intentionally ( ), and not least because of great recordings like that one.   

[Madiel]

You got the right box for that exploration too, Orfeo.

I know. I was paying attention when you recommended it!

[Karl Henning]

[Brian]

Hey, HIPsters!



Note from BIS CEO Robert von Bahr:

"No, this music doesn't normally really appeal to me, but I am fortunately a minority of one. Anyway, when I hear the music being played like this, by the not-so-new Chiaroscuro Quartet [formed in 2005 and starring Alina Ibragimova (Russia), Pablo Hernán Benedí (Spain), Emilie Hörnlund (Sweden) and Claire Thirion (France)], all playing on period instruments, even I melt.

"I really cannot understand how people can have anything against listening to music, performed in the style of the compositional period on instruments, for which the works were written. When authenticity can be coupled with musical prowess, like here, it just leaves nothing to be wished for."

[Brian]

By the way, over the Fourth of July weekend, I took Sarge's advice and road-tripped with early Haydn symphonies from the Hogwood/Dantone/Brüggen box. Specifically 6-8 and 16-20. But I also brought the disc containing symphonies 53 and 62, two of the rare Haydn symphonies I had still never heard.

And why didn't you guys tell me that 53 is great!! Wow was I bowled over by that piece. The first movement in particular strikes me as the most "Mozartean" Haydn I've ever heard (though it was written in the 1770s - nice of Decca to include rough composition dates for each work). I guess what I'm thinking of in particular is the development section, with the highly contrapuntal string writing and the great spotlit contributions from woodwinds. But also the general feel - to me, listening to a Mozart symphony, with its delicate phrase-by-phrase perfection, is like looking inside a watch and seeing how the movement works. Haydn symphonies are more "human," which is a cliché, and not a useful one. A lot of people take "human" to mean "imperfect". In this context, to me, it means that encountering a new Haydn symphony is like meeting a really cool person at a party. Maybe you want to think of Mozart's oeuvre as a series of precious gems, or a series of Swiss watches, or a stroll through an art gallery - I think of Haydn's as a great big party with a bunch of eccentric characters sipping beers.

Anyway. The point is, the first movement of 53 was an exception to that rule, indeed an opposite of it, and so it fascinated me.

By the way, I woke up a few nights ago with the slow movement of 67 (and its col legno!) bouncing around my head. And 80 is rapidly joining my Top Ten.

Down to just four Haydn symphonies that, to my knowledge, my ears have never heard: 61, 71, 74, 76. My log also indicates 31 ("hornsignal") but I simply can't believe that - it must be a mistake.

[kishnevi]

By the way, over the Fourth of July weekend, I took Sarge's advice and road-tripped with early Haydn symphonies from the Hogwood/Dantone/Brüggen box. Specifically 6-8 and 16-20. But I also brought the disc containing symphonies 53 and 62, two of the rare Haydn symphonies I had still never heard.

And why didn't you guys tell me that 53 is great!! Wow was I bowled over by that piece. The first movement in particular strikes me as the most "Mozartean" Haydn I've ever heard (though it was written in the 1770s - nice of Decca to include rough composition dates for each work). I guess what I'm thinking of in particular is the development section, with the highly contrapuntal string writing and the great spotlit contributions from woodwinds. But also the general feel - to me, listening to a Mozart symphony, with its delicate phrase-by-phrase perfection, is like looking inside a watch and seeing how the movement works. Haydn symphonies are more "human," which is a cliché, and not a useful one. A lot of people take "human" to mean "imperfect". In this context, to me, it means that encountering a new Haydn symphony is like meeting a really cool person at a party. Maybe you want to think of Mozart's oeuvre as a series of precious gems, or a series of Swiss watches, or a stroll through an art gallery - I think of Haydn's as a great big party with a bunch of eccentric characters sipping beers.

Anyway. The point is, the first movement of 53 was an exception to that rule, indeed an opposite of it, and so it fascinated me.

By the way, I woke up a few nights ago with the slow movement of 67 (and its col legno!) bouncing around my head. And 80 is rapidly joining my Top Ten.

Down to just four Haydn symphonies that, to my knowledge, my ears have never heard: 61, 71, 74, 76. My log also indicates 31 ("hornsignal") but I simply can't believe that - it must be a mistake.

Is there a Haydn symphony that is not at least very very good?
I suppose only a complete relisten will allow an answer to that question.