What I like most about this apart from the HD video and hifi sound is the attitude of the players. They really seem to love this music and enjoy playing it. I remember seeing Roy Goodman say how much he like early Haydn. One day it will sink in in that Haydn didn't just churn out masterpieces in his later years. He was doing it his whole musical life.
I agree totally with a post below. To me Haydn's early and middle period works are endlessly fascinating. Here, he and his little band of brothers of (around 20) Esterhazy court musicians are like alchemists in a lab experimenting with new and powerful concoctions. Isolated from many outside influences (as Haydn said) a genuine originality based on immensely powerful development sections made up of of smaller building blocks...often nearly devoid of melodic content...laid the ground for larger structures such as the finale of Mozart's 41st or the opening movement of Beethoven's 5th symphony. In the 1760s and 1770s Haydn's bold adventures in sound embodied the future of instrumental music!
Considering that these are all live concertos, this series almost reaches perfection in terms of accuracy (including horns) and sonority. Perhaps the tempo is more traditional (sometimes a little too fast?) but this is only a detail: from now on, those who want to listen to Haydn's symphonies will have to start from Antonini and Il Giardino Armonico
Agreed...just one point about speed. I believe it was in a performance of Mozart's 39th symphony conducted by the maestro himself where he kept urging faster speeds and broke his shoe-buckle with foot stamping!
I agree. I only wish that they had included a harpsichord continuo, despite what Christopher Hogwood might have said to the contrary. Whether or not Haydn himself used a harpsichord at Eszterháza, due to limitations of space (or otherwise), is really irrelevant; because the use of continuo was de rigeur throughout the entirety of the Eighteenth Century everywhere else, and even right into the first decades of the early Nineteenth Century. It should be a moot question, and quite academic. But otherwise, I do agree that these present performances are in every other respect the epitome of perfection. ❤
Fascinante !!! Todas las sinfonías de Haydn 2032 son una maravilla, un regalo y deleite para el espíritu. Mi compañía en largos viajes de trabajo y también en mis horas libres. Gracias por estas publicaciones a Giovanni Antonini / Il Giardino Armonico. Se les quiere y admira desde Chile . Saludos afectuosos !!!
Un grand merci pour vos posts des symphonies de Haydn, compositeur trop déconsidéré en raison des génies qui l'ont largement éclipsé (Mozart et Beethoven essentiellement). Haydn est un grand compositeur dont j'écoute les oeuvres avec respect et admiration.
A fantastic performance - technically and interpretively, and artistically and emotionally - of a very fine symphony that shows the composer in complete control of his musical language, rhetoric, and musical inspiration. One of my definitions of great music is that the composer should have something to say, and the ability - creative, artistic and technical - to say it through music; this is a great symphony. I have always rated this early ‘sturm und drang’ symphony very highly, and it is a particularly useful work to demonstrate that the features of that movement were not limited to the seven minor key symphonies composed between c.1765 and 1773.* 1. Allegro 3/4 Sturm und drang - after a rather galant, Vanhal-style soft opening - it contains bold unisons, jagged melodic shapes, agitated strings, and has a driven feel to it, even as here, with Antonini’s perfectly set tempo. The switches back and forth between major and minor - light and shade, or chiaroscuro - create a real tension within the movement, and the contrapuntal sections of the darker development are very powerful; the contrast between galant and counterpoint - the latter another sturm und drang feature in Haydn - is masterfully balanced the composer throughout. 2. Andante 2/4 Strings only - a masterclass in so many ways; there is tonal ambiguity, rather than nursery rhyme simplicity; the development of ideas is highly original and always fascinating. At risk of spoiling this movement for all English speaking listeners, once you have caught the ‘Adeste fideles’ (‘O come all ye faithful’) melody, in order to understand Haydn’s masterful toying with the idea - variation, development, compression, expansion - you will find that you can sing the following words to almost the entire movement which neatly illustrates this point: O come let us adore him’, ‘O come let us, O come let us’, ‘O come’. An unusual way to understand Haydn’s skill in the intensive development and manipulation of musical motifs. 3. Minuet 3/4 This movement is perfectly paced by Antonini to my ears; does anyone have an explanation for the bizarre perpetuam mobile trio? 4. Presto 2/4 Whilst arguably a transitional symphony, the finale, whilst lighter than the opening movement, is I think an early attempt to better balance the symphony as a whole, and to move away from the front-loading of the musical content and weight of most contemporary symphonies, towards a more balanced four movement experience. The finale - besides probably Haydn’s first use of a ‘beginning as ending’ trick (here, the three chords) - has unpredictable phrases and modulations, with some slightly irregular rhythms; there is some feel of sturm und drang intensity too - though less darkly then in the first movement - it is a very clever and satisfying end to the work as a whole. The context of the symphony is interesting to know: Prince Nicholas had been to Paris, and he took his architect, and Luigi Tomasini (lead violin) with him. He was certainly eying up Versailles, amongst other things, with a view to a building project of his own! The indefatigable HC Robbins Landon tells us that the Prince left Paris on 14 November 1767, so this symphony has often speculatively been associated with his return to Eszterhaza with its extant dated autograph manuscript of 1 December 1767 - hence the pairing with the ‘Farewell’ symphony on the cd. The idea of a ‘Welcome’ symphony has not been established as a fact, but HCRL does note that it could explain the overall more cheerful character of the work; he points out that it would not have been appropriate for Haydn to welcome back the Prince with something like Symphony 49 ‘La Passione’. A few final points, I do not have the cd yet, but felt that the oboes here were slightly distant; on one or two previous cd’s I have noticed this on the video, but not on the actual cd; does anyone else have a view on this? Bravi, bravissimi to the two horns - there are some challenging parts here, brilliantly done. The filming of these performances is superb, indeed far better than most orchestral concerts available on RUclips - it is clear that a great deal of care and trouble has been taken to get them right. Therefore, a special thank you to everyone involved in making these productions so good; we should not take it for granted, the quality is not an accident, and so we should acknowledge it here. * Symphonies 34, 39, 49, 26, 44, 45, 52.
