Haydn Symphony No. 63 | Il Giardino Armonico | Giovanni Antonini
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 24 сен 2020
- Joseph Haydn (1732-1809): Symphony No. 63 in C major, Hob. I:63 (1778/1779)
Il Giardino Armonico | 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. 63, Il Giardino Armonico, Giovanni Antonini 
Видеоклипы
Works like this is why Haydn is considered "The father of the Symphony". Stunning.
Another sadly neglected Haydn symphony! The first movement has amazing power...especially as played by this energetic little orchestra! Thank you Giovanni Antonini...the Toscanini of the baroque!
Haydn storms in the 21st century with vigorous musical energy. Never thought i would like this composer’s music so much.
Haydn is one of the all time greatest masters of cleverly hiding his intentions, resolutions and peerlessly inventive melodies. His playful genius thrilled Mozart as well. Superbly done Il Giardino Armonico, and Giovanni Antonini!
Gracias
The sound is so full. Amazing. I hope Haydn2032 will inspire a new generation of Haydn lovers.
余りの寛大な響きに心が大きく揺らぎます。👏👏‼️・最高👍💐
Acho que Haydn gostaria de ver e ouvir esta magnífica Orquestra, que interpreta de corpo e alma. Grato pela postagem.
These recordings of Joseph Haydn's wonderful symphonies are simply delightful. Thanks very much!
"La Roxelane" is performed here with tremendous drive and energy, as meanwhile we have become used to with this conductor and this ensemble. The dynamic contrasts are huge and it's impressive how much "noise" even a relatively small orchestra of 26 can produce!
Symphony n°63 of 1779 is a „potpourri“: the first movement originates from the overture to the opera „Il Mondo della Luna“ (1777), the second movement is based on the incidental music that Haydn wrote to Charles-Simon Favart’s play “Les trois sultanes”, which was given in a German version (“Soliman II, oder Die drei Sultaninnen”) at Eszterhaza in 1777 by Carl Wahr’s troupe (“Roxelane” or “Roxolane” is one of the three “Sultaninnen”). Haydn added to this a newly composed minuet and a finale composed in 1773 marked “Prestissimo” which, however, he decided to replace by a new finale marked “Presto”, which is played in this performance. In the course of this melee Haydn obviously lost track of a few instrumentation details: contrary to the opera overture, the symphony’s first movement lacks the trumpets and timpani, but has a flute added and requires just one bassoon instead of two. This instrumentation applies also to the next two movements, but both finales lack the flute and the obbligato bassoon. Another inconsistency concerns the horns: the first movement is scored for two horns in C basso, whereas the minuet and the first finale of 1773 are scored for two horns in C alto. Haydn apparently forgot this and scored his new finale for two horns in C basso. The final version of the symphony thus features horns in C alto only in the minuet (however, Lesley Jones with the Little Orchestra of London (1969) use horns in C alto also in the first movement, with magnificent effect). In spite of these various inconsistencies, however, Haydn has succeeded in compiling a successful symphony from what at first looked like a “potpourri”.
The second movement consists of single-tonic alternating variations of two related themes, one in the tonic minor and the other in the tonic major, one of Haydn’s forward-looking inventions, which he used for the first time in a baryton trio and two piano sonatas in the late 1760-ies and early 1770-ies, respectively. In a symphony he used it for the first time probably in n°53 (“L’Impériale”; also 1779 - the exact chronology of symphonies n°53, 62, 63, 70, 71, 74 and 75 cannot be established with any certainty: all seem to have been composed between April 1778 and November 1779); the most accomplished case of alternating variations is the second movement “Andante più tosto Allegretto” of symphony n°103 (“Drum roll”; 1795).
The outstanding feature of this symphony is that it’s the first of the Classical period which has NO PROPER SLOW MOVEMENT. Haydn, indeed, is the inventor of the FAST “slow movement”, in the present case with the daring tempo marking “Allegretto [o più tosto allegro]”. Four other Haydn symphonies have a “slow” movement marked “Allegretto”: n°62 (1780), n°85 (“La Reine”; 1785), n°82 (“The Bear”; 1786) and n°100 (“Military”; 1794). A first “shift” in this direction had already occurred with the “slow” movement of symphonies n°40 (1763) and n°59 (“Fire”; 1768), both marked “Andante più tosto Allegretto”. Beethoven obviously was inspired by this concept and adopted it in his 7th symphony, the “slow” movement of which is marked “Allegretto”, and in his 8th symphony, the “slow” movement of which is marked “Allegretto scherzando”. The “slow” movement of his string quartet opus 95 is marked “Allegretto ma non troppo”, and the “slow” movements of his 5th and 6th symphonies aren’t really slow either: “Andante con moto” in the 5th and “Andante molto moto” in the 6th. In Beethoven’s case the concept of a fast “slow movement” has not been understood, let alone accepted, for a long time: even today one can hear the 2nd movement of the 7th symphony (in 2/4 meter) performed much too slow, regardless of Beethoven’s metronome marking of 76 to the quarter note, and Felix Weingartner even defined the “Tempo di Menuetto” of the 8th symphony as its slow movement, because “every symphony has to have a slow movement”, and the second movement’s “Allegretto scherzando” didn’t fit into this scheme.
But back to the “slow” movement of Haydn’s symphony n°63. Antonini finds a swift tempo here which does full justice to Haydn’s exceptional marking “Allegretto [o più tosto allegro]”. For the minor mode variations he adopts 92 bars per minute (2/4 meter), for the major mode variations 96-100 bars per minute. Not all conductors have the boldness to realize to such convincing effect Haydn’s “heretical” innovation: Christopher Hogwood and the Academy of Ancient Music do with nearly identical tempi as Antonini, as well as Derek Solomons and L’Estro Armonico with 92 bars per minute for both the minor mode and major mode variations; even Lesley Jones with the Little Orchestra of London adopts this tempo already in 1969. However, Antal Dorati and the Philharmonia Hungarica are notably slower at 84 bars per minute, but not yet as much as Neville Marriner and the Academy of St. Martin in the Fields at 76 bars per minute and Adam Fischer with the Austro-Hungarian Haydn Orchestra at 72 bars per minute. The Orpheus Chamber Orchestra is the slowest of all with 69-72 bars per minute for the minor mode variations (and 76 for the major mode ones). In my opinion these last three versions represent a misconception of Haydn’s innovative movement.
When one knows the overture to “Il Mondo della Luna” with trumpets and timpani the first movement of the symphony without them leaves one somewhat disappointed, but Antonini delivers it with magnificent drive, as is his trademark. As in previous installments of this series the minuet is too fast for my taste (63 bars per minute, one-in-a-bar). I must admit, however, that after hearing the plodding three-in-a-bar versions of Hogwood, Derek Solomons (both 48 bars per minute, i.e. 144 to the quarter note), Adam Fischer (132 to the quarter note) and Dorati (120 to the quarter note) the effect is refreshing. Probably I would opt for 56 bars per minute (one-in-a-bar). In the repeats of the trio the principal oboist plays nice ornamentations. In the first and last movement Antonini plays both repeats of the sonata form, but in the third movement he skips the repeat of both parts of the minuet after the trio, as is his habit.
Robert Spruijtenburg
One or two thoughts arising from your interesting and detailed comment.
1. Re. ‘Noise’.
One of the reasons I feel this series of recordings is so successful is that Antonini has rightly moved away from a rigid adherence to some of the historical evidence that Haydn’s orchestra was initially about 14 players in the early 1760’s rising to the 24 of the 1780’s.
