Haydn's Haus

[Mandryka]

My question about how people sang came about because I was listening to Fey and Bruggen play the andantino e cantabile from symphony 42. I don't know how strictly informed their performances are.

[Gurn Blanston]

My question about how people sang came about because I was listening to Fey and Bruggen play the andantino e cantabile from symphony 42. I don't know how strictly informed their performances are.

I don't know the answer to that at all. Plus, is it Italian style singing or German style? Arioso?  That's way out of my experience, I'm afraid. 

[Bogey]

Went ahead with a No.2 comparison between Fischer ans Goodman.  The Goodman is what it is.  Nice for a cd's worth.  However, Fischer's just has a depth and beauty to it missing in the Goodman, IMO.  Might be the engineering, the orchestral make-up, and the slower playing or something I am not aware of. 

Now time to focus on #'s 6-8.

[mszczuj]

I don't know the answer to that at all. Plus, is it Italian style singing or German style? Arioso? 

Or perhaps just singing? Not so rich but probably more cantabile than productions of professional art?

[Karl Henning]

Actually there is quite a bit of documentary evidence about all the things you say we have no idea whatsoever[....]

But Andrei is right, in that we cannot know how the music sounded then. (Even the wonderful recordings we have of Prokofiev playing his own music, although they furnish us important insights, is not truly the sound which was heard in that space, at that time.)  It is ultimately impossible to hear the music as Haydn heard it.  Which is not to discount the interest, and possible importance, of the documentary evidence.

I think Andrei has a good point, too, in the fact that a work of art, once it heads out into the world, has something of a life of its own.  Probably not entirely divorced from what the composer had in mind, but certainly much broader in compass than the artist's intent.

[Gurn Blanston]

But Andrei is right, in that we cannot know how the music sounded then. (Even the wonderful recordings we have of Prokofiev playing his own music, although they furnish us important insights, is not truly the sound which was heard in that space, at that time.)  It is ultimately impossible to hear the music as Haydn heard it.  Which is not to discount the interest, and possible importance, of the documentary evidence.

I think Andrei has a good point, too, in the fact that a work of art, once it heads out into the world, has something of a life of its own.  Probably not entirely divorced from what the composer had in mind, but certainly much broader in compass than the artist's intent.

I don't think that any serious musician or listener would argue that they hear (or want to hear) music the same way that the composer did (unless that was, say, Henning). That is a device for salesmen. It is also a 2 pronged fork; even if it could be reproduced precisely the way the Esterházy Band produced it, for example, 99.9% of us couldn't hear it the way the Prince did because our brains are not wired to hear and process music the way that his, and his educated contemporaries' brains were. So the whole issue/non-issue is far more complicated than its face value.

I don't argue the art thing anyway, so I venture nothing there. They can play it any way they want to play it. I only have to listen to realizations that I find interesting. If I find Minkowswki more interesting in the London Symphonies than I find Karajan, that's the reason both are available to me to discover. Life is good! 

[Gurn Blanston]

Or perhaps just singing? Not so rich but probably more cantabile than productions of professional art?

I don't know. I've always just felt that cantabile means lyrical, legato like a singer would be. I'm not entirely sure that it contains deeper or more varied connotations. Why I said Italian or German was only to differentiate between operatic and Liederische. They sound different to me....

[Bogey]

Symphony 6 (27)

The Fisher Model:

Nice feature of violin and winds up front.  The second movement was exceptional.  If Haydn is not a hidden "romantic" of his time, I do not know who was.  I could just listen to only his adagio movements and be satisfied.  Allowing the bass fiddlers to breathe at about the 2 minute mark was ear catching and fun.  (There he goes with that low plod that I enjoy from him.)  A nice nod to the horns at about the 4 minute mark and toward the end.  Cart before the horse, but this final movement had a Mozartian prance about it.  I wonder if his patrons at the end of a symphony would ever ask for a particular movement to be repeated....or because of the length, the entire symphony.  Had to of happened! 