How knowledgeable you seem! I have had great admiration for Haydn for nearly forty years now...but am just a music lover without much knowledge of the technicalities of music... Admire you!
@@omervakkaf6063 You ask a good question, but one that is impossible to answer; that is not just a case of my being unable to make a decision, it’s just similar to asking what is my favourite colour, or favourite cuisine, my favourite city, favourite author/artist/architect, et cetera. I will give you a sort of answer: regarding the 107 (sic) symphonies of Haydn, I would suggest that 65 are ‘absolutely essential’ listening, 41 are ‘essential’ listening, and 1 is ‘required’ listening in order to be able to say you have heard all 107.* The symphonies are so hugely varied, that often personal favourites at any one time can change with mood, or as randomly as a change in the direction of the wind. I do have a large number of personal favourites - far too many to cut down to five - but could probably make lists of favourite types of Haydn symphonies. Those ‘types’ - with examples of which I am particularly fond - might come under the headings of: Early symphonies (pre-1761) 1 3 6-8 9 13 16 20 36 40 Sonata da chiesa type symphonies 5 11 15 21 22 30 34 49 Symphonies with solo instrumental parts 6-8 9 13 24 72 and 31 51 Sturm und drang period - minor key symphonies 26 39 44, 45 49 52 Sturm und drang period - major key symphonies 35 38 41 42 46 47 48 Theatrical symphonies 12 50 59 60 63 65 Eszterhaza symphonies 1770’s 54 55 56 57 66 67 68 70 Symphonies for wider European circulation 1780’s 73 76-78 79-81 ‘Name’ symphonies 22 53 63 88 92 ‘Paris’ symphonies 87 85 83 84 86 82** ‘London’ symphonies I 96 95 93 94 98 97** ‘London’ symphonies II 99-104 From this list of my initial candidates - cut from 107 to about 80 - choosing five is impossible; it would even be very difficult to pick just one from each of my arbitrary list of twelve types - a list that could even have been longer if for example I had created a category of C major symphonies, and then chosen a few favourite representative examples. I will however answer your question in a slightly different way, and say that if I were to be marooned on a desert island, and was allowed only one symphony to take and play, I could in fact choose just one rather more easily than five; and my choice would be the e minor Symphony 44 ‘Trauersinfonie’. I have discussed only symphonies here, and a proper answer to your question would have to include so many other musical genres that you will understand - taking just the string quartets - the difficulty of the problem where from the 58 quartets from Opus 20 onwards, we are really only comparing and trying to choose one masterpiece with another. As a point of interest, great Haydn scholar HC Robbins Landon suggests that the Missa in angustiis (Nelson Mass) is possibly Haydn’s greatest single work, though whether it also qualifies as ‘favourite’ is a separate debate. * The 107 comprising: Symphonies 1-104 (Hob.I:1-104) The sinfonia to Le pescatrici (Hob. I:106) Symphony ‘A’ (Hob.I:107) Symphony ‘B’ (Hob. I108) (The missing Hob. I:105 is the Sinfonia concertante). The only symphony I relegated to only ‘required’ (the ‘1’) is the early Symphony ‘B’ of 1759 which is I think the most ordinary, straightforward, and least original symphony of the 107. ** The correct chronological orders of both sets. In the case of the ‘Paris’ symphonies, Haydn’s clearly expressed instruction and preferred order in a letter to his Viennese publisher Artaria dated 2 August 1787 (ignored); the Artaria/Mandyczewski/Hoboken order makes no artistic nor musical sense whatsoever.
(1 dicembre 1767) Anche nelle sinfonie "in maggiore" di questo periodo si affaccia un sentimento nuovo, misto di inquietudine e di rivolta che trasfigura il primo e l'ultimo tempo. Il contenuto dell'"allegro" haydniano, pur mantenendosi nei margini tradizionali della forza classica, passa dal divertimento al dramma e, spesso alla disperazione. LDC
Wieder sehr schön, auch wieder mit einer Überraschung. Die Sinfonie endet zwar mit einem Tonika-Akkord, aber in Terzlage, was die Schlusswirkung abschwächt.