I think the dynamic contrasts you rightly mention are intrinsic to and implicit in Haydn’s music in a way that is not evident in many of his contemporaries (Mozart in particular did things differently).
Antonini’s larger orchestra is able to better exploit and deliver these differences between Haydn’s very specific orchestral sonorities with powerful effect. Hogwood and Pinnock for example were unable to do this as effectively because of their smaller, and in my view less well balanced orchestras, because they were too closely wedded to the scholars’ advice regarding the probable size of Haydn’s orchestra.
Additionally of course, Haydn was well aware that even before the revised contract of 1779, his works were being played around Europe with larger orchestras than his own and I think that is evident in the writing, blatantly so in some cases such as Symphony 53.
The drive and energy you mention in Antonini’s performances are to me, a correct reading between the notes of Haydn’s intentions, intentions that in an age before scores were littered with instructions, must be to a degree intuitive and come from a proper understanding and reading of both the composer and his musical language.
Antonini and his orchestra is large enough to deliver the music with the power and impact Haydn intended - it was intended sometimes to be uncomfortable.
In this respect I think Haydn is strikingly different from a composer such as Dittersdorf whose music - like so many contemporaries - is generally speaking, far more regular and intended to be comfortable.
I do wonder the degree to which Haydn was able to supplement his orchestra from time to time with other players from elsewhere when needed, particularly for the larger scale and more ceremonial works.
Were C major symphonies such as 38, 41 or 48, or the four horn works like 72 and 31 really played with strings at 3 3 1 1 1 ? (otherwise, plus 2 oboes, 2 horns and bassoon = the basic 14).
Note here regarding the 14; Haydn clearly states as early as 1768 in the ‘Applausus’ letter that [Point 6] ‘I would ask you to use two players on the viola part throughout, for the inner parts sometimes need to be heard more than the upper parts...’.
In short; the two slightly larger orchestras being used in the Haydn 2032 project are delivering in a way that strings of 5 4 2 2 1, or Pinnock’s odd 8 6 2 2 1 in his fine set of 19 ‘sturm und drang’ symphonies could never do as effectively.
Regardless of numbers, I think both orchestras are playing the music, not just the notes. There is a sense of supreme confidence in themselves, the composer and the whole project; this is generating in itself, it’s own sense of power, energy, drive and momentum - greater than other comparably sized orchestras - that is consistently delivering these spectacular, beautiful and unprecedented results. They are playing, or if you like, speaking Haydn fluently!
2. I feel that the interpretation and performance here by Antonini and Il Giardino Armonico have made this quite challenging symphony a success. Like yourself I have compared it against several others.
There has been an interesting comment posted earlier by a reviewer who said that he had never before rated the symphony. A perceptive comment I think as some of the other performances as you say are misconceived; I have commented further on this in my own main review.
Incidentally, many thanks for the details regarding the tempi of both the second and third movements, along with the insights into the ‘no slow movement’ issue.
3. Once again the ‘correct’ tempo for the Minuet movement raises its head.
The only new thing that occurred to me was that thinking back to the days of Dorati and his first complete cycle (1970’s for younger readers and my first real encounters with Haydn!) and other available performances, with a few notable exceptions, at the time, the generally slow paced three in a bar Minuets seemed fine.
Today, with our ears more attuned to the far more rapid one-in-a-bar of Antonini and so many others, what seemed fine in the 1970’s and into the 1980’s with recordings like Karajan’s Berlin Philharmonic ‘London’ symphonies now sound unacceptably pedestrian and almost lifeless (though so beautifully done).
Interestingly, I do not feel that Mozart’s Minuets have been speeded up to the same degree as those of Haydn over the last c.50 years, though this is not a scientific observation, rather more a gut instinct.
Regarding this Karajan set, it received HC Robbins Landon’s almost unqualified imprimatur; so presumably, he had no issue with the leisurely tempo of the Minuets in spite of (because of ?) a lifetime studying the composer.
I do agree with you Antonini is pushing the Minuets to the very edge, I think the measured one-in-a-bar works and would not be keen on a return to three in a bar; I do not feel they are rushed, but I understand why occasionally in the comments others have raised this issue.
Perhaps our taste changes with age and experience: in this case, I appear to be speeding up not slowing down but here, we have a real case of familiarity turning something into a norm.
For readers of your comment outside the US: American English note values are one of a very small group of words that have not been exported to the rest of the English speaking world.
I had to look up quarter note as it is so rarely seen: it is a crotchet ie normally one beat! It’s particularly baffling as the whole note in American English is a semibreve (4 beats) which as the word suggests, is already a half-note in British English - George Bernard Shaw I think it was, said that we were two peoples separated by a common language!
Many thanks as ever for your interesting and detailed contribution, it will be appreciated by so many interested in the progress of this project and enhance the understanding and appreciation of this symphony for all listeners.
@@elaineblackhurst1509
Regarding orchestral size: I’ve always felt that sticking to the “historical” size of Haydn’s orchestra was beside the point - I guess it mainly had a commercial background, the idea being that Haydn’s symphonies would sell better with the label “performed as Haydn would (might) have heard them”. As every good composer Haydn OF COURSE would have been ever so happy to have a larger orchestra at his disposal, as indeed he had in Paris and London. But at Eszterhaza he had “to make do” with what he had, which anyway, by any standards of the time, was already an incredible luxury. It’s the same with those eternal discussions about the “right” piano(forte) for performing the music of Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven or of any other composer of the past: OF COURSE all of them were eager to have the next, better, i.e. more powerful instrument with a larger range. So why by all means stick to a weak clavichord, cembalo or early pianoforte for performing their music today? Here too, they all had to “make do” with what they had. When Haydn offered his Piano Sonata n°49 in E Flat (1789/90) to Marianne von Genzinger he warmly recommended her to purchase a corresponding better instrument for it, as he himself just got one. The same for Beethoven, who is known to have ruined numbers of pianofortes with his powerful play: the strings and the frame just broke, so a Broadwood piano was just good enough.
You mention the recordings of Hogwood and Pinnock: I always found them too “polite”, and Haydn by all means is NOT polite: he is mischievously shocking. I often wondered if their “politeness” had anything to do with their being British (sorry…), but then Gardiner is completely different - he has a downright effervescent, “meridional” temperament, in younger years obviously even redoubtably short-tempered. I have always wondered, and still do, that he recorded not one single Haydn symphony, only the 6 late masses and the two late oratorios. However, recently, to my great delight, I discovered in the Internet that he performed some: n°52, n°44 and n°90 (the last one, however, not quite with the same success in the finale as Simon Rattle): www.br-klassik.de/video/br-klassik-gardiner-dirigiert-haydn-100.html; ruclips.net/video/gaKHR-6sZ8I/видео.html (this one audio only). Antonini, of course, has a meridional temperament too, which quite obviously fits Haydn’s music perfectly. Moreover, he has been attracted by and involved with Haydn’s music since he was a youth, so he seems to have “ingested” Haydn’s language into the core of his being.
Regarding the comment posted earlier by a reviewer that up till Antonini’s performance he had never cared about this symphony: I think it’s a general rule that if the work of a master like Haydn doesn’t speak to us, it’s most probably the performers’ fault and NEVER (practically) the composer’s. And “speak” is indeed the right term, as any music, from whatever period, has to SPEAK: it’s a language, and Antonini, as you say, “speaks” Haydn fluently.
About the American English note values: sorry for causing this confusion. What for me, personally, adds to the confusion, is the French language: a “crotchet” for me sounds very close to the French “croche” which, however, is an “eighth note” (in American English). “Babel” IS devastating!
