Haydn Symphony No. 65 | Kammerorchester Basel | Giovanni Antonini
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 25 ноя 2024
- Joseph Haydn (1732-1809): Symphony Nr. 65 in A-Major, Hob. I:65
Kammerorchester Basel | Giovanni Antonini, Conductor
Support Haydn2032 on Patreon.com/haydn2032
A big Thank You to our Patreon Florian Suter who generously supported this video!
In the lead-up to the 300th anniversary of Joseph Haydn's birth in 2032, the Joseph Haydn Foundation in Basel is organising, producing and financing the performance and recording of all 107 of the composer's symphonies by Il Giardino Armonico and Basel Chamber Orchestra under the artistic direction of Giovanni Antonini, one of the most highly-respected specialists in baroque, early classical and classical music, with its project Haydn2032.
Tags: Joseph Haydn, Haydn2032, Symphony No. 65, Kammerorchester Basel, Giovanni Antonini, Sinfonie Nr. 65
Performances of Haydn's symphonies have come such a long way from those of the 1940's and 50's which made them sound unbelievably dull and boring. It is so good these days to hear the vivacious and boisterous aspects of his music as well as the structural skill. Much enjoyed.
Dear Haydn ❤ always love 💕
you!!!!
Had a great time listening to this piece by Haydn. Bravo for the wonderful performance by the orchestra. The conductor was simply magnificent.
This 65th of Haydn is another masterpiece of this amazing composer. The first two movements constitute the first thematic group, which is not very common in Haydn. The minuet is also not a dance theme due to its rhythmic complexity. The ending has a very strong musical intensity with identical details to those seen in 73rd. Symphony. The music is magnificent and only a fabulous composer, with Haydn’s talent, could written it. The orchestra and its direction are remarkable. Thanks for the moments of incredible pleasure that this recording provided us.
That's a good synopsis, sir!
One of the best ensembles in the world, right here. Haydn comes alive with Kammerorcheter Basel. Such an eccentric and fun third movement. Well done!
Esecuzione magnifica di una grande Sinfonia. Il suono è veramente quello ideale, le dinamiche sono perfette e l'equilibrio tra le sezioni al massimo livello. Haydn at his best.
Достойное произведение,достойное исполнение. Прекрасная работа дирижера. Можно слушать и слушать.
Оркестр безупречен.Привет из Киева.
Согласен! Даже менуето так хорошо получилось. Нередко забывается, что это старый танец, а не гонка с собаками. Привет из Австрий.
Haydn, Basel, Giardino e Antonini, um magnífico quadrinômio a ser visto, ouvido e admirado!... Grato pelas postagens.
Vivace e con spirito: 0:30
Andante: 8:15
Minuetto & Trio: 14:06
Finale. Presto: 16:54
That Menuett!!! So COOL :D Great performance! Thanks to all !
Agreed! One of my "top ten favorites" of the menuettos among the Haydn symphonies. Maybe top 5!
@@steve.schatz would love to hear your complete list of favorites
always been a 'Haydn' man&always will be....jn
Wonderful. I'm lost for words. Again! But just ticking the 'like' button seems such an inadequate way of showing my appreciation.
Looks like the concert was a sell out - deservedly so.
It seems almost pointless to comment on another fantastic performance in this revelatory series of symphonies when any comment simply repeats the superlatives already written by so many people previously.
The direction, playing and interpretation are all outstanding.
One wonders what Prince Nicholas must have thought whilst he sat listening to works such as this.
When compared with the easy listening, entertainment music of so many contemporary works, he was presented with yet another work demanding his full attention, taking him on a musical journey into areas few of his peers were ever taken.
In this work of c.1772/3*, the Prince was confronted with a highly original, quirky and eccentric theatrical symphony written during the peak of his Kapellmeister’s sturm und drang phase (the number 65 is chronologically too high and it was written around the time of 45, 46, 47 and 51*)
Some things Prince Nicholas would have noted:
- A first movement with probably three themes, a free use of sonata form with development of material in exposition, development and recapitulation, and a powerful use of silence.
- A second movement that has been described as ‘...an incongruous juxtaposition of disparate ideas’ (Richard Wigmore), and ‘...of almost lunatic irrationality’ (Robbins Landon).
The fragments of this movement are beautifully bound together by Antonini and not for the first time in this series, he ‘gets’ the music totally and the movement tells its own story.