This note is prompted by Elaine Blackhurst's helpful comment following my previous contribution to this discussion. As the dating of Haydn's works has come into increasingly precise focus, it has become clear that, during his decades at the Esterházy court, the writing of symphonies tended to be concentrated at times when Haydn wasn't writing operas and other large-scale vocal works. This point is exemplified by the fact that there are no symphonies dated securely to 1766 or most of 1767 (until late in the second of those years, with No. 35). These were the years of the short opera 'La Canterina' (1766), besides the large Mass and the Stabat Mater mentioned previously. The converse applies to the years from late 1770 until 1773 - between what may have been the première of the opera 'Le Pescatrici' (September 1770) and that of 'L'Infedeltà delusa' (July 1773). This three-year stretch is particularly rich in impressive symphonies (whether securely dated on the basis of extant autograph scores, or plausibly assigned to that time). Based on a combination of primary source data (extant autograph scores) and informed speculation, Sonja Gerlach posited that the symphonies Nos. 44, 43, and 52 (in that order) date from the later months of 1770 and the early months of 1771, followed by No. 42 (autograph score dated 1771), and the three dated symphonies from 1772 (Nos. 47, 45, and 46). [This is written from my recollection of Gerlach's 1996 article, cited previously, rather than from current perusal of this source, and may therefore be subject to verification by other readers.] These were the years when Haydn was also writing the Opus 17 (1771) and Opus 20 (1772) string quartets, of which dated autograph scores survive. Allowing for the differences in musical style and orchestral forces between the Symphony No. 35, from relatively early in Haydn's maturity, and No. 102, from the composer's late middle age (1794-5), my impression is that the development sections in the opening movements of these two B flat major works pursue an analogous process of intensification. In the first movement of No. 35, the tension, already high, is ratcheted up further at bar 88, with the onset of the "towering contrapuntal anger" noted by Landon. The famously combative development section in the first movement of No. 102 undergoes a similar trajectory - if on a more extended time-frame - with a shattering plunge into C minor, after a few bars of relative relaxation in C major (dominated by a flute solo), which themselves follow a "violent canon", in the words of Landon (in his 1955 book on the Haydn Symphonies).
Screentime of conductor Antonini is limited to just a few quick medium shots - no egomaniacal closeups of the maestros facial expressions and grimaces. Bravo!
I’m researching the Bohemian composer Antonin Kammell. He not only performed this in London in 1769 he published it in an edition of six favourite symphonies from his concerts. It must have stood out as something special in 1769.
Robert Spruijtenburg's listing of extant Haydn Symphony autographs is helpful and most informative. In Robbins Landons' 1955 book there is a facsimile of the first page of music from the fragmentary autograph of the Symphony No. 85 in B flat major (opposite page 401 of the book), which is described as "formerly in the Berlin State Library (now Öffentliche Wissenschaftliche Bibliothek, Berlin)." Appendix I of this book indicates that this autograph fragment consists of 2 pages. The autograph score of the Symphony No. 9 in C major (dated 1762) was rediscovered several years ago; regrettably, I do not have a reference to an article that described this find, which I am almost certain was published in Haydn-Studien at some time during the past 15 years (I have seen the pertinent issue of the journal in the University of Pennsylvania Van Pelt Library, in Philadelphia, though am currently unable to cite the reference more precisely than this). Finally (at least for the present time), Appendix I of Landon's 1955 book indicates that the currently missing autograph score of the Symphony No. 93 in D major ("dated London, 1791") was "Formerly in possession of the Hofbuchhandlung Leibrock, Braunschweig (Brunswick), and inspected there by [the Haydn scholar] C. F. Pohl [1819-1887]. Present whereabouts unknown [as of 1955]."
Sono d’accordo al 100%; ma, da dove ha avuto origine questo strano moto perpetuo ? I agree 100%; but, from where has this strange perpetuam mobile come ?
Opportunities to correct one's long-held assumptions on the basis of new information are welcome. For example, one can now jettison the idea that this superb symphony was a chronological precursor to works that include the Symphony No. 39, the enormous Mass variously termed the Grosse Mariazellermesse, the Missa Cellensis, or, perhaps non-authentically, the Missa Sanctae Cecilia(e), and the Stabat Mater. With the Symphony No. 39 now re-assigned from the late 1760s to 1765 (for example, by Sonja Gerlach, in Haydn-Studien VII/1-2, pages 1-287 [1996]), the Mass dated to 1766 (on the basis of a partial autograph manuscript with that date), whether or not the whole of that large work was written in that year, and the Stabat Mater dated to 1767, the date of December 1767 for Symphony No. 35 falls after the actual or presumed dates of the other works just mentioned. Consequently, to view Symphony No. 35 as a sort of 'way station' en route to the minor key symphonies of the 1760s (Nos. 39, 26, and 49), as I may have tended to do in former decades, was a mistaken view, at least in the case of No. 39, which now appears to have preceded No. 35 by some two years. Although the dating of No. 39 remains somewhat uncertain (no dated autograph of that work is not known to exist), 1765 is plausible, given the fact that this was a year when there were 4 horns in the Esterhazy orchestra (as witness the Symphony No. 31 in D major from that year, which, like No. 39, uses 4 horns). Moreover, the catalogue of Haydn's works drawn up by the copyist Johann Elssler in 1805 lists the incipit of No. 39 between those of Nos. 29 and 28, both securely dated to 1765, on the basis of a complete autograph score (No. 29) and an autograph score of the first 3 movements (No. 28). This is, of course, "soft" evidence for a date, though nonetheless interesting and suggestive (the pertinent page of the Elssler catalogue is included in H. C. Robbins Landon's 1955 book on the Haydn symphonies, opposite page 32). With regard to the performance of No. 35 that triggered this note, the "towering contrapuntal anger" in the development section of the first movement (to quote Landon's description in the 1955 book cited above), and the exposed rising scale in the first horn part immediately after the start of the recapitulation of that movement, are managed superbly, and the ferocious symphonic drive of the fast movements (especially in the first movement) is another compelling feature of this performance.