Regarding the tempo of minuets I’m writing a response to Sshooter444’s comment to symphony 43, so you will soon find it there.
I’ll also come back to your comment on symphony 63, but I need a rest now: I’ve been writing “tons” of comments on RUclips these days, in a foreign language, which with time is downright exhausting.
Robert Spruijtenburg
There is once again very little in your post with which I would want to dispute - perhaps one day we may find something!
I’m sure - using different words - we have a consensus: I described Haydn’s music as ‘uncomfortable’, you said ‘mischievously shocking’; I agree with you entirely regarding Hogwood and Pinnock and their British ‘politeness’ and understand exactly what you mean, as indeed would a German, French, Italian, American, or anyone else.
This politeness is not always a perfect match for Haydn’s sometimes subversive music which is where I think we are saying the same thing.
I recall watching a video of a rehearsal taken by Daniel Barenboim once, one of the players made a mistake and apologised; Barenboim’s instant response was ‘Don’t say ‘’Sorry’’, we’re not British!’
I think this anecdote came from the Middle East.
The more serious point though is that these British conductors, certainly compared to Antonini - and some, not all others - whilst being very neat, correct, and scholarly, they ultimately lack a spark.
I listened to Hogwood’s 1986 Vivaldi Opus 4 (‘La Stravaganza’) yesterday - it was neat, correct, and scholarly, but ultimately, dull and lacking the daring eccentricity implicit in the title.
It is the quality of these Haydn performances, all the care, attention and hard work put into them and into the preparation that is delivering these consistently outstanding performances and allowing Haydn to speak with an authentic, original and powerful voice.
You’re quite right that it is the performers’ fault when a composer does not speak: the most awful LP/cds in my entire collection is Roger Norrington and the London Classical Players performances of Haydn’s Symphonies 99 - 104, it is simply horrible (British again!).
I have come across the Gardiner Haydn 44 and enjoyed the performance very much; if given the impossible task of selecting just ONE Haydn symphony to take to a desert island, the ‘Trauersymphonie’ would be my choice.
I will be interested to hear Antonini’s chosen tempo for the Minuet and Trio of this symphony when it arrives, one of the works where I believe the composer’s writing implies a more moderate pace: we will see.
Regarding the Sshooter 444 comment about the Minuets, I will be interested to read your thoughts: I have already scribbled some notes as it provoked some quite strong opinions and I will contribute some thoughts after you post your comment.
Your comments are always read with interest and have contributed to making the Haydn 2032 site one of the most informative channels on RUclips; your superb English leads us to sometimes forget that it is not a lingua madre.
My own very occasional responses in Italian are invariably very short, but cost me much effort and worry in trying to avoid silly errors.
in short, your detailed comments and the time and effort spent on them are very much valued and widely appreciated.
@@elaineblackhurst1509 Thank you! But I've no illusion whatsoever that anybody except you reads my comments: they are too long, too involved and too "scientific". Most people are just happy to enjoy the music without any knowledge, and that's okay. Even with my parents, who listened to a great amount of music during their lifetimes, I'm surprised in hindsight how little they understood about music - and they were perfectly happy that way. I had the great luck and privilege that Walter Levin, the first violin of the LaSalle Quartet, had chosen Basel for a second home (besides Cincinnati), a highly erudite and intellectual musician, a fascinating man. He put on its head my understanding of music and its interpretation and It's mainly from him that I learned such a lot about music and how to aproach it. If some day you should have nothing better to do you might perhaps be interested to read the book I've published: "The LaSalle Quartet - Converstaions with Walter Levin", The Boydell Press, 2014 (German original 2011).
Re madrelingua: it's very strange that writing about music "flows" most easily for me in English - even if it's a foreign language - more so even than in German, and in French it gets outright tedious, even if that's my second (foreign) "mother tongue" (learned still as a child in Brussels) before German. In Dutch I coudn't. There must be a special crosslinking between "Music" and "English" in my brain which is less developed (the crosslinking, not the brain :-)) in the other languages, for whatever mysterious reason. The problem for me with writing (in any language) - and that's the main effort besides checking facts - is to generate the "heat" required to spark an "inspirational flow".
My comment to Sshooter444 regarding minuets is now posted at Antonini's performance of symphony 43. By the way, did you get my two further comments regarding key characteristics and Haydn's vs. Mozart's use of the minor mode? They are also to be found with symphony 43.
By the way (second): today I had the great honour to receive a personal response from Marie Kuijken regarding my comment 4 months ago on the performance of Haydn's "L'Infedeltà Delusa" for which she did the coaching with the students at the Conservatoire de Paris, and which her father Sigiswald conducted: very kind, very knowledgeable and very "polite" :-): perhaps you might wish to have a look there; I've already responded too.
Robert Spruijtenburg
I have listened to ‘L’Infedeltà delusa’ - following your note above - with huge enjoyment, read the comments and added a short one of my own.
I had previously enjoyed very much the earlier ‘La Canterina’ from Paris - you had already spotted my short comment - and will check out ‘Il mondo della luna’ as well.
Your comment had pretty much raised all the points I would have made and MK’s reply was interesting, though I did offer one suggestion regarding Sandrina’s well-known aria ‘E la pompa un grand’ imbroglio’.
I never cared much for the "La Roxelane" symphony, until I saw this performance. This band can do no wrong!
Same with me! And I'm a Haydn lover! This performance was a revelation...like removing the dirt from an 18th century painting and seeing it again in bright new colours!
各パートの躍動感と表現力の素晴らし差に感謝･感激です。👏👏👏🥰
Oh man . . . . . . . Wonderful ! I´m in love with this orchestra and Maestro Antonini. This level of precision and
musical fire is ravishing ! *Thank you so much !*
Haydn ha vuelto a nacer con el proyecto 2032 del maestro Antonini & Il Giardino Armonico . Magnífico !!
Wow, so much energy and nuance in every phrase. 5 stars from me!
I was reading the history of the Ottoman Empire and I ended up here but none the less I got to read a lot of such interesting and informative discussions. Thank you everyone.
Such a great composer and such a great symphonie is to listen Joseph Hadyn.
Who ?
Flute part in second movement is divine!
This is a very good performance, sharp, alert, lively, precise, beautifully articulated by all the players. And so much life in it!!!
Holding out to buy the box set in 2023! This is the great project of classical music in the 21st century after all.
Speechless!! F. J. Haydn the great!! 1st & 4th movements incredible!!!.... Ohne Worte!!!!!!
I really have little to add to the general consensus here - but am about to do so at some length; this performance is once again absolutely superb.
What I think is also true is that Giovanni Antonini and both II Giardino Armonico and the Kammerorchester Basel are growing into the Haydn 2032 project; their understanding of the composer and his idiom are exceptional and this is helping to deliver these consistently outstanding and memorable performances.
There are two wider points I offer for consideration.
Firstly, I think with Haydn’s symphonies, it is particularly important to understand the composer’s very varied, and often specific intentions with particular works; they are extremely wide ranging, for example:
- Haydn wrote ceremonial symphonies, often in C major with trumpets and drums;
- chamber symphonies;
- symphonies intended for performance in church;
- symphonies to offer solo opportunities to different members of the orchestra;
- three movement Italian style overtures;
- ‘sturm und drang’ style symphonies;
- symphonies intended for Count Morzin, for Eszterhaza, for wider European circulation, for Paris, for London;
- pasticcio or pot-pourri symphonies assembled from theatrical incidental music;
- et cetera.
It is perhaps more important with Haydn than any of his contemporaries to read the cd liner notes to understand the background to the music as this will invariably enhance the listening experience by putting each symphony onto a proper context.
