Haydn's Haus

[Gurn Blanston]

Thanks to Google Books it can be read online and this is a very good thing, because actually the article presents a much more cautious and nuanced picture than Gurn´s. 

Some excerpts:

One misconception is that a uniform picture of Haydn was articulated throughout the period: that commentators were united in wiewing Haydn as aesthetically and culturally irrelevant.

[T]he views of a handful of well-known figures - Berlioz, Schumann and Wagner - do not represent those of the majority, nor do they provide a true indication of Haydn´s music in contemporary concert life.

In spite of the lack of enthusiasm for Haydn´s music on the part of many commentators, his music (or rather, a small proportion of it) was regularly performed throughout the ninteeenth century; indeed, a key factor motivating lukewarm reviews was their perceived ubiquity in the concert hall.

The notion that Haydn´s music was superseded was the product of the dialectical systems employed by these authors: it would be mistaken to assume that their stances reflect a wider hostility or indifference to the composer.

[T]he marginalization of Haydn by some of the most prominent nineteenth century critics represents only one side of the picture: the enduring cultivation of his music in the concert hall and its prominence in schools and domestic settings, while harder to quantify, are no less important.

The final lines read thus:

[...]one thing is clear: to regard Haydn´s posthumous fate as a tale of decline and fall, especially in the century following his death, is an oversimplification that hampers our understanding of his cultural significance.

Moreover, Garrett stresses that his essay focuses almost exclusively on the German-speaking world and that the situation was different in continental Europe, Britain and North America, although he doesn´t go into details.

All this is quite far from the "nineteenth century´s all-out war on Haydn", as Gurn put it a few years ago. 

What you aren't saying though, either if it isn't in that particular essay or else it doesn't suit you to say it, is that when he says "the enduring cultivation of his music in the concert halls" is that we aren't talking about all of Haydn's music, by any means, we are talking about a few of the London Symphonies. And they were heavily reworked to reflect 'modern' orchestration principles, and to systematically remove all of Haydn's own little quirks (unexpected rhythms or harmonic tones, for example) since they weren't acceptable to modern tastes. The Creation and The Seasons were still sung by small town choral societies. And most string quartets had a few pieces of Haydn in their repertoire. Not least because he was considered a good source of pedagogical material for beginning string players. Much like his (and Mozart's) piano sonatas were used as teaching aids, almost exclusively.

Even today, Haydn hasn't completely recovered the stature he had when he died. True, his symphonies show up fairly often on a program. They are nearly always the opening act, the piece played while patrons are still wandering in to find their seats. In any concert in the late 18th century, they would have been the showpiece.

So your optimistic, best possible interpretation of one of many items of research on this topic doesn't really change my mind. As I said, I don't mean he totally disappeared, things don't happen that way. But the higher one climbs, the further is the fall. And he fell a long way, no matter how cheery a face you try to put on it.

[Florestan]

What you aren't saying though, either if it isn't in that particular essay or else it doesn't suit you to say it, is that when he says "the enduring cultivation of his music in the concert halls" is that we aren't talking about all of Haydn's music, by any means, we are talking about a few of the London Symphonies. And they were heavily reworked to reflect 'modern' orchestration principles, and to systematically remove all of Haydn's own little quirks (unexpected rhythms or harmonic tones, for example) since they weren't acceptable to modern tastes. The Creation and The Seasons were still sung by small town choral societies. And most string quartets had a few pieces of Haydn in their repertoire. Not least because he was considered a good source of pedagogical material for beginning string players. Much like his (and Mozart's) piano sonatas were used as teaching aids, almost exclusively.

Even today, Haydn hasn't completely recovered the stature he had when he died. True, his symphonies show up fairly often on a program. They are nearly always the opening act, the piece played while patrons are still wandering in to find their seats. In any concert in the late 18th century, they would have been the showpiece.

So your optimistic, best possible interpretation of one of many items of research on this topic doesn't really change my mind. As I said, I don't mean he totally disappeared, things don't happen that way. But the higher one climbs, the further is the fall. And he fell a long way, no matter how cheery a face you try to put on it.

Seems like your quarrel is more with Garrett than with me. I did nothing else but quoting him. 

[Gurn Blanston]

Seems like your quarrel is more with Garrett than with me. I did nothing else but quoting him. 