- The Minuet is pure Haydn:
distorted rhythms;
clashes of 3/4 and 4/4 - you cannot dance this Minuet;
rhythmic ingenuity - including a clever use of hemiolas;
and a ‘tuneless’ Balkan/Gypsy influenced trio section.
- The finale is a 12/8 hunting piece that would have appealed particularly to the Prince who loved the sound of the horns; it has been suggested that the actual horn call was the signal to release the dogs!
The horn parts are difficult - Haydn had outstanding players throughout his time at Eszterhaza, and as in the second movement of Symphony 51 written around the same time, Haydn is not afraid to write demanding parts for them.
In summary, a very interesting symphony that needs proper attention whilst listening in order to get the most out of it - it is not suitable as aural wallpaper.
As always in this series, it is beautifully shaped and played by a conductor and orchestra who have given us a dynamic, alive performance of elegance, power and the highest artistic integrity.
Subsequent comment:
* Following the thoughtful reply from Robert Spruijtenburg (below), further research, and listening to the evidence of my own ears; whilst some authorities date this symphony as I stated above, I agree with RS that this symphony is perhaps more likely to be c.1769 as he suggests and roughly contemporary with the works he lists.
Regarding the chronology of Haydn's symphonies for me the reference is Sonja Gerlach's authoritative study "Joseph Haydns Sinfonien bis 1774 - Studien zur Chronologie" (Haydn-Studien Band VII, Mai 1996, Heft 1/2. Veröffentlichungen des Joseph Haydn Instituts Köln, 288 pages), unfortunately only in German. It makes fascinating reading, much like a detective story, because Sonja Gerlach approaches the problem of chronology from many different sides in order to draw her conclusions on a very broad and differentiated basis. An earlier study by S. Gerlach is devoted to the symphonies of 1774-1782 (("Die chronologische Ordnung von Haydns Sinfonien zwischen 1774 und 1782", Haydn-Studien Band II, März 1969, Heft 1, p. 34-66).
According to Sonja Gerlach symphony 65 most probably is even still earlier than you have assumed: the most likely year of composition is 1769, which would place n°65 in the neighborhood of n°48 (1769) and 59, 49, 26 and 41 (1768; in this order).
As to the recording, I must say I regret that at the start of the last movement and at all parallel places there the two solo horns completely drown out the response of the strings. This is also the case on the CD which has been recorded in a hall near Basel, i.e. a venue different from the one on the video.
By the way: the concert program with symphonies 9, 65 and 67 also featured excerpts from Mozart's opera fragment Thamos, King of Egypt (1773), which also have been uploaded on RUclips recently, quite extraordinary pieces: ruclips.net/video/PwbjZJyK8-s/видео.html.
To all Haydn aficionados: I warmly recommend to view the performances of various Haydn symphonies with Hidemi Suzuki and his Orchestra Libera Classica on RUclips. His style is impeccable and his orchestra excellent. These are the ones I've found: n°57, 71, 98, 29, 2 and 74 (1st mvt only). Hidemi Suzuki has recorded many Haydn symphonies for Arte dell'Arco (issued by TDK), but unfortunately quite a few of those CD's are no longer available. However, some can still be found on amazon.com, amazon.de, amazon.fr and amazon.jp, as well as with ebay.com, and a few others are accessible on Naxos Music Library: highly recommended! This is the link for symphony 57: ruclips.net/video/AwTXi8Oa40c/видео.html.
Regarding the point thrown up by Jean-Baptiste Des Prez refer to my response to him below.
Robert Spruijtenburg.
Thank you for your thoughtful, knowledgeable, and interesting insights; I have added a subsequent comment to my original contribution to reflect my agreement with you that the symphony is perhaps better dated even earlier at c.1769.
There are different views about the dating of this work; for example, a concern with the earlier date is that it is clear that the evidence shows that Haydn entered the symphony into his Entwurf-Katalog in 1772 (Robbins Landon, and elsewhere).
Presumably, Sonja Gerlach must have a view on this discrepancy.
My own ears, on reflection, and another look through the score, lead me to agree with the points you have made and to the earlier dating of the symphony being a real possibility.
Likewise, thank you for your explanation about the change of horns in the second movement.
The issue of the balance between the horns and strings in the finale is an interesting point; Haydn intended the horns to shine - the degree to which they are allowed to do so becomes one of the details of the interpretation.