Also gave this 6 a whirl:



Here we have the harpsichord sprinkling in and out.  Not Goodman level, but definitely there, just lighter.  Also, the violin playing in the Fischer is more to my taste.  Here again, Fischer wins for my preference.

FWIW, the liner notes of the Marriner reads:
One of the most striking features of these works is the constant use of instrumental solos, in which they much resemble the older concerto grosso.....Haydn's main concern was to display before the prince the skills of the virtuosos in his orchestra.

[Gurn Blanston]

Went ahead with a No.2 comparison between Fischer ans Goodman.  The Goodman is what it is.  Nice for a cd's worth.  However, Fischer's just has a depth and beauty to it missing in the Goodman, IMO.  Might be the engineering, the orchestral make-up, and the slower playing or something I am not aware of. 

Now time to focus on #'s 6-8.

The depth, beauty, fullness, whatever it will be called, stems from modern instruments with probably more players. It is more a matter of personal choice which you prefer. Important thing is that you enjoy the quality of the music. One of the reasons I rarely recommend performances, just music. As in; you really need to listen to 6-8!! My favorites of the early years.

[Bogey]

The depth, beauty, fullness, whatever it will be called, stems from modern instruments with probably more players. It is more a matter of personal choice which you prefer. Important thing is that you enjoy the quality of the music. One of the reasons I rarely recommend performances, just music. As in; you really need to listen to 6-8!! My favorites of the early years.

Good to know the bolded above.  And indeed, we are now getting into preferences, not whether it is done well.

[Gurn Blanston]

Symphony 6 (27)

The Fisher Model:

Nice feature of violin and winds up front.  The second movement was exceptional.  If Haydn is not a hidden "romantic" of his time, I do not know who was.  I could just listen to his adagio movements and be satisfied.  Allowing the bass fiddlers to breathe at about the 2 minute mark was ear catching and fun.  (There he goes with that low plod that I enjoy from him.)  A nice nod to the horns at about the 4 minute mark and toward the end Cart before the horse, but this final movement had a Mozartian prance about it.  I wonder if his patrons at the end of a symphony would ever ask for a particular movement to be repeated....or because of the length, the entire symphony.  Had to of happened! 



Also gave this 6 a whirl:



Here we have the harpsichord sprinkling in and out.  Not Goodman level, but definitely there, just lighter.  Also, the violin playing in the Fischer is more to my taste.  Here again, Fischer wins for my preference.

FWIW, the liner notes of the Marriner reads:
One of the most striking features of these works is the constant use of instrumental solos, in which they much resemble the older concerto grosso.....Haydn's main concern was to display before the prince the skills of the virtuosos in his orchestra.

He stole that line from me.... 

[Karl Henning]

He stole that line from me.... 

(* chortle *)

[Bogey]

He stole that line from me.... 

Lawsuit may be tricky, Gurn.  He wrote it in or before 1980.

[Gurn Blanston]

Lawsuit may be tricky, Gurn.  He wrote it in or before 1980.

I have you to support me on it though, Bill. You know, it's that chronosynclastic infundibulum thing all over again.  0:)

[Mandryka]

This question about what cantabile really is is central to J S Bach, he's on record as wanting keyboard music played cantabile. I don't know how important it is for Haydn. Baroque keyboard players don't necessarily take cantabile to mean a long legato line, like  you hear in Paderewsky's Haydn. Leonhardt articulated Bach's inventions into short legato units.

[Mandryka]

I was reading something in Robbins-Landon's Mozart "The Golden Years" the other day and he went on at some length about keyboard instruments (which is really sort of surprising if you know his work), and he said that most people just don't realize that a fortepiano and a piano are 2 entirely different instruments, not just a natural evolution of one into the other. And really, you can hear it, I bet you really can tell if you play them.