As you say, there were pages missing from the selection you had. I haven't read that particular essay in a year or so, I can't remember if he ever got around to discussing the points I raised or not. However, I will just say, whether it is to Garrett or to Florestan; if someone came on this board and said they were very familiar with Haydn, they knew all 6 London symphonies and The Creation, or they were very familiar with Mozart, they knew the d minor concerto, the Jupiter Symphony AND Don Giovanni, would you give much credence to what they had to say about either of those composers?  I'm guessing not...  0:)

[Florestan]

if someone came on this board and said they were very familiar with Haydn, they knew all 6 London symphonies and The Creation,

How many other of his symphonies, or for that matter other genres of his music, had been published and were widely known in, say, 1830? 1860? 1900 even? IIRC, Mandiczewsky's edition was published in 1922 and Hoboken's in 1957.

[Gurn Blanston]

How many other of his symphonies, or for that matter other genres of his music, had been published and were widely known in, say, 1830? 1860? 1900 even? IIRC, Mandiczewsky's edition was published in 1922 and Hoboken's in 1957.

A great many of them were published during his lifetime, but they didn't remain in circulation. Farewell is one of the few I have heard about. Pleyel's "Complete String Quartets" was the only real source of fairly accurate source material. The impetus for a gradual rediscovery of his works was the 1909 centennial of his death. It was one of many false starts, but it got things moving. BTW, without doing research (I'm busy right now), I would say Eusebius Mandyczewski published c1907. No matter though, the important thing is he got it right. Amazing!

[Florestan]

A great many of them were published during his lifetime, but they didn't remain in circulation.  Farewell is one of the few I have heard about.

There! How could they (the 19th-century people, that is) know the real scope of Haydn's work if most of it remained obscure all throughout the century?

The impetus for a gradual rediscovery of his works was the 1909 centennial of his death.

You mean that in the heydays of late Late Romanticism they commemorated Haydn?.

I would say Eusebius Mandyczewski published c1907.

You are right.

Even today, Haydn hasn't completely recovered the stature he had when he died.

Several complete symphonic cycles recorded. Ditto the string quartets, keyboard sonatas and keyboard trios. Ditto the major operas. Ditto the concertos. Ditto the masses. Heck, even such obscurities as his baryton trios and concertos for lira organizzata have been recorded in complete. You know better than anyone that today, except a few items, all his oeuvre has been recorded, the major genres and works much more than once. If this doesn't mean he's one of the most popular composers among both performers and audience then I don't know what it means. 

[carlito77]

Interesting that Haydn composed more symphonies than Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart combined yet still so underrated.

[Florestan]

Interesting that Haydn composed more symphonies than Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart combined yet still so underrated.

Well, JS Bach composed the grand total of zero symphonies. 

Regardless of what has happened in the past, today Haydn is anything but underrated. See my post above.

[Gurn Blanston]

There! How could they (the 19th-century people, that is) know the real scope of Haydn's work if most of it remained obscure all throughout the century?

It was only obscure because the people who managed such things didn't wish to be bothered with it. In the mid 20th century, when Jens Larsen and later, Robbins-Landon, wanted to look at the other works, they had no problem digging up both printed published scores and in most cases, manuscripts.

You mean that in the heydays of late Late Romanticism they commemorated Haydn?.

Yes, in a half-assed sort of way. You know, Debussy wrote an Hommage a Haydn, and so did some others. This wasn't just a random coincidence, it was commissioned by a committee who were trying to arrange a celebration. Breitkopf and Hartel also began a 'Complete Works', but it didn't get very far. It was all sort of a dutiful thing. The first influential writer I am aware of who really realized the value of Haydn's music and tried to push it forward was Donald Tovey, and that was in the 1920's and '30's.

Several complete symphonic cycles recorded. Ditto the string quartets, keyboard sonatas and keyboard trios. Ditto the major operas. Ditto the concertos. Ditto the masses. Heck, even such obscurities as his baryton trios and concertos for lira organizzata have been recorded in complete. You know better than anyone that today, except a few items, all his oeuvre has been recorded, the major genres and works much more than once. If this doesn't mean he's one of the most popular composers among both performers and audience then I don't know what it means. 

Yes, well, I was talking about concert hall performances. In these days of individual control over ones own listening, anything is possible. And for every completed cycle, there is one which is incomplete. Period instruments are what boosted Haydn's reputation yet only 2 months ago did it become possible to get a complete symphony cycle on period instruments! I have 3 or 4 sets of Mozart's dances, and a couple of Beethoven's too, but none of Haydn's other than a few singles. The baryton and Scottish song cycles only came available within the last 10 years, one of each. Hardly an overwhelming flood. Most recordings are cherry-picked repertoire, so I have dozens of the London Sonatas, but only a very few of many of the earlier ones. So you are right about availability (if you are fortunate enough to get your hands on some), but I would still say he is underrepresented in the catalog overall, where I personally have 109 recordings of Beethoven's 9th symphony and could easily double that if I felt like spending the money. With Haydn, I DO feel like spending the money, but there is little to spend it on that I don't already have, with just an occasional drop coming out of the pipeline.