Symphony 63 as has been explained by RS in his detailed comment, is a pasticcio symphony put together by Haydn in extremis.
The well-known ‘La Roxelana’ second movement is an example of understanding a movement specifically intended as theatrical incidental music and then playing it as such.
Antonini here is very successful because he has captured the spirit of the music perfectly - including what I think is an appropriate tempo.
RS has provided some interesting comparisons relating to the tempo of the second movement in his comment with which I concur, as I do also about the Minuet.
Solomons has always been my preferred version of this movement; Hogwood feels slightly rushed in comparison, Antonini does not.
In contrast, those conductors who have tried to play this movement as a symphonic ‘slow’ movement - Marriner and Fischer for example, have for me missed the point completely; this is theatre music, and should be played as such.
The ‘slow movement’ approach now sounds dated, indeed, almost unendurable, and diminishes a work that is overall, not one of Haydn’s greatest as a symphony per se.
‘La Roxelane’ is high-quality entertainment; if you seek profundity or science, sturm und drang or something else - look elsewhere.
Antonini’s achievement here is to make this symphony work as a symphony with a rounded artistic integrity - in other words, he has achieved exactly what Haydn intended when he put the work together.
Secondly, the other contextual point I would make is to raise the issue of Haydn’s workload around the time this symphony was ‘composed’ in 1779/80; by the standards of any age it was phenomenal.
Just how Haydn managed to maintain such a consistently high standard, whilst managing such a varied workload of staggering, indeed unimaginable proportions, is quite simply miraculous.
In addition to the day to day routine of dealing with such minutiae as having the keyboard instruments tuned, purchasing reeds for oboes, violin strings, music paper, dealing with the musicians, and other relatively mundane daily chores, Haydn also in 1779 alone dealt with the following:
(details from HC Robbins Landon ‘Haydn: Chronicle and Works’, Volume 2, Haydn at Eszterhaza, and elsewhere).
- Preparation, coaching, adapting and arranging where necessary, and conducting from the harpsichord about 100 opera performances of works by Paisiello (Le Due Contesse, a fine work), Astaritta, Anfossi, Gazzaniga, Sarti, Piccini and others, including himself.
- Composing and premiering his own opera La vera costanza (25 April 1779).
- Composing and premiering his own opera L’isola disabitata (6 December 1779).
- Composing and conducting music for the marionette theatre at Eszterhaza.
- Providing incidental music for the theatrical troupe - the director of the troupe, Franz Diwald, signed a contract at the end of 1778 to provide one play a day at Eszterhaza throughout 1779 until 18 December!
- Concerts at Eszterhaza, and fulfilling commitments in Vienna and Eisenstadt when not at Eszterhaza.
- Paperwork: Haydn signed his new contract on 1 January 1779 and there is various other extant correspondence such as a dispute Haydn had with the Tonkunstler-Societat in Vienna.
If all this was not enough, there was a serious fire at Eszterhaza 18 November 1779 which destroyed almost all the orchestra’s performance material from 1761 - symphonies and concertos et cetera - along with that for all the operas and marionette works before L’isola disabita, and much else.
In short, everything went up in flames except what was in Haydn’s own apartments.
The amount of extra work this must have caused would have been enormous, but astonishingly, in the midst of this chaos...Haydn wrote the magnificent Symphony 70 which was first performed on 18 December to celebrate the laying of the foundation stone for the new opera house to replace the one that had burnt down only a month earlier!
Another distraction was that in March 1779, the Italian violinist Antonio Polzelli was employed - this was to provide yet another major and rather special distraction for Haydn.
Polzelli brought with him his 29 year old wife Luigia, who was also taken on as a soprano.
Luigia Polzelli became Haydn’s mistress; HCRL thinks that he was the father of her son Antonio born in 1783 - Antonio’s daughter openly claimed that Haydn was her grandfather.
From the very beginning in 1779 Haydn was writing for Luigia especially written insertion arias, altering parts to suit her modest talents, and in the only part he specifically wrote for her - Silvia, in L’isola disabitata - he lovingly supported her almost every entry and difficult passage with very carefully considered orchestral parts.
In an odd way, this opera is a very moving and almost unique love letter to a mistress.
The point about all the above is that out of all this, which apart from the fire represents a typical year’s activity, Haydn produced around this time the Symphony 63.
There are some signs of Haydn being under pressure in how the symphony is put together, but as ever, Haydn the consummate professional does not let his standards slip.
In truth, it is astonishing that Haydn found time to compose at all, but he did; once again, we have to thank Giovanni Antonini and Il Giardino Armonico for bringing this music to life and transporting us back to the busy world of Eszterhaza, a small glimpse of which I have outlined above, and which will hopefully enhance everyone’s enjoyment and understanding of this remarkable composer, and this exceptional performance.
Always a joy to see your comments. Insightful and interesting, giving me a better appreciation and understanding of Haydn's life and his music.
gb You are very welcome; thank you for your kind comment.
@@elaineblackhurst1509 Dear EB and RS...listening to Nos. 38,39,40,41 this weekend. Can you explain how WAM created these symphonies and therefore changed the publics' experience of Dr. Haydn? 2032 has demonstrated that Haydn's creative mastery is equal...yet somehow, audiences find WAM archetypal of "classical". And thank you!
@@bruceanderson5538
Haydn was only really a ‘Viennese’ composer up to about 1766, and then after his return from the second London trip in 1795; he did however make regular annual visits to the city in the winter, and many other occasional visits as well.
Mozart was active in the city - and therefore a ‘Viennese’ composer - for about 10 years up to his death in 1791, though he had made a number of visits before.
So in an odd way, it could be said that Mozart and Haydn were *not* in fact contemporary Viennese composers.
So for audiences in the city, the impact of Mozart’s last symphonies actually had little effect on the public perception of Haydn; much of their published and performed works were in very different genres and aimed at different audiences.
And, Mozart and Haydn were working primarily in different locations.
Mozart was writing symphonies specifically intended for Vienna, Linz, or Prague for example; Haydn post-1779 - from when his revised contract allowed him to sell his music to publishers - was writing works intended generally for publication widely across Europe.
None of Haydn’s last 28 symphonies were written specifically for Vienna though they were published - and played - there as well as in London, Paris , Berlin, Amsterdam and so forth.*
Symphonies 76 - 78 (1782) were intended for London.
Symphonies 79 - 81 (1783/84) were intended for international sale.
Symphonies 82 - 87 (1785/86) were written for Paris.
Symphonies 88 & 89 (1787) went to Paris with Johann Tost.
Symphonies 90 - 92 (1788/89) were for Comte d’Ogny in Paris and Prince von Oettingen-Wallerstein in Bavaria.
Symphonies 93 - 98 (1791/92) were written for London.
Symphonies 99 - 104 (1793/94/95) were written for London.
(Note: all the above up to Symphony 92 could have been performed also at Eszterhaza with the c.24 players of Haydn’s orchestra).
The list above is a completely different target audience from Mozart.
In Paris for example, between 1781 and 1791, of the 335 concerts given by Mozart’s associate Joseph Legros at the Concert spirituel,
Haydn’s music appeared in 191 concerts, Mozart’s in only about a dozen.
Similarly in London, when Haydn was there 1791 - 1795, he lamented that he found Mozart’s music almost unknown.
Mozart’s attitude to the symphony changed once he moved to Vienna in 1781; the last six - 35, 36, 38, and 39 - 41 represent really for the first time, Mozart consistently pouring deeply profound thoughts into the form and treating it on the same level as his piano concerti, operas, chamber music and so forth.