I suspect Prince Nicholas would not have objected to this horn dominated music (which occurs in other compositions of this period too); in some recordings, the horns are too repressed - I was ok with Antononi’s balance, but accept that this is a personal choice.
I intend to add a few comments to the Thamos recordings in the near future, and will check out the Hidemi Suzuki recordings you mention as I think it’s important to support those orchestras prepared to venture into relatively unknown territory.
Once again, many thanks for the time and trouble you have gone to over your comments; they are much appreciated.
@@elaineblackhurst1509 Regarding the discrepancy between Sonja Gerlach's conclusion that symphony 65 was most likely composed in 1769 and the fact that Haydn entered it into his Entwurfkatalog in 1772: in her study S. Gerlach offers a detailed description of the aspect of the Entwurfskatalog. Obviously there are different "layers", corresponding to different additions by Haydn. It is very clear that Haydn didn't make the effort to actualize his Entwurfskatalog on a regular basis, but only when he was able to make time for it. So "layer 3" consists of symphonies 45, 46, 65, 48, 47 (in this order) which he entered in 1772. This, however, doesn't mean that these five works have been composed in that year. S. Gerlach also concludes that Haydn seems to have composed 4 symphonies per year on average, two in spring and two in autumn, which thus, respectively, can be considered to constitute contrasting pairs. This is the case for nr 65 and 48, as she demonstrates on the basis of a stylistic analysis. Regarding chronology in general, I think one has to be aware that at that time composers (and other creative artists as well) didn't think in historical categories with a view to posterity. They just composed "Gebrauchsmusik" for the day. It was all "contemporary music", i.e. "yesterday", and therefore "history", was of no particular interest. I imagine, therefore, that the exact chronology of his works was not of primary importance to Haydn, he just wanted to be sure to have them catalogued. What might appear to us as sloppiness must be understood in this historical context. By the way, I'm fully aware that trying to summarize in a few lines the trains of thought in such a profound and differentiated study as S. Gerlach's inevitably leaves much space for controversy. It's a shame that such a fundamental study has never been translated into English.
As to my comment about the horns drowning out the strings at the start of the finale. IMHO the recordings with Hogwood and Solomons are superior here. In the score there are no dynamics marked for the horns at the beginning of the movement, but for the strings it says "piano". This notation is similar to the one in opera (refer to the scores of Mozart's operas) where dynamics are only marked for the orchestra and the singers have to follow those dynamics as a matter of fact. In the finale of symphony 65, therefore, I think that the two "diva's", i.e. the horns, have to be piano also at the beginning, which is what Hogwood and Solomons do. Moreover, the response of the strings is thematic, i.e. structural, and thus should be heard. That's why I think that Antonini errs here.
So the next symphony to be uploaded on RUclips should be nr 9. All the videos of this series, as the CD's as well, take frustratingly long to be issued.
By the way, when Derek Solomon's recordings were issued on LP in the 1980-ies and later on CD, I somehow missed most of them. Then by pure chance I hit on the Haydn House in Dennis, Massachussets, who make all of those recordings available as personal copies for $12 apiece. They also offer all of Lesley Jones' Haydn recordings, which are especially dear to me as I grew up with them in the 1960-ies. Just in case, this is their web-site: www.haydnhouse.com.
I will also add a comment to symphony 67 soon, which perhaps you might be interested to read.
Robert Spruijtenburg
Once again, my thanks to you for taking the trouble to share your fascinating and thoughtful insights; they will be appreciated by casual readers coming across them as much as they have been by myself.
Since I first raised the issue of the 1772 entry of this symphony in the Entwurf-Katalog being at odds with Sonja Gerlach’s suggested 1769 dating, it occurred to me that perhaps if the work originated as incidental music at the earlier date, perhaps it was at the later date that Haydn put the music into the form of a symphony and then made the entry.
This would allow for 1769 as the composition date of the incidental music, and 1772 for the date of the symphony.
This is pure conjecture on my part without having access to Gerlach’s work, but would explain the difference between the two dates.
I agree with you that it is a pity that Gerlach’s work is not available in English; it is a work that is frequently cited and one that I would be interested to study.
Regarding the Solomon performances; when I sold my LP collection, I kept hold of my boxed sets and some single LP’s of his recordings, I thought they were a revelation at the time and still use them as reference recordings.
I find the almost complete Hogwood set more variable and lacking a little of Antonini’s spark sometimes, though this obviously is a subjective and personal view.