Some interesting thoughts as ever; the exact dating of the symphonies will always be problematic as so many autograph scores no longer exist - in a significant number of cases due to fires at both Eisenstadt and Eszterhaza (including the Soviet army’s coup de grace at the latter in 1945). We are fortunate that scholars have today established a chronology which allows us to make more meaningful comments - as in yours above - and also more viable speculations. One additional factor with Haydn, but one in which I have always felt to be very important, is the difficulty of trying to date works by attempting to identify a smooth linear development in the composer; I do not think it exists in Haydn in the normal sense (though I do think it more evident in Mozart). (Robbins Landon was one of the first of whom I am aware to discuss the dangers of insisting on linear development). In Haydn, I think music presents a problem, or challenge, or question if you like. This problem/challenge/question sits at the centre; what Haydn then does is takes a series of steps AWAY from the centre, but in different directions in search of the solution or answer. (This is a variant of an old idea relating to the development of art). This therefore makes dating works simply by how they sound - or look in the score - extremely difficult because Haydn’s purpose, or travel of direction, is often very different. Thus, whilst I think Symphonies 45, 46, and 47 of 1772 very fine, judged by those standards, I find Symphony 52* - if a year or two later, to be lacking in comparison (it could be 1771); the point being that Haydn is attempting a different solution to the problem of the symphony - he is moving away from the hub down a different spoke of the wheel. Also, I think Haydn wrote very little absolute music; there are relevant, outside extra-musical influences - religious observance theatrical incidental music, foreign commissions, God speaking to the sinner, four horns, La chasse, exotic cultures, pastoral, cor anglais in E flat, times of the day, seasons, et cetera; the list is endless. These extra-musical influences are apparent in much of his output, and in some cases hinder rather than aid the accurate dating of works; they almost invariably have a direct impact on the form, spirit, shape, and content, and so forth, of the composition itself. * I always questioned the dating of this c minor symphony as I found it to be a ‘backward’ step after those of 1769 - 1772 (thinking linear), however as it has an obbligato bassoon, rather than just the col basso of the earlier works, I am just about reconciled to the later date, and use 52 to demonstrate my point about being wary of being too reliant on linear development. The other problem of course is that a number of scholars date Symphony 52 as 1771 which in many respects, makes more sense. In short, I agree absolutely about taking the opportunities to correct - or challenge - long-held assumptions, I’ve not got bored with Haydn yet, and find ever new ideas on which to muse, as in this reply. Many thanks for the prompt.
"To whom it may concern" I add a list with the extant symphony autographs and where they are located: - Budapest Széchényi National Library: Symphonies 7, 12, 13, 21-24, 29-31, 35, 42, 45-47, 54, 57, 61, 63 (fragment), 100 (2nd mvt missing) - no digital library. - British Library: Symphonies 40, 95-97, 103 - digital library online, open access. - Staatsbibliothek Berlin: Symphonies 28 (mvts 1-3), 55, 56, 94 (mvts 1, 3, 4), 102, 104, Sinfonia Concertante - digital library online, open access. - Bibliothèque Nationale de Paris: Symphonies 82, 83, 86, 87, 92 - digital library online, open access. - Jagiellonian Library Krakow: Symphonies 50, 73 (mvts 2, 3), 98, 99, 101 - not in their digital library. - Royal Academy of Music Stockholm: Symphony 49 - no digital library. - Wienbibliothek Rathaus Vienna: Symphony 53 Finale B (4 pages) - digital library online, open access. - Basel Paul Sacher Foundation: Symphony 84 - no digital library. - Fitzwilliam Museum Cambridge: Symphony 89 - no digital library. - Library of Congress Washington: Symphonies 90, 94 (2nd mvt) - digital library online, open access. - Pierpont Morgan Library New York: Symphony 91 - digital library online, open access. => All other symphony autographs are lost, in particular, among the well-known works, n°85, 88, 93 and the 2nd mvt. of n°100. If anyone would like to have the direct internet-links to the autographs, please let me know.
I'm loving the playing, hating the video. Too many abrupt camera changes completely unrelated to what's happening musically. Fire the video editor and get someone who will approach the visuals musically.
Un peu trop rapide, les cornistes ont beaucoup de difficultés à suivre ce train d'enfer. Ce que l'oeuvre y gagne en animation y perd en lisibilité. Mais c'est mené avec coeur et sérieux.
![Felix "Unfair" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Oswujxm2Ag0/mqdefault.jpg)
What I like most about this apart from the HD video and hifi sound is the attitude of the players. They really seem to love this music and enjoy playing it. I remember seeing Roy Goodman say how much he like early Haydn. One day it will sink in in that Haydn didn't just churn out masterpieces in his later years. He was doing it his whole musical life.
This conductor&orchestra really perform this work with..GUSTO!
The B-flat symphonies from this one until 1780 are magical. I hope the horns get an extra pint of beer after each performance!
Yeah, but nearly all Haydn's symphonies are magical.
Un progetto che fara' parte della storia della musica Grazie Maestro Antonini!!!
I agree totally with a post below. To me Haydn's early and middle period works are endlessly fascinating. Here, he and his little band of brothers of (around 20) Esterhazy court musicians are like alchemists in a lab experimenting with new and powerful concoctions. Isolated from many outside influences (as Haydn said) a genuine originality based on immensely powerful development sections made up of of smaller building blocks...often nearly devoid of melodic content...laid the ground for larger structures such as the finale of Mozart's 41st or the opening movement of Beethoven's 5th symphony. In the 1760s and 1770s Haydn's bold adventures in sound embodied the future of instrumental music!