What prompted this change in attitude by Mozart towards the symphony is a complex issue, but stems largely from the stimulating musical environment he found in Vienna, and his inordinate capacity for assimilation and the enrichment of his style.
It is also entirely consistent with Mozart’s extraordinary continuous development as a composer, a continuous development only matched by Haydn amongst contemporary composers.
It is clear Mozart talked symphonies with Haydn - and much else - and he knew many of his works, and found that they offered a challenge. Mozart was also listening to and studying Handel and JS Bach, but also WF and CPE; he laboured over quartet writing, and was extraordinarily busy in performing his own piano concerti, and with opera - all these things and more, were being subtly incorporated into enriching his music.
Regarding Symphonies 39 - 41: Mozart clearly knew the set of six symphonies composed by Michael Haydn - Symphonies 34 - 39, confusingly listed as Perger 26 - 31 - written at a similarly breakneck speed a few weeks earlier in 1788.
He was also aware of Joseph Haydn’s 82 - 84 which had just been published in Vienna - in C major, g minor and E flat major.
The Michael Haydn set ends with a C major symphony with a fugal finale as does the slightly earlier Symphony 28 (Perger 19) also in C major.
Joseph Haydn had instructed his publisher Artaria, that the six ‘Paris’ symphonies were to be published in the order 87, 85, 83, 84, 86, 82, ie with the C major work last - this was ignored, and the current numbering is unfortunate as it is neither chronological, nor does it represent Haydn’s clearly expressed wish - and musical coherence and sanity.
Note: I would recommend that anyone listening through all six of Haydn’s ‘Paris’ symphonies does so in Haydn’s preferred order, it makes far better sense.
Following Artaria - Mandyczewski/Hoboken is as non-sensical as messing with Mozart’s 39, 40, 41.
Mozart 41 follows this key sequencing pattern of both Haydns with the final work being the C major, and follows the Michael Haydn plan of a complex contrapuntal finale, though Mozart goes some way beyond the former’s very fine, though rather Fuxian effort.
Regardless of any influences, these three symphonies owe little to anyone, and are quintessentially Mozartian.
Regarding the second part of your question, Haydn’s virtually unchallenged 18th century status collapsed almost entirely in the 19th; Mozart struggled too in many respects, though some of his more demonic minor key works, and his greatest works in most genres, and some of the piano sonatas, survived much better.
This is a huge area but two points are I think relevant.
Firstly, even from the end of the 18th century, it was becoming evident that music was moving towards an era of virtuosity rather than appreciating the composer’s skill and originality.
This was something that was to lead very rapidly into Paganini, Chopin, Liszt et al.
This explains to some degree why Mozart - concerti, and opera for example - survived into the 19th century rather better than Haydn; Mozart was more of the overtly dramatic and virtuoso showman.
The virtuosity in 19th century concerti, and bigger scale, in-your-face - both emotionally and dramatically - orchestral works from Beethoven onward, all conspired to leave Haydn largely dead in the water, and totally misunderstood.
On top of which was then added some appalling performance practice, even in works like The Creation which did comparatively well in the 19th century; these things have only really been corrected over the past c.50 years.
Mozart was able to survive this far better, obviously with a range of his concerti, and even in opera.
When confronted with the fizzing, spectacular vocal virtuosity of a Rossini, or the innovations from composers such as Weber and Donizetti, Mozart and his eighteenth century voice held its own.
The second factor is that Mozart’s exquisitely shaped and highly sophisticated, balanced and poised, cantabile style, clothed in his magical and dense orchestration, is immediately appealing and memorable.
Haydn’s compositional strengths were different - as were Beethoven’s too - and often in comparison, less immediately appealing.
This is essentially why you might think of Mozart as ‘archetypal’, though what you probably mean is ‘popular’.
In paradoxical way, Mozart is in fact not an archetypal composer - neither is Haydn - because his music is in fact not typical, particularly post-1781.
You cannot fully understand the music of the Classical period without understanding both Mozart and Haydn in particular; but even to these two we must add CPE Bach, JC Bach, Johann Stamitz, Boccherini, Paisiello, Cimarosa, and so many others.
The final point I would make is that I think a knowledge of both Mozart and of Haydn is essential as the knowledge of one, increases your understanding and appreciation of the other.
In summary:
1. Any change in the perceptions of Haydn relating to Mozart have changed many times over the past 200 plus years, but our knowledge and understanding of the two composers - Haydn in particular - is far better now than at any previous time since the 18th century.
2. I think your point about ‘archetypal’ (model/standard/typical/representative/characteristic/original) is more to do with popularity; not quite the same thing.
Mozart and Haydn both transcend the archetypal, but Mozart is generally speaking, more popular for the reasons evinced above.
However, Haydn’s revival over the past half century has been as spectacular as his fall in the early nineteenth century.
* In actual fact, neither were any of the previous symphonies written ‘for Vienna’.
Haydn’s first c.15 symphonies were written for Count Morzin at Lukavec, then from 1761, either for the first two of Haydn’s four Eszterhazy princes, or international publishers - or both.
From as early as the1760’s, Haydn would have been aware of a growing European reputation, and that his symphonies were being published - and pirated - and performed widely across the continent.
@@elaineblackhurst1509 EB...your energy and summation are a feast for the winter. I am so thankful M. Haydn put in an appearance. But your willingness to uncork the 19thC. is marvelous! Thank you so much!
I love the conductor' style, I really enjoy his attitude, exciting, God Bless him.
Thank you so much for your amazing work! This is such a joyful and inventive masterpiece! Il Giardino Armonico never disappoints!
It may be difficult to add anything informative to the outstanding comments already on this 'blog', although I will take the liberty of trying to do so. As a schoolboy in England during the late 1950s and early 1960s, a lifelong interest in Haydn was sparked by reading parts of Robbins Landon's 1955 book on the Haydn symphonies in the Cheltenham public library, during school lunch hours. This experience, listening to broadcasts of many of the works on the BBC Third Programme, and, as a university student a few years later, buying miniature scores of the symphonies, was an energizing journey into a huge repertoire at a time when there was a real sense of exploration. That experience is being replicated by the revelatory Antonini performances. Landon's book was particularly valuable for introducing one to the 'expressionistic' symphonies of the late 1760s and early 1770s. His negatively critical approach to some of the possibly more restrained works dating from 1774 to 1784 was not entirely helpful, however. Interestingly, by the time of the 'Haydn at Eszterháza' volume (1978) of his massive 5-volume Haydn biography, Landon's approach to these works had mellowed - or, dare one say, become more informed, possibly as a result of editing the works for his Philharmonia/Universal Edition publication of the complete Haydn symphonies. Later still, James Webster's chapter entitled "Haydn's symphonies between 'Sturm und Drang' and 'Classical style': art and entertainment", in 'Haydn Studies', edited by W. Dean Sutcliffe, Cambridge University Press (1998) effectively demolishes Landon's negative critique, in his 1955 book, of some works dating from the late 1770s that include Symphony No. 63.
The present performance speaks for itself. Here is a masterwork, played superbly.
I had the pleasure of spending a whole day with HCRL at the University of Bristol in 1982 where he was discussing the string quartets of Haydn - it was one of the most memorable days of my life.
I agree that occasionally his musical criticism is a little awry - I simply do not recognise his description of the first movement of Symphony 42 for example, a work I rate very highly, neither am I quite comfortable with his generalised down-grading of many of the symphonies post-sturm und drang and pre-Paris (c.1775 - 1785).