Of course, we can play the 'cup half full/empty game' forever. 

[Gurn Blanston]

Well, JS Bach composed the grand total of zero symphonies. 

Regardless of what has happened in the past, today Haydn is anything but underrated. See my post above.

True, but you could put JC & CPE's total output in that equation and still be on the losing end.

[Florestan]

I personally have 109 recordings of Beethoven's 9th symphony

Do you really need all of them? Can you tell the 36th from the 107th on a blind test? 

How many Surprise do you have?

[Scion7]

... I personally have 109 recordings of Beethoven's 9th symphony

Are all of these physical media?
Do you program your year to play each of them one time per year?
Has your woman told you if you bring one more of those  &%#$@ things into this house, you or I are out the door, mister! ?   

[Gurn Blanston]

Are all of these physical media?
Do you program your year to play each of them one time per year?
Has your woman told you if you bring one more of those  &%#$@ things into this house, you or I are out the door, mister! ?   

No, there are 2 that are radio-only recordings, NYPO/Boulez and a Chailly that was done the year before the studio recording. Also 2 on DVD, one is Gardiner Live from Carnegie Hall and the other is the Berliners/Abbado from Rome, that set. The rest are CD's.

No, she's cool with it. She knows I could be out raising hell instead of doing what I do, so she is good with that. 

[carlito77]

Well, JS Bach composed the grand total of zero symphonies. 

Regardless of what has happened in the past, today Haydn is anything but underrated. See my post above.

Florestan, I say underrated because as I stated in my first post that a lot of these so-called experts do not consider him in the top 10 list of greatest composers in history. One so-called expert is Antony Tommasini, NY Times classical music critic. His list puts Debussy, Stravinski, Bartok and even Shulbert above Haydn. Interesting that he doesn't even include Handel and Vivaldi in the top 10 list. This is the link to his article: http://onpoint.wbur.org/2011/02/02/classical-tommasini

[Gurn Blanston]

Do you really need all of them? Can you tell the 36th from the 107th on a blind test? 

How many Surprise do you have?

No, but I don't care to do that. When I am choosing one on Sunday morning, I remember, looking down through them, which ones I haven't heard recently, and also the general characteristics of each (fast, slow, great soloists, great choral, etc). That's all I need, really. It is much better for me than just having just one version to listen to every Sunday for years! 

[Gurn Blanston]

How many Surprise do you have?

Apparently I have 12 Symphony 94's. All the PI ones, of course, and a few modern. I also have 3 different performances of the Salomon chamber arrangement. So I'm all set there, I guess (until some new one comes along).

[North Star]

Florestan, I say underrated because as I stated in my first post that a lot of these so-called experts do not consider him in the top 10 list of greatest composers in history. One so-called expert is Antony Tommasini, NY Times classical music critic. His list puts Debussy, Stravinski, Bartok and even Shulbert above Haydn. Interesting that he doesn't even include Handel and Vivaldi in the top 10 list. This is the link to his article: http://onpoint.wbur.org/2011/02/02/classical-tommasini

I do agree that putting Shulbert above Haydn is an outrage. There is a strong case to be made for including Schubert on such a list, though. But this list is rather obviously biased, as Bach is the only one who didn't live during the 19th century. No Monteverdi, Josquin, Dufay or Machaut either on the list.

[ritter]

I do agree that putting Shulbert above Haydn is an outrage. But this list is rather obviously biased, as Bach is the only one who didn't live during the 19th century. No Monteverdi, Josquin, Dufay or Machaut either on the list.

...and I see nothing outrageous in including Debussy, Stravinsky and Bartók in the list. What I really find absurd is the inclusion of Giuseppe Verdi (and, yes, the exclusion Haydn)...

[North Star]

...and I see nothing outrageous in including Debussy, Stravinsky and Bartók in the list. What I really find absurd is the inclusion of Giuseppe Verdi (and, yes, the exclusion Haydn)...

Oh, I share the lack of outrage, and the feeling of absurdity.

[ritter]

Oh, I share the lack of outrage, and the feeling of absurdity.

Good evening to you, sir!