I will of course look forward to your comments on Symphony 67, and hopefully learn as much as I have in this thread.
@@elaineblackhurst1509 Thank you for your response! I don't know if in the meantime you have been able to get hold of the CD Volume nr 7 featuring symphonies 9, 65, 67 and excerpts from Mozart's Thamos. The liner notes are, as always, written by Christian Moritz-Bauer who is doing research for his PhD thesis dealing with the rediscovery and historical significance of theater music in Haydn's symphonies. In the booklet he writes about nr 65: "Only a few weeks after the final Haydn Night in Rome in the autumn of 2017 the 'smoking gun' evidence lay in the hands of the author of these lines: a printed copy of the Lustspiel 'Der Postzug oder die noblen Passionen' (The post horses and the noble passions)". The premiere of the play was in Vienna on September 30, 1769, and "in no time at all it was to become a celebrated repertory piece for numerous theaters inside and outside the Habsburg Empire, including Esterhaza Palace, where a court festival including fireworks and masked balls ended the theater season in October of the same year." And C. Moritz-Bauer then gives a summary of the play and some examples of how and where the music refers to the action of the play. Unfortunately, however, he does not mention the 1769/1772 issue. I will come back to Moritz-Bauer's study in my comments on symphony 67.
I agree with you about Hogwood's set of Haydn symphonies: some are very fine, but more often than not I find them lacking the "tremendous" energy Haydn's music requires. This, with Antonini, is never an issue. To my taste Hogwood's approach often is too "polite", too "British" perhaps? And a main handicap I think is a too weak bass: often just one double-bass, one 'cello and one viola. His argument that that's what Haydn had at his disposal doesn't hold for me: of course Haydn had "to make do" with those forces, but he would without any doubt have loved stronger bass forces. He knew as well as we do that our entire Western classical music is constructed "bottom up" from the bass. The other "weakness" of Hogwood's set is that to me he is too conservative in the sense that if the sources are not 100% positive about the authenticity of the parts, he doesn't use them. So he performs some symphonies without trumpets and timpani, which is a shame.
Wow! What a goal! I'm loving these performances. The valveless horns are magnificent.
Marvelous symphony! Bravo to all!
Marvellous performance!
Lovely interpretation. Thank you.
for an exceptionally hot summer… the best gift of this days!! Fantastic. Thanks very much for posting it. Again the best. Love it
Great performance!
Superlative Haydn, perfectly executed. Haydn seems to bring out the best in classical musicians.
Ohooo boy this is so cute ❤
Trivial remark - I love the "cock-a-doodle-doos " in the last movement!
The minuetto contains the most unconventional unexpected and creative melody in the whole music's history. During Haydn's period a huge number of compositions were produced: the majority of them are pleasant but ...very conventional and similar each others. K.P.E. Bach, Haydn, Paisiello and, of course, Mozart stand out over all their colleagues!
20:12, the cello player looks to the conductor for direction!
Thank you for the video. Could you please each time also put the venue and date info into the description? I know the place and I know everything can be found at Haydn2032 website, but not everyone does. Thank you.
Is there a wrong note at 12:33. Forgive my ignorance. The horn is off?
Sometimes in the fast movs Antonini chooses a lamentful legato in forte passages. I can't say I like it. There are many very good sides as well, in this performance.
a masterpiece unfairly neglected
Agreed!
antonio veraldi
I get your point, but I am not sure that it is particularly unfairly neglected; the problem is more about the large number of superbly crafted, original, and highly professional symphonies Haydn composed.
Of the 104 (plus ‘A’ and ‘B’, and the overture to Le pescatrici Hob. I:106), not a single one is not worth repeated hearing.*
This symphony is one of 19 that I would include in the ‘sturm und drang’ group of works ie any conductor wanting a Haydn symphony from this period, or in this style, simply has too many from which to choose.
The number, quality and diversity of the works simply means that a large number of them are not performed as often as they might be.
A similar problem affects Mozart, though the quality of the works is much wider in his case; really only 8 (possibly 10) of his 41 are performed regularly - 25, (28, 29), 31, 35, 36, 38, 39, 40 and 41.
Likewise with Beethoven, performances of 1, 2, 4 and 8 are rare compared to the other five.