I have occasional other quibbles - the c minor Symphony 95 for example is described in a very poor light, largely vis-a-vis Beethoven’s 5th (and Mozart’s c minor piano concerto), and his unqualified imprimatur awarded to Karajan’s 1982 recordings of the ‘London’ symphonies with the Berlin Philharmonic raised some eyebrows at the time, as it does today.
I think Robbie Landon’s infectious enthusiasm, combined with his indefatigable capacity for hard work and encyclopaedic knowledge of the sources related to the composer, shines through all his writing, and more importantly, has enthused a number of scholars to continue the exploration into this century.
Haydn scholarship is not only developing as rapidly as any other composer of comparable stature, but it is also better informing our knowledge of other composers, notably Mozart and Beethoven.
Rarely has a scholar researched and written so much detail as HCRL, and then presented it in such a readable - if occasionally chaotic - form.
Our increased knowledge and understanding of the composer, enabled through the publication of clean complete edition Urtext scores for the first time, fine performances, and the work of many scholars - obviously including HCRL - has ensured that the rise in Haydn’s reputation and stature over the past c.50 years has been as spectacular as that of his fall of the early 19th century.
I recognise almost every word in your interesting account: I would add to it, as you would remember also, the sheer excitement of the individual releases of the Dorati recordings of the symphonies, Mariner’s ‘Name’ symphonies, the ECO recordings, the shock of Solomons and his L’Estro Armonico group’s authentic sound, and the other revelations of hearing ‘unknown’ symphonies for the first time.
I would only simply substitute the Henry Watson Music Library in Manchester - where the eponymous Vivaldi sonatas were discovered - for the Cheltenham library!
Regarding the post-sturm und drang symphonies c.1774 - 1784, I am coming round to the view that Haydn was writing specifically with an eye to international sales, particularly post-1779 (the new contract).
It is one of the great paradoxes of music that the most isolated of composers at the time, was simultaneously becoming one of the most popular across Europe.
To a degree, I think Haydn was shamelessly cultivating this international market - in very sharp contrast to Mozart in this respect - and it is in part, the reason for some of the new approach, and what HCRL describes as the relative coolness of the symphonies of this period.
Marc Vignal’s figures for the Concert spirituel in Paris between 1781 and 1790 are astonishing:
Of 335 concerts conducted by Joseph Legros (cf Mozart ‘Paris’ symphony K297),
Haydn featured in 191 of them,
Mozart in about a dozen!
I think you are correct however, some commentators have missed aspects of Haydn’s continual growth and development in these works.
Haydn was always very conscious of his audience right to the end, as indeed was Mozart, Beethoven too, but in a rather different way; I think it is very revealing that the minor key symphony of the first ‘London’ set (93 - 98) the c minor Symphony 95, was the least successful - and Haydn was aware of this.
Therefore, almost uniquely, the second set (99 - 104) has no minor key work… and there is no C major work either - another mystery.
Great symphony, great orchestra! Especially that oboe in the Minuet.
То как звучит симфония во многом зависит от дирижера а именно Джовани Антонини. Он в этом смысле
уникален. По его движениям видно насколько он чувствителен ко всем нюансам музыкального исполнения
произведения Гайдна. Это приятно видеть и слышать. Привет из Киева.
It is great to see that you have contributed so many comments to the performances in this series.
Unfortunately, it is very frustrating to be unable to either understand, reply, or converse with you; I can recognise the name ‘Antonini’ in your posts, but little else and am unable to translate your comments - my problem, apologies.
Hope you are enjoying these performances as much as everyone else who has contributed comments.
@@elaineblackhurst1509 Deepl ( www.deepl.com/translator ) does a fairly good job machine-translating from Russian. This is what I got after I copied and pasted Nick Nick's contribution :
"The way the symphony sounds largely depends on the conductor, Giovanni Antonini. In this sense, it is unique. One can see from his movements how sensitive he is to all the nuances of the musical performance of Haydn's work. It is nice to see and hear. Hello from Kiev."
"it is unique" is a mistake and should probably be "He [Antonini] is unique.
@@davidyoung7261
Many thanks for troubling to do that.
Technology is not my strong point so I am grateful for the help.
As I suspected, Nick Nick appears to be enjoying this series as much as the rest of us.
Haseki Hurrem Sultan, خرم سلطان - a privileged hut, and later the lawful wife of Suleiman the Magnificent, Sultan of the Ottoman Empire. Mother of Sultan Selim II. The first Haseki Sultan in the Ottoman Empire. Her real name is Anastasia (Nastya) Lisovska Gavrilovna. She was the daughter of a priest from the Ukrainian city of Rohatyn. In 1515-1520 she was taken prisoner by the Tatars and brought as a gift to the sultan. Later she found herself in the sultan's harem, where she became the beloved wife of Suleiman I. At her own expense she built mosques, schools, caravanserais and kitchens in Istanbul, Edirne, Jerusalem, Mecca and Medina. Sung in literature, fine arts, music and cinema as Roxolana, that is, Ukrainian. Hurrem, in Persian - joy.
Ich bin mit Ihnen ganz einverstanden und freue mich, dass Sie auch meine Gedanken so gut formuliert haben,😊und auch Google hat es gut übersätz ❤
数多くあるハイドンの交響曲の中から私が今迄に気に入ったいくつかの内でこの63番も既に入れているが、101番へのコメントでもその良さが指摘されている。こうしてみると、コメントでお互い同士が気に入った曲をすすめ合うことも又いいことでしょう。
😊die Idee finde ich gut❤mir gefällt auch die Symphonie 43 mit Elementen aus La Marsellaise/ the March of Marseille 😏schöne Grüße....
@@evalinnert7736
Haydn’s Symphony 63 (c.1779) obviously pre-dates La Marseillaise (1792) by some years, but you might find it more relevant to reference Viotti’s Tema e variazioni in do maggiore written two years later in 1781.
If you do not know the Viotti work, I suggest you listen through the tema (theme); you might be in for one of the most surprising musical discoveries of your life.
suggestivo e delizioso l'alternarsi degli staccati e legati e delle variazioni in minore e maggiore nel II movimento
I'm dancing in heaven.
I actually bought the CD of this symphony by this group, even though I could listen to it for free here. It's paired with the "Mercury" Symphony (#43) and the Bartok Romanian Dances. This group is so awesome, I'll probably buy the entire set.
Great concert and recording , very very impressive . Bravissimo Maestro Antonini e Giardino Armonico .
Complimenti ancora! Un'altra grande sinfonia rispolverata. Al di la' del preciso tempo di piu' di 200 anni fa che voleva il grande compositore,che oggigiorno nessuno ovviamente puo' sapere, una cosa sicura e che ribadisco ancora e' la vitalita' ritrovata dopo tanto, ma tanto tempo.
claudio8313 Per me, non c’è dubbio che Haydn avrebbe applaudito questa esecuzione eccezionale!
@@elaineblackhurst1509 Sicuramente!
Era stata già ripresa, nei primi anni '90 da Christopher Hogwood con la sua Academy of Ancient Music (anche su CD pubblicato dal mensile 'Amadeus' nel 2001).
mai sentita una cosa più bella...
Beautiful, amazing, love it so much
Great performance! I hope they record also the 1st version of this symphony.
Danke für ihre Passion Maestro ❤
هذه السمفونية رقم 63 لهايدن تسمى روكسلانا والتي نسبت لروكسلانا أو هرم أو حرم أو هيام بالعربية عن حبها للسلطان العثماني سليمان القانوني و عن طموحها للسلطة❤
Excelente interpretación . Preciosa partitura. Genial. ¡Mil gracias!