This post has been niggling me ever since I first read it, because of this recording:



In it, Hill uses a fortepiano which sounds so rich and well balanced between bass, midrange and treble, that when I first heard it I really thought he was playing some sort of metal framed modern instrument. He writes

For this recording I have used a reconstruction of a Florentine fortepiano c.1720 in the manner of Bartolomeo Cristofori, made by Keith Hill (Manchester, Michigan, USA, 1999). The inventor of the piano action, Cristofori also solved, over the period of at least a quarter century, the essential problems of tuning stability inherent in a mechanism in which the string is struck rather than plucked. His ideas were early on exported to Germany, but not in the form of actual instruments. Rather, German instrument-makers had to make do with a published description and a diagram of the action. Thus, the German fortepiano built by Silbermann and others solved the stability problems quite differently, issuing in a complex evolutionary process that, over many decades, ultimately resulted in the development of what we now know as the 'Steinway' grand piano. Remarkably, Cristofori anticipated many of the solutions which were finally adopted in modern grand piano design. I chose to use a Cristofori model because I prize the delightfully flexible sound of the brass strings found throughout the instrument, following the Italian tradition of harpsichord stringing (North European makers used iron from the tenor upwards). The "bloom" of the brass strings very efficiently supports the empfindsam gestures in the musical idea.

I'll try to get hold of a copy of the  book, but listening to this fortepiano of Hill's I can't imagine what Robbons Landon's argument is.

The music is amazing by the way -- I recommend the CD without hesitation if you don't already know it.

[Gurn Blanston]

This post has been niggling me ever since I first read it, because of this recording:



In it, Hill uses a fortepiano which sounds so rich and well balanced between bass, midrange and treble, that when I first heard it I really thought he was playing some sort of metal framed modern instrument. He writes

I'll try to get hold of a copy of the  book, but listening to this fortepiano of Hill's I can't imagine what Robbons Landon's argument is.

The music is amazing by the way -- I recommend the CD without hesitation if you don't already know it.

I DO have that disk and very much agree with you. Also BTW like the music on it too!

I didn't read that statement to be about the sound of the instrument per se. He was talking about the mechanics of it, how you can play things on it that either can't be duplicated on a modern piano at all or only by utilizing great skill. Anything that was truly simply evolutionary would have retained these earlier capabilities as well as adding new ones. Since I am not a pianist, and even if I was, the option to play a fortepiano has never presented itself, I can only accept the often presented statement by people who do both that 'the fortepiano is a whole different animal'.

I have some Badura-Skoda playing Schubert on an original FP that has a "Turkish Pedal" option, the first time I heard it I was blown away. Mozart's Walter had an attachment that allowed him to play the bass line like an organ by pedaling. It was actually as large as the keyboard itself. Some instruments also offered many added effects such as playing 1, 2 or 3 strings, and playing them only on certain notes, not the entire thing.

So I think that Landon's point was not that changing the frame from wood to iron was not evolutionary; it certainly was. However, "improved" sound was one of dozens of changes in the instrument. And the net result is that it is actually an entirely different instrument, not just bigger and louder.

[SonicMan46]

This post has been niggling me ever since I first read it, because of this recording:

 

In it, Hill uses a fortepiano which sounds so rich and well balanced between bass, midrange and treble, that when I first heard it I really thought he was playing some sort of metal framed modern instrument. He writes

Thanks for the recommendation w/ Hill on a fortepiano; I have the CD inserted above - Rampe on a harpsichord for the Polonoises + 2 other pieces (the last a Sonata on a tangent piano); just put an order in for the Hill recording! - Dave

[Gurn Blanston]

Thanks for the recommendation w/ Hill on a fortepiano; I have the CD inserted above - Rampe on a harpsichord for the Polonoises + 2 other pieces (the last a Sonata on a tangent piano); just put an order in for the Hill recording! - Dave

Haven't seen that Rampe disk before. I like the Tangentenflügel, I don't have any Haydn on one but quite a bit of CPE and Mozart. I should post some disks in your "Old Instruments" thread.

[SonicMan46]

Haven't seen that Rampe disk before. I like the Tangentenflügel, I don't have any Haydn on one but quite a bit of CPE and Mozart. I should post some disks in your "Old Instruments" thread.

Hi Gurn - just have three recordings of WF Bach's music - all harpsichord (except as noted) solo or concerto works; but concerning the Rampe disc, several excellent reviews (one by Dubins) reprinted HERE - Dave