In fact, in terms of the variety of symphonies programmed, Haydn does ok, as you will find works being performed regularly from all periods of his life. This contrasts sharply with Mozart performances as explained above, which apart from 25 and 31, almost always post-date his move to Vienna.
For all three of these composers, there are a number of relatively neglected works, but sometimes, some rather unimaginative programming with a tendency to fall back - regularly - onto familiar works.
* Of the 107 symphonies, I will perhaps except the very early Symphony ‘A’ (Hob. I:107) of 1759 from this imprimatur; I think it one of Haydn’s least impressive works in any genre.
in my opinion the best symphonies of the period 1771-1772 for richness and variety of ideas are the 42,43,44,45,46,47,52,51 and especially the 65 (the beethovenian echoes of the development in the first movement!)
With regard to the question of which works by Haydn were performed around 100 years ago, it's instructive to look at the online archive of the London Promenade concerts. Here, one finds (from the days of Henry Wood, in the early 20th Century) a substantial number of early Haydn symphonies - a situation no doubt reflecting the then-recent availability of scores of these works in the first attempted "complete" Haydn edition. In looking at this archive, I have been aware that Haydn symphony numbers included old numbers (such as "No. 2" for what we would call "No. 104", using the Mandyczewksi numbers still in common use), and - at least to my satisfaction - have ruled out this potential pitfall, by checking the keys of works listed against the numbers listed in the 'Prom' programmes, which do correspond to key/number as in the Mandyczewski catalogue). At risk of sounding anecdotal (or perhaps trivial), my impression is that each successive generation assumes that it is the first one to have explored Haydn "properly", without being aware of what may have done by earlier generations of explorers. This is not to say that the cumulative efforts of several generations of students of the composer's oeuvre have not led to what I think is now a fairly comprehensive knowledge of his creative legacy.
14:05, The Third Movement.
I see 2 different types of horns. Can anyone explain the difference? One is very basic with only just one crook. The other one seems to have 2 or more.
Jean-Baptiste Des Prez Another mystery - the two horns are almost identical in the second movement, the ‘basic’ horn has been rested but reappears for the minuet and finale!
Comparing the horns used in the outer movements, they are the same length of tube and played the same way, but the second horn is using an older iteration of the instrument that lacks a tuning slide. The first horn is playing an instrument with a tuning slide, an innovation that began to appear during Haydn's long life. It's difficult to be certain what type of instrument would've been available at Esterhazy at the time of this work's composition, but the second horn's simpler instrument is probably a little more likely.
@@elaineblackhurst1509 Actually both horn players switched to different horns for the second movement. It's more apparent given the stronger outward visual differences of the second horn's instruments, but the first horn is also obviously playing a different instrument in that movement. Without speaking to them, it would be conjecture to guess why. My first guess is the choice had to do with playability, or the practicality of crooking (changing the length of the horn to get a different key) in one or both keys.
Clinton Webb Thanks for your reply; I wasn’t sure about the first horn’s change, but it’s not my area so I appreciated your thoughtful insights.
Regarding the different aspect of the two horns: I've inquired with an expert associated with the Kammerorchester Basel (I live in Basel). It's indeed two types of horns. The 1st horn-player (seated right) plays a modern replica by E. Schmid of a model by Ignaz Lorenz, Linz (1790). The 2nd horn-player (seated left) plays a modern replica by A. Jungwirth of a model by Antoine Courtois, Paris. In the 2nd movement the horns have been crooked from A to D, so they look again different.
20:06? grace note?
😉
疾風怒濤期の感情の陰影と80番代の快活さへに至る過渡期の作品。
Basso continuo?
The bass line is carried by the cello’s, violone (double bass), and a ‘col basso’ bassoon.
There is no harpsichord continuo in this series of Haydn symphonies.
One appears occasionally however in some of the additional contemporary works on each cd, for example the intimate string symphony in F by WF Bach (F67) where one is both clearly implied in the writing, and needed.
If you are interested to know more, there is a discussion of the continuo issue to be found if you look at the performance of Symphony 12 in the Haydn 2032 project where I have attempted to answer the question ‘Where is the harpsichord?’ which appears in the comments section.
Sounds to me like Antonini is trying to make Haydn sound like Beethoven. The dynamics are a bit exaggerated?
An interesting point; hope the following is helpful.
Haydn and Beethoven have much in common, their music can be quite spiky, sometimes jerky, and somewhat uncomfortable; Antonini is bringing out the dramatic contrasts in Haydn’s music very well.