Lovely Symphony and lovely musicians. Thanks once more for your great work on Haydn symphonies!
endless beauty , thank you papa Haydn and thanks for the great conductor
Considering that these are all live concertos, this series almost reaches perfection in terms of accuracy (including horns) and sonority. Perhaps the tempo is more traditional (sometimes a little too fast?) but this is only a detail: from now on, those who want to listen to Haydn's symphonies will have to start from Antonini and Il Giardino Armonico
Agreed...just one point about speed. I believe it was in a performance of Mozart's 39th symphony conducted by the maestro himself where he kept urging faster speeds and broke his shoe-buckle with foot stamping!
I agree. I only wish that they had included a harpsichord continuo, despite what Christopher Hogwood might have said to the contrary. Whether or not Haydn himself used a harpsichord at Eszterháza, due to limitations of space (or otherwise), is really irrelevant; because the use of continuo was de rigeur throughout the entirety of the Eighteenth Century everywhere else, and even right into the first decades of the early Nineteenth Century. It should be a moot question, and quite academic. But otherwise, I do agree that these present performances are in every other respect the epitome of perfection. ❤
Fascinante !!! Todas las sinfonías de Haydn 2032 son una maravilla, un regalo y deleite para el espíritu. Mi compañía en largos viajes de trabajo y también en mis horas libres. Gracias por estas publicaciones a Giovanni Antonini / Il Giardino Armonico. Se les quiere y admira desde Chile . Saludos afectuosos !!!
This Fourth Movement (16:18) is so energetic, so full of energy!
Un grand merci pour vos posts des symphonies de Haydn, compositeur trop déconsidéré en raison des génies qui l'ont largement éclipsé (Mozart et Beethoven essentiellement). Haydn est un grand compositeur dont j'écoute les oeuvres avec respect et admiration.
A fantastic performance - technically and interpretively, and artistically and emotionally - of a very fine symphony that shows the composer in complete control of his musical language, rhetoric, and musical inspiration.
One of my definitions of great music is that the composer should have something to say, and the ability - creative, artistic and technical - to say it through music; this is a great symphony.
I have always rated this early ‘sturm und drang’ symphony very highly, and it is a particularly useful work to demonstrate that the features of that movement were not limited to the seven minor key symphonies composed between c.1765 and 1773.*
1. Allegro 3/4
Sturm und drang - after a rather galant, Vanhal-style soft opening - it contains bold unisons, jagged melodic shapes, agitated strings, and has a driven feel to it, even as here, with Antonini’s perfectly set tempo.
The switches back and forth between major and minor - light and shade, or chiaroscuro - create a real tension within the movement, and the contrapuntal sections of the darker development are very powerful; the contrast between galant and counterpoint - the latter another sturm und drang feature in Haydn - is masterfully balanced the composer throughout.
2. Andante 2/4
Strings only - a masterclass in so many ways; there is tonal ambiguity, rather than nursery rhyme simplicity; the development of ideas is highly original and always fascinating.
At risk of spoiling this movement for all English speaking listeners, once you have caught the ‘Adeste fideles’ (‘O come all ye faithful’) melody, in order to understand Haydn’s masterful toying with the idea - variation, development, compression, expansion - you will find that you can sing the following words to almost the entire movement which neatly illustrates this point:
O come let us adore him’,
‘O come let us, O come let us’,
‘O come’.
An unusual way to understand Haydn’s skill in the intensive development and manipulation of musical motifs.
3. Minuet 3/4
This movement is perfectly paced by Antonini to my ears; does anyone have an explanation for the bizarre perpetuam mobile trio?
4. Presto 2/4
Whilst arguably a transitional symphony, the finale, whilst lighter than the opening movement, is I think an early attempt to better balance the symphony as a whole, and to move away from the front-loading of the musical content and weight of most contemporary symphonies, towards a more balanced four movement experience.
The finale - besides probably Haydn’s first use of a ‘beginning as ending’ trick (here, the three chords) - has unpredictable phrases and modulations, with some slightly irregular rhythms; there is some feel of sturm und drang intensity too - though less darkly then in the first movement - it is a very clever and satisfying end to the work as a whole.
The context of the symphony is interesting to know: Prince Nicholas had been to Paris, and he took his architect, and Luigi Tomasini (lead violin) with him. He was certainly eying up Versailles, amongst other things, with a view to a building project of his own!
The indefatigable HC Robbins Landon tells us that the Prince left Paris on 14 November 1767, so this symphony has often speculatively been associated with his return to Eszterhaza with its extant dated autograph manuscript of 1 December 1767 - hence the pairing with the ‘Farewell’ symphony on the cd.
The idea of a ‘Welcome’ symphony has not been established as a fact, but HCRL does note that it could explain the overall more cheerful character of the work; he points out that it would not have been appropriate for Haydn to welcome back the Prince with something like Symphony 49 ‘La Passione’.
A few final points, I do not have the cd yet, but felt that the oboes here were slightly distant; on one or two previous cd’s I have noticed this on the video, but not on the actual cd; does anyone else have a view on this?
Bravi, bravissimi to the two horns - there are some challenging parts here, brilliantly done.
The filming of these performances is superb, indeed far better than most orchestral concerts available on RUclips - it is clear that a great deal of care and trouble has been taken to get them right.