INTENDED AND GREAT. BRAVO. BRAVO !!
bravo 👏🏻
These musicians are fantastic. Their Haydn is so beautiful and so much fun. Even more fun than, at the other end of the fun spectrum, the hilarious takedowns of Combover Caligula on RUclips, which can't be watched at work because of the constant snorts and giggling. So - the sound of IGA, the always great lighting and camera work - Haydn, Vivaldi (Kopatchinskaja - wow), Bartok, whatever - other bands are plodding and boring compared to IGA. Grazie mille, Il Giardino Armonico, you ROCK.
Sinfonia in Do Maggiore N.63 detta "La Roxelane" (NON 'La Roxolane'), nei tempi: I. Allegro; II. Allegretto (o più tosto allegro) [La Roxelane (*)]; III. Menuet. Allegretto; IV. Finale. Presto. (1777-79) (*)-2° tempo così detto perchè basato sulla melodia intitolata "La Roxelane" tratta dalle musiche di scena per "Soliman II, oder Die drei Sultaninnen", un adattamento tedesco de 'Les trois sultanes' di Charles Simon Favart, rappresentato a Esterhàza da Carl Wahr nei primi mesi del 1777, dove Roxelane era un'eroina della rappresentazione teatrale.
I hope that by the time they get to the later symphonies (and also number 38!) the sound engineers choose a microphone configuration that picks up the wind (oboe in particular) solos much better. The oboe solo in the Trio here came off as too "distant." Otherwise , I just adore this whole idea of performing the Haydn symphonies with this group! The ensemble and phrasing are impeccable.
You make an interesting point in the specialist area of the work of the sound engineers, microphones and recording in which I would be interested to hear the opinions of those competent to give them.
As you say, the oboe solos in Symphony 38 - almost certainly written specifically to showcase to Prince Nicholas the Italian oboe virtuoso Vittorino Colombazzo who joined the Eszterhaza orchestra for a short period in 1768 - need to be both forward and prominent, exactly as I suspect Haydn intended.
A similar issue will arise with the prominent horn parts in symphonies such as 13, 72, 31, 51, and 73.
It is interesting to note also that our respected friend here on Haydn 2032 Robert Spruijtenburg, noted on Antonini’s performance of Symphony 65, that ‘...the two solo horns completely drown out the response of the strings’ - he obviously felt there was a different, but related issue in that particular case.
I felt that the prominent horns in Symphony 65 were less of a problem, but the point you raise about the microphone configuration, and the technical and engineering aspects of the recording are rightly highlighted in your comment.
I suppose the degree of prominence to which these frequent instrumental solos are given is both an artistic, and technical and engineering question of balance, and probably personal preference.
I have to say that I feel that every aspect of these performances has been beautifully filmed, edited, and everything else; they are in a word - superb, and the product of a highly professional and caring team who have clearly given much thought to every aspect of the production.
It is only right that we acknowledge this work, and the care taken over it.
My instinct is that Haydn intended these solo parts to be opportunities for his players to shine, and that they should therefore be relatively forward in the orchestral balance; it therefore follows that this is as much a technical matter as it is an artistic one in terms of the recording.
This issue will arise again with the forthcoming release of Symphonies 6, 7, and 8 (‘Le Matin’, ‘Le Midi’ and ‘Le Soir’), as all three of these works are littered with solos across the whole orchestra.
I 00:11
II 7:01
III 12:09
IV 14:57
Delicioso, gracias.
Bella, vigorosa esecuzione!
As a postscript to your interesting observations about Robbins Landon and the symphonies from 1774 to 1784, one helpful aspect of Landon's comments about these works (in the 1955 book referenced elsewhere in these comments) is his recognition that Haydn's orchestration of these works includes a flute and obbligato bassoons [two or, I will add, sometimes one] as 'standard features', rather than occasional additions as in some earlier symphonies. No doubt, Landon's comment (on page 374 of that book) that the "orchestration is now settled once and for all [in the 1774-84 symphonies]" wasn't intended to apply to the second set of London symphonies (1793-5), with the addition of clarinets in five of those works - or to the late oratorios and several of the late masses dating from 1796-1802, in which clarinets are given a prominence beyond their use in the final symphonies.
❤
This symphony totally kicks my ass!
록셀라나를 연주한하이든
그녀의 삶이
활기차고 밝은ᆢ
Hürrem Sultan Senfonisi Detected!
The 1st movement reminded me somewhat of parts of Beethoven's 3rd. Interesting. Beethoven would have been 9 years old at the time Haydn performed this, and then met him 14 years later.
Yes - the cover was turquoise-coloured and white. In fact, I'm looking at it as I write this; not the copy that I had in the late 1950s (which 'disappeared' many years ago) - rather, another (rather damaged) one, which I obtained on-line a couple of years ago, in order to check on the accuracy of a remembered statement about the Mozart 'Linz' Symphony for an article later published in the Journal of the North American Haydn Society. There is, as you've implied or stated, no chapter on Shostakovich in the book although there is one on Arnold Bax - an omission and inclusion which may shed light on the symphonic 'repertoire' in the UK as of ca. 1949. A slightly later Pelican book, entitled 'Chamber Music', edited by Alec Robertson (first published in 1957), does include an informative chapter on Haydn by Rosemary Hughes, which does not seem dated, and in which there is an allusion to the "fiery unrest of the symphonies in F minor (La Passione), G minor (No. 39) and E minor (No. 44), [which] leaps out in the first movement of the D Minor Quartet Op. 9, No. 4." Interestingly, a work as familiar and 'standard' as No. 45 was unknown to the music teacher in the Grammar School which I attended in Cheltenham, when I played an LP of it in a music appreciation class in the autumn of 1963. Fortunately, a combination of private music lessons, BBC broadcasts, and the public library more than compensated for uninspired music classes at school. Parenthetically, No. 49 is included in today's online 'Digital Stage' concert by the Philadelphia Orchestra, No. 44 having been included in this series of excellent 'socially-distanced' concerts a few weeks ago.
Haydn usó el primer movimiento de esta sinfonía No 63 como la obertura de su célebre ópera IL MONDO DELLA LUNA (El mundo de la luna). Similar hicieron Vivaldi y otros compositores del barroco y clasicismo.
This symphony also known as La Roxelane after a character in a stage play!
Is Il Giardino Armonico tuning at A=420?
Ugh so hard to listen to this material without the trumpets and timpani from the overture to "Il Mondo della Luna"
God why so violent about it? This piece should be so charming
14:55 finale, Vivace
7:00, 2nd movement.
To evaluate the 'reputation' of any composer at various points in history, it's helpful to have objective data (for example, numbers of works available in good published editions, numbers of performances and recordings, etc.). Without a quantitative, longitudinal, study of these variables, it's difficult to reach robust non-anecdotal conclusions about - for example - Haydn's historical reputation at different times. Another consideration is that the absence of a 'complete' edition of a composer's works creates major difficulty for those wishing to study his or her oeuvre in its 'entirety'. Of course, there is the risk of a circular argument - perceived 'reputation' possibly driving the creation, or otherwise, of a 'complete' edition, which, in turn, can influence the frequency of performances and recordings.