Some of the least satisfactory performances of Haydn’s works are often those when conductors try to smooth over Haydn’s originality and try to perform his symphonies with a Mozartian-type of poise, elegance, and balance.
Haydn’s symphonies during his lifetime had *impact* across the whole continent; Antonini is recreating the sounds of the time allowing us to better understand why that was so.
Compared to the more limited terraced dynamics of Baroque orchestral works, the greater use of contrasting dynamics was a key feature of the development of sonata form, and the new Classical symphony.
This contrast was inevitable as movements usually contained at least two contrasting themes/subjects which were orchestrated differently, carried different emotions, and required orchestras to accent those differences through the greater use of a wider range of dynamics.
(This is usually true in monothematic sonata form movements as well).
Therefore, ‘sounds like Beethoven’ had actually begun much earlier, in fact as far back as the dawn of the Classical period.
New orchestral effects, including spectacular dynamics were very evident in the symphonies of Johann Stamitz for example at Mannheim in the 1750’s, who used the orchestra very differently from composers of the previous - indeed still surviving in a number of cases - Baroque generation.
And just to avoid being too generalised about this, there were a number of examples of composers using the Baroque orchestra in a sometimes quite unusual, indeed shocking manner as to be found quite often in Rameau for example.
Stamitz died in 1757 - the year of Haydn’s first symphony - having composed about sixty modern symphonies where ‘the dynamics [were] a bit exaggerated’ - and deliberately so.
Startling dynamic contrasts did not have to wait for Beethoven.
In summary, I would suggest that Antonini is making Haydn sound like...Haydn.
Dear@@elaineblackhurst1509, spectacular this comment about Haydn sounding like Beethoven: ultimately it would be Beethoven sounding like Haydn, something the 19th century would be horrified to imagine.
By the way, your comments are always very enriching, starting from Antonini's performances to cover the more general themes in relation to Haydn's work: your suggestion to listen to the Paris symphonies with Harnoncourt and ending with n.82 was very welcome; and the details you bring for each of the works (and the others) that have been carried out in the Haydn 2032 project are very enlightening; I look for them all in the comments to the posted videos. Many thanks.
@@pedrovasconcellos4094
Thank you for your interesting and very kind comment - it is much appreciated, and has prompted some further thoughts.
I have added a few comments under various performances of Beethoven’s Symphony 1 as I think there are obviously elements of both Mozart and Haydn - in very different ways - to be found; however, I do think that like all Beethoven’s first opera (opus plural) such as the piano trios Opus 1, piano sonatas Opus 2, string quartets Opus 18, and the first symphony, that they are all a little bit more radically evolutionary and ‘post-Classical’ (my preferred term), than often credited.
These striking first efforts were I think a deliberate ploy by Beethoven, and whilst there is a huge amount of Haydn in the compositional technique - most obviously in areas such as thematic and motivic development, and tonal relationships for example, in other areas - orchestration being one such case - Beethoven really is sounding a very new voice from the start.*
Regarding the ‘Paris’ symphonies, I’m pleased that you found that useful, and hope others too follow Haydn’s order which to me is as important as Mozart’s 39, 40, 41.
Similarly, the first set for London make more musical sense when taken as a whole in Haydn’s order of 96, 95, 93, 94, 98, (Sinfonia Concertante), 97,** an order which allows you to follow the composer through his eighteen-month stay in England, his musical development, and the concerts in London, in their proper historical context.
I trust that the Haydn 2032 project, and Giovanni Antonini, will follow the correct chronological and developmental sequence of these late works - or at least acknowledge it if the thematic scheme of the releases in the series mitigates against this - rather than the entirely arbitrary Mandyczewski/Hoboken numbering, and that listeners will appreciate the difference.
* The new Beethovenian scherzi to be found in these early opera are a case in point; whilst Haydn had got the Minuet up to Allegro molto for example in Symphony 94, it was from Beethoven that astonishingly, the 65 year old composer learned to write aggressive, manic, off-beat accented, energetic, forte outburst laden, genuine scherzi - rather than speeded-up Minuets - in some of the Opus 76 and Opus 77 string quartets
Interestingly, one of the thinnest parts of both Beethoven and Haydn biographies is what the two composers actually talked about during the considerable time they spent together; I am convinced that it was Beethoven in effect who answered Haydn’s own question about who could write a really new Minuet, the astounding thing is that when the old man found his answer, he had a go himself.