Therefore, a special thank you to everyone involved in making these productions so good; we should not take it for granted, the quality is not an accident, and so we should acknowledge it here.
* Symphonies 34, 39, 49, 26, 44, 45, 52.
How knowledgeable you seem! I have had great admiration for Haydn for nearly forty years now...but am just a music lover without much knowledge of the technicalities of music... Admire you!
@@LoveJoyPeace378
Thank you for your kind comment; I hope you found some useful pointers as to some things to listen out for.
I was wondering about the 5 favorite Haydn works of someone who made this comment...
@@omervakkaf6063
You ask a good question, but one that is impossible to answer; that is not just a case of my being unable to make a decision, it’s just similar to asking what is my favourite colour, or favourite cuisine, my favourite city, favourite author/artist/architect, et cetera.
I will give you a sort of answer: regarding the 107 (sic) symphonies of Haydn, I would suggest that 65 are ‘absolutely essential’ listening, 41 are ‘essential’ listening, and 1 is ‘required’ listening in order to be able to say you have heard all 107.*
The symphonies are so hugely varied, that often personal favourites at any one time can change with mood, or as randomly as a change in the direction of the wind.
I do have a large number of personal favourites - far too many to cut down to five - but could probably make lists of favourite types of Haydn symphonies.
Those ‘types’ - with examples of which I am particularly fond - might come under the headings of:
Early symphonies (pre-1761)
1 3 6-8 9 13 16 20 36 40
Sonata da chiesa type symphonies
5 11 15 21 22 30 34 49
Symphonies with solo instrumental parts
6-8 9 13 24 72 and 31 51
Sturm und drang period - minor key symphonies
26 39 44, 45 49 52
Sturm und drang period - major key symphonies
35 38 41 42 46 47 48
Theatrical symphonies
12 50 59 60 63 65
Eszterhaza symphonies 1770’s
54 55 56 57 66 67 68 70
Symphonies for wider European circulation 1780’s
73 76-78 79-81
‘Name’ symphonies
22 53 63 88 92
‘Paris’ symphonies
87 85 83 84 86 82**
‘London’ symphonies I
96 95 93 94 98 97**
‘London’ symphonies II
99-104
From this list of my initial candidates - cut from 107 to about 80 - choosing five is impossible; it would even be very difficult to pick just one from each of my arbitrary list of twelve types - a list that could even have been longer if for example I had created a category of C major symphonies, and then chosen a few favourite representative examples.
I will however answer your question in a slightly different way, and say that if I were to be marooned on a desert island, and was allowed only one symphony to take and play, I could in fact choose just one rather more easily than five; and my choice would be the e minor Symphony 44 ‘Trauersinfonie’.
I have discussed only symphonies here, and a proper answer to your question would have to include so many other musical genres that you will understand - taking just the string quartets - the difficulty of the problem where from the 58 quartets from Opus 20 onwards, we are really only comparing and trying to choose one masterpiece with another.
As a point of interest, great Haydn scholar HC Robbins Landon suggests that the Missa in angustiis (Nelson Mass) is possibly Haydn’s greatest single work, though whether it also qualifies as ‘favourite’ is a separate debate.
* The 107 comprising:
Symphonies 1-104 (Hob.I:1-104)
The sinfonia to Le pescatrici (Hob. I:106)
Symphony ‘A’ (Hob.I:107)
Symphony ‘B’ (Hob. I108)
(The missing Hob. I:105 is the Sinfonia concertante).
The only symphony I relegated to only ‘required’ (the ‘1’) is the early Symphony ‘B’ of 1759 which is I think the most ordinary, straightforward, and least original symphony of the 107.
** The correct chronological orders of both sets.
In the case of the ‘Paris’ symphonies, Haydn’s clearly expressed instruction and preferred order in a letter to his Viennese publisher Artaria dated 2 August 1787 (ignored); the Artaria/Mandyczewski/Hoboken order makes no artistic nor musical sense whatsoever.
(1 dicembre 1767) Anche nelle sinfonie "in maggiore" di questo periodo si affaccia un sentimento nuovo, misto di inquietudine e di rivolta che trasfigura il primo e l'ultimo tempo. Il contenuto dell'"allegro" haydniano, pur mantenendosi nei margini tradizionali della forza classica, passa dal divertimento al dramma e, spesso alla disperazione. LDC
Una delle sinfonie che preferisco, in particolar modo il primo movimento. Ottimamente eseguita nei tempi ed interpretazione
Wieder sehr schön, auch wieder mit einer Überraschung. Die Sinfonie endet zwar mit einem Tonika-Akkord, aber in Terzlage, was die Schlusswirkung abschwächt.