** The second set for London, apart from one minor detail of a difference of four weeks between the first performances of Symphonies 101 (3 March 1794) and Symphony 100 (31 March 1794), are correct in the standard numbering as found in Hoboken I.
@@elaineblackhurst1509, his comments are so instigating that I want to collect them all and revisit them often, to establish with them a continuous dialogue, because of the endless enjoyment I have been making for almost fifty years of Haydn's symphonies (and from there to the whole of his work), since my childhood (the 70s), starting with symphony 94 (on an old LP with the Academy of St. Cecilia in Rome that on the second side had Mozart's symphony 40, recorded in 1966) and 97 (on a series of three discs in 78 RPM, I think with Thomas Beecham); that was what my father had of Haydn; then came Sawallisch (94 and 100) and Leslie Jones (Paris and London Symphonies); much later Karajan (83 and 101) and only at the turn of the 2000s the historically directed interpretations, with Hogwood. At the moment I give absolute priority to this kind of reading, and I greatly appreciate comparisons between versions. In this regard I have been following with interest the interpretations of Harry Christophers (about which I would very much appreciate hearing; his reading of 86 seems supreme to me).I am also very interested in the approximations between Haydn's symphonic production and Mozart's: I was surprised by your remark that both would somehow suffer similar neglect, when it seems to me that Haydn's work is much more unknown than that of his friend from Salzburg. As I am not an expert, but only an admirer, I am looking for the best terms to qualify the preference I have since childhood for Haydn's works: your differentiation between more elegance (in the case of Mozart) and more "rudeness" and contrast in Haydn was very suggestive to me; I don't know if I understood you well.
Well, these sporadic observations have only the function of illustrating with what interest and gratitude I follow your interventions as I find them in this vast world of internet, especially the comments aroused from Antonini's performances in the context of the Haydn 2032 project. I hope to find more of them, which have been of great enrichment for my listening to these works that have accompanied me for half a century. Greetings, and thank you very much.
@@pedrovasconcellos4094
Thank you once again for your very kind comment, it’s always interesting to read others’ perceptions of the music we share.
To clarify my point about the relative neglect of Mozart and Haydn in the 19th century in particular, but also well into the 20th.
A very small part of Mozart’s music remained reasonably popular throughout, but it was limited to a tiny percentage of the 41 symphonies, a small number of the operas, the greatest chamber works, a few of the piano and other concertos; most of the piano sonatas were known to amateur pianists, as were a few other works.
I doubt that the average music-lover knew well, or heard regularly, any more than 10% of Mozart’s *total* output.
By a similar process, in Haydn’s case, it was even worse, and I doubt that it reached 1%.
Hampered in Haydn’s case by a lack of published complete editions (and many of those that did exist were corrupted), along with a general level of ignorance and misunderstanding, most clearly evident in some of the very few biographies of the composer that by today’s standards is absolutely shocking.
(Those in English are some of the worst*).
Additionally, there was almost no performance tradition of playing Haydn which meant that many live performances were anything but Haydnesque, and conductors felt free to ‘improve’ on the works in the manner of Beecham.
These low percentages (mentioned above) are what I meant by neglect.
Both composers’ reputations today are undoubtedly higher than - in Haydn’s case since his own time, and in Mozart’s case - ever, though the percentages remain remarkably low.
In truth, to take Mozart for example, only 8 (possibly 10) of the 41 symphonies could really be said to be well-known and performed regularly: 25, (28), (29), 31, 35, 36, 38, 39, 40, 41.
(Similarly with Beethoven: 3, 5, 6, 7, and 9 are performed far more often than the other four).
You could make your own list of the popular and regularly performed piano concertos of Mozart - it will be as dispiritingly limited as that of the symphonies.
* John Runciman, Haydn - Bell’s Miniature Series of Musicians is a good example:
‘The patient blood of generations of …plodding peasant labourers was in him’.
‘…the portion of his life-work which most influenced Mozart and Beethoven is chiefly second-rate music’.
‘In the list of his principal compositions for the period 1761 - 1790 [ie the Eszterhaza years] …How many of them are heard today ? How many could be heard with pleasure ?
Very, very few’.
‘…but the music he wrote was mainly second-rate, and I am now speaking of his best’.
Et cetera; almost every page is strewn with these ridiculous pronouncements; the book is great fun.