This note is prompted by Elaine Blackhurst's helpful comment following my previous contribution to this discussion. As the dating of Haydn's works has come into increasingly precise focus, it has become clear that, during his decades at the Esterházy court, the writing of symphonies tended to be concentrated at times when Haydn wasn't writing operas and other large-scale vocal works. This point is exemplified by the fact that there are no symphonies dated securely to 1766 or most of 1767 (until late in the second of those years, with No. 35). These were the years of the short opera 'La Canterina' (1766), besides the large Mass and the Stabat Mater mentioned previously. The converse applies to the years from late 1770 until 1773 - between what may have been the première of the opera 'Le Pescatrici' (September 1770) and that of 'L'Infedeltà delusa' (July 1773). This three-year stretch is particularly rich in impressive symphonies (whether securely dated on the basis of extant autograph scores, or plausibly assigned to that time). Based on a combination of primary source data (extant autograph scores) and informed speculation, Sonja Gerlach posited that the symphonies Nos. 44, 43, and 52 (in that order) date from the later months of 1770 and the early months of 1771, followed by No. 42 (autograph score dated 1771), and the three dated symphonies from 1772 (Nos. 47, 45, and 46). [This is written from my recollection of Gerlach's 1996 article, cited previously, rather than from current perusal of this source, and may therefore be subject to verification by other readers.] These were the years when Haydn was also writing the Opus 17 (1771) and Opus 20 (1772) string quartets, of which dated autograph scores survive.
Allowing for the differences in musical style and orchestral forces between the Symphony No. 35, from relatively early in Haydn's maturity, and No. 102, from the composer's late middle age (1794-5), my impression is that the development sections in the opening movements of these two B flat major works pursue an analogous process of intensification. In the first movement of No. 35, the tension, already high, is ratcheted up further at bar 88, with the onset of the "towering contrapuntal anger" noted by Landon. The famously combative development section in the first movement of No. 102 undergoes a similar trajectory - if on a more extended time-frame - with a shattering plunge into C minor, after a few bars of relative relaxation in C major (dominated by a flute solo), which themselves follow a "violent canon", in the words of Landon (in his 1955 book on the Haydn Symphonies).
Bravo!!!
Very enjoyable! Haydn symphonies are always fresh and have high qualities.
Screentime of conductor Antonini is limited to just a few quick medium shots - no egomaniacal closeups of the maestros facial expressions and grimaces. Bravo!
Thank you very much for posting this excellent and inspiring performance!
Also, the sound quality is excellent! 👏👏👏
A GREAT Music Symphony !!
OMG yes yes yes yes yes !!! *
Perfection!
Parabéns pelo projeto Haydn2032! Interpretação esplêndida! Bravo!
1st movement
0:16 begins |
I’m researching the Bohemian composer Antonin Kammell. He not only performed this in London in 1769 he published it in an edition of six favourite symphonies from his concerts. It must have stood out as something special in 1769.
This symphony is perfect
Robert Spruijtenburg's listing of extant Haydn Symphony autographs is helpful and most informative. In Robbins Landons' 1955 book there is a facsimile of the first page of music from the fragmentary autograph of the Symphony No. 85 in B flat major (opposite page 401 of the book), which is described as "formerly in the Berlin State Library (now Öffentliche Wissenschaftliche Bibliothek, Berlin)." Appendix I of this book indicates that this autograph fragment consists of 2 pages. The autograph score of the Symphony No. 9 in C major (dated 1762) was rediscovered several years ago; regrettably, I do not have a reference to an article that described this find, which I am almost certain was published in Haydn-Studien at some time during the past 15 years (I have seen the pertinent issue of the journal in the University of Pennsylvania Van Pelt Library, in Philadelphia, though am currently unable to cite the reference more precisely than this). Finally (at least for the present time), Appendix I of Landon's 1955 book indicates that the currently missing autograph score of the Symphony No. 93 in D major ("dated London, 1791") was "Formerly in possession of the Hofbuchhandlung Leibrock, Braunschweig (Brunswick), and inspected there by [the Haydn scholar] C. F. Pohl [1819-1887]. Present whereabouts unknown [as of 1955]."
7:22, The Second Movement.
Genial!
straordinario originalissimo trio
Sono d’accordo al 100%; ma, da dove ha avuto origine questo strano moto perpetuo ?
I agree 100%; but, from where has this strange perpetuam mobile come ?
Bravo!
Quand je lis il giardono armonico je fuis !
13:18, Third Movement.
Opportunities to correct one's long-held assumptions on the basis of new information are welcome. For example, one can now jettison the idea that this superb symphony was a chronological precursor to works that include the Symphony No. 39, the enormous Mass variously termed the Grosse Mariazellermesse, the Missa Cellensis, or, perhaps non-authentically, the Missa Sanctae Cecilia(e), and the Stabat Mater. With the Symphony No. 39 now re-assigned from the late 1760s to 1765 (for example, by Sonja Gerlach, in Haydn-Studien VII/1-2, pages 1-287 [1996]), the Mass dated to 1766 (on the basis of a partial autograph manuscript with that date), whether or not the whole of that large work was written in that year, and the Stabat Mater dated to 1767, the date of December 1767 for Symphony No. 35 falls after the actual or presumed dates of the other works just mentioned. Consequently, to view Symphony No. 35 as a sort of 'way station' en route to the minor key symphonies of the 1760s (Nos. 39, 26, and 49), as I may have tended to do in former decades, was a mistaken view, at least in the case of No. 39, which now appears to have preceded No. 35 by some two years. Although the dating of No. 39 remains somewhat uncertain (no dated autograph of that work is not known to exist), 1765 is plausible, given the fact that this was a year when there were 4 horns in the Esterhazy orchestra (as witness the Symphony No. 31 in D major from that year, which, like No. 39, uses 4 horns). Moreover, the catalogue of Haydn's works drawn up by the copyist Johann Elssler in 1805 lists the incipit of No. 39 between those of Nos. 29 and 28, both securely dated to 1765, on the basis of a complete autograph score (No. 29) and an autograph score of the first 3 movements (No. 28). This is, of course, "soft" evidence for a date, though nonetheless interesting and suggestive (the pertinent page of the Elssler catalogue is included in H. C. Robbins Landon's 1955 book on the Haydn symphonies, opposite page 32).
With regard to the performance of No. 35 that triggered this note, the "towering contrapuntal anger" in the development section of the first movement (to quote Landon's description in the 1955 book cited above), and the exposed rising scale in the first horn part immediately after the start of the recapitulation of that movement, are managed superbly, and the ferocious symphonic drive of the fast movements (especially in the first movement) is another compelling feature of this performance.
Correction: "no dated autograph [of No. 39] is known to exist".
Some interesting thoughts as ever; the exact dating of the symphonies will always be problematic as so many autograph scores no longer exist - in a significant number of cases due to fires at both Eisenstadt and Eszterhaza (including the Soviet army’s coup de grace at the latter in 1945).
We are fortunate that scholars have today established a chronology which allows us to make more meaningful comments - as in yours above - and also more viable speculations.
One additional factor with Haydn, but one in which I have always felt to be very important, is the difficulty of trying to date works by attempting to identify a smooth linear development in the composer; I do not think it exists in Haydn in the normal sense (though I do think it more evident in Mozart).
(Robbins Landon was one of the first of whom I am aware to discuss the dangers of insisting on linear development).
In Haydn, I think music presents a problem, or challenge, or question if you like.
This problem/challenge/question sits at the centre; what Haydn then does is takes a series of steps AWAY from the centre, but in different directions in search of the solution or answer.
(This is a variant of an old idea relating to the development of art).
This therefore makes dating works simply by how they sound - or look in the score - extremely difficult because Haydn’s purpose, or travel of direction, is often very different.
Thus, whilst I think Symphonies 45, 46, and 47 of 1772 very fine, judged by those standards, I find Symphony 52* - if a year or two later, to be lacking in comparison (it could be 1771); the point being that Haydn is attempting a different solution to the problem of the symphony - he is moving away from the hub down a different spoke of the wheel.
Also, I think Haydn wrote very little absolute music; there are relevant, outside extra-musical influences - religious observance theatrical incidental music, foreign commissions, God speaking to the sinner, four horns, La chasse, exotic cultures, pastoral, cor anglais in E flat, times of the day, seasons, et cetera; the list is endless.
These extra-musical influences are apparent in much of his output, and in some cases hinder rather than aid the accurate dating of works; they almost invariably have a direct impact on the form, spirit, shape, and content, and so forth, of the composition itself.
* I always questioned the dating of this c minor symphony as I found it to be a ‘backward’ step after those of 1769 - 1772 (thinking linear), however as it has an obbligato bassoon, rather than just the col basso of the earlier works, I am just about reconciled to the later date, and use 52 to demonstrate my point about being wary of being too reliant on linear development.
The other problem of course is that a number of scholars date Symphony 52 as 1771 which in many respects, makes more sense.
In short, I agree absolutely about taking the opportunities to correct - or challenge - long-held assumptions, I’ve not got bored with Haydn yet, and find ever new ideas on which to muse, as in this reply.
Many thanks for the prompt.
"To whom it may concern" I add a list with the extant symphony autographs and where they are located:
- Budapest Széchényi National Library: Symphonies 7, 12, 13, 21-24, 29-31, 35, 42, 45-47, 54, 57, 61, 63 (fragment), 100 (2nd mvt missing) - no digital library.
- British Library: Symphonies 40, 95-97, 103 - digital library online, open access.
- Staatsbibliothek Berlin: Symphonies 28 (mvts 1-3), 55, 56, 94 (mvts 1, 3, 4), 102, 104, Sinfonia Concertante - digital library online, open access.
- Bibliothèque Nationale de Paris: Symphonies 82, 83, 86, 87, 92 - digital library online, open access.
- Jagiellonian Library Krakow: Symphonies 50, 73 (mvts 2, 3), 98, 99, 101 - not in their digital library.
- Royal Academy of Music Stockholm: Symphony 49 - no digital library.
- Wienbibliothek Rathaus Vienna: Symphony 53 Finale B (4 pages) - digital library online, open access.
- Basel Paul Sacher Foundation: Symphony 84 - no digital library.
- Fitzwilliam Museum Cambridge: Symphony 89 - no digital library.
- Library of Congress Washington: Symphonies 90, 94 (2nd mvt) - digital library online, open access.
- Pierpont Morgan Library New York: Symphony 91 - digital library online, open access.
=> All other symphony autographs are lost, in particular, among the well-known works, n°85, 88, 93 and the 2nd mvt. of n°100.
If anyone would like to have the direct internet-links to the autographs, please let me know.
@@elaineblackhurst1509 Regarding the extant symphony autographs and their location, please refer to my answer to Martin Heyworth.
@@robertspruijtenburg3625
Noted with interest; thank you.
Where is it ?
13:17, The Third Movement.
Mozart No39 symphony looks like this symphony.
Mozart regularly sounds like Haydn, but lacks the compositional skill and sophistocation of the older master.
I'm loving the playing, hating the video. Too many abrupt camera changes completely unrelated to what's happening musically. Fire the video editor and get someone who will approach the visuals musically.
Un peu trop rapide, les cornistes ont beaucoup de difficultés à suivre ce train d'enfer. Ce que l'oeuvre y gagne en animation y perd en lisibilité. Mais c'est mené avec coeur et sérieux.