In contrast to the works of J. S. Bach, Handel, Mozart and Beethoven, which were published in projected complete scholarly editions (Gesamtausgaben) during the mid-to-late 19th century, available editions of Haydn's works at that time appear to have been essentially piecemeal, focusing mainly on late "well known" works, with no complete edition undertaken before the 20th century (when 3 such attempts were made to produce one, of which the third - and the only successful - attempt reached a conclusion in the 2010s). As possible evidence that editions drive performances, I have found it instructive to survey the online archive of London Promenade concerts for performances of Haydn symphonies. One was initially surprised to find that there was a flurry of performances of the early symphonies at the 'Proms' during the first 3 decades of the 20th century - for example, Nos. 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, and 11 were all included at 'Proms' in 1908, and Nos. 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17 in 1925 - a representation of "Haydn performances per year" at the Proms unmatched in modern times. Indeed, some of the performances just listed are the only time when the cited symphonies have appeared in a London Promenade concert. One can speculate that publication of the symphonies in the Breitkopf und Härtel projected (but not actually) complete edition, which started in 1907, drove these performances. In surveying the 'Proms' archive, I considered - and excluded - the possible confounding factor of old numberings of Haydn symphonies (Nos. 103 and 104, being sometimes numbered 1 and 2 respectively, pre-Mandyczewski, for example). In the 'Proms' archive, "No. 1" is listed as in D major, and "No. 2" in C major, identifying the works according to their "standard", i.e., Mandyczewski numbers.
Eusebius Mandyczewski's remarkable accomplishment in around 1907, in formalizing the list of 104 authentic Haydn symphonies that is still in use today (with only two later additions), no doubt required a sifting process of excluding spurious works and symphonies of doubtful provenance. The result is that Haydn's authentic symphonic accomplishment was established more than a century ago, and is not subject to the uncertainty of authorship that still surrounds a few symphonies that are sometimes ascribed to the 'young' Mozart (e.g., K. 95 and 97). With that said, there is little doubt that the last 60 years have seen a continued rise in the 'availability' of Haydn's works, in terms of publication, performance, and recording, and have permitted a clearer idea of what he did, and didn't, write, than at any time during the past 210-plus years.
Some really interesting points with which I largely concur.
Regarding the objective data, I would also normally include reliable contemporary sources - something in fact which you did yourself with reference to the Prom archives.
Of particular interest in evaluating a composer’s reputation would be contemporary newspaper reports, those from London in particular, but Paris also, accurately reflect both Haydn’s status, and his popularity.
Those from Vienna are thin in comparison - and also for Mozart and Beethoven - as the newspaper industry appears to be somewhat less developed.
The occasional criticism of Haydn in the North German press - to which CPE Bach responded and defended Haydn - is also valuable; this is also the same press that criticised the finale of Mozart’s ‘Jupiter’ symphony as ‘...going too far’, and compared it adversely to the finale of Haydn 95.
There are also a number of reliable contemporary - or early - biographies and sources, Griesinger and Dies, Carpani to a degree, and Pohl and others; there are a number of detailed reports and comments by people such as the Swedish diplomat Silverstolpe, Michael Kelly, et al, and more recently, the voluminous evidence laid out in the five volumes of Robins Landon’s biography, and other publications.
The point you made about the lack of a complete edition is crucial: the lack of such was partly responsible for the absolute travesty of the biographies of the likes of J Cuthbert Haddon (1902), and J F Runciman (1908).
I have a copy of the Runciman which I picked up from a second hand bookshop for 40p - it is hilarious.
He freely admits no not knowing great swathes of Haydn’s output, ‘...nor would I want to’,
That however, does not prevent him from telling us that:
- music from the ‘middle period’ is:
‘...older stuff...that is now so old-fashioned and stale’;
- and goes on to add:
‘How many could be heard with pleasure?’
he authoritatively provides us with the answer:
‘Very, very few’;
- of the music written at Eszterhaza, Runciman tells us:
‘...the music he then wrote was mainly second-rate, and I am now speaking of his best’;
- regarding the keyboard works:
‘...the piano music, with the exception of a few bits, is of no great importance’;
- it was Mozart who:
‘...shaped, coloured and directed his thoughts’;
- ‘...there is still, compared with Beethoven, a huge amount of formalistic padding’;
- ‘...the operas will never be heard again’.
- ‘...the one or two jokes which have been pointed out to me in his music would nowadays be considered in bad taste if people knew what they were meant for. Music has no sense of humour, and simply won’t countenance it’.
I must stop or I will be quoting from every page of this arrant nonsense, but back to your point, both Runciman and Cuthbert Haddon are to a degree explicable by the lack of a complete edition, together with almost zero performance tradition, and a knowledge of barely 2% of the composer’s output.
There are also now, detailed studies into specific subjects such as Viennese concert life in the late 18th/early 19th century, also for London and Paris - there may well be others of which I am unaware.
Due to the French wars, London went into a drastic decline, whilst in Paris, musical life all but ended.
It is possible therefore to discover clear patterns in what was being played when and where.
The figures compiled by Marc Vignal with reference to the Concert spirituel in Paris between 1781 and 1790 - which I think you may have seen me reference before - are again very revealing with Haydn’s music featuring in 191 of the 335 concerts conducted by Joseph Legros compared to only about a dozen by Mozart over the same period - this I think is objective and informative evidence.
I think it worth mentioning as well, that whilst Haydn was being published everywhere, with almost all his works - symphonies, sonatas and quartets most obviously - being published by Artaria in Vienna, of Mozart’s last nine symphonies, astonishingly, only 33 (K319), and 35 (K385), were published in his lifetime - both by Artaria in Vienna.
Whilst it may be said that some of the above is not strictly speaking ‘objective’, most of these sources - and others I have omitted - do help to build a reasonably objective, and accurate picture.
I also believe that whilst the sources are far more scarce than for Beethoven in particular, what we have are often far more reliable; many earlier Beethoven biographies in particular are plagued with a number frankly ridiculous stories, and of conclusions based on unreliable, factually inaccurate, often spurious, ‘sources’, often motivated by personal self-interest that would be inadmissible to modern day scholars, or treated with the caution they deserve.*
Haydn in particular has suffered from some these early Beethoven-centric stories; as our knowledge and understanding of Haydn has improved over the past c.75 years, so has the quality of the Beethoven biographies in relation to Haydn.
The final point I would make, is that I agree with Robbins Landon that the general decline in Haydn’s reputation began a little before he died in 1809; it accelerated through the 19th century, and reached the nadir that resulted in the two biographies I mentioned being published as representative and ‘authoritative’ opinions.
To a lesser degree, it affected Mozart too, who similarly became known for a relatively small number of his works, though a larger number than Haydn.
It is really only since the second half of the 20th century, with complete editions, complete recording cycles, the recording of almost all Haydn’s works, along with a representative spread of live performances with some understanding of 18th century performance practice - whether on authentic or modern instruments - that we have been able to properly re-evaluate and understand his true status.
* On RUclips I have summarised extensively the researches from HCRL, James Webster, and others about the misunderstandings relating to Haydn’s alleged comments to Beethoven about not publishing the c minor piano trio which Beethoven played to Haydn after his return from England in August 1795.
The story is told entirely from Beethoven sources - many not recorded until well after both composers were dead - but the salient point is, that when Haydn was alleged to have said that he advised Beethoven not to publish the trio - it had already been published in Vienna.
This key detail clearly poses significant doubts about the veracity of the story as a whole.
This is just one of many such stories where the modern Beethoven biographies are far more reliable than in particular, those from the 19th century, or pre-Haydn renaissance.
Any idea where it was recorded?
The Martinskirche in Basel, Switzerland.
@@elaineblackhurst1509 Thanks!
12:09, 3rd moment.
SSSSSSIXTY-THREEEEEEEE...
Based on Hurrem Sultan or Roxelana, the powerful wife of Suleiman the Magnificent.
I bet the horns were happy you didn't make them use C-alto!
See my comment above regarding the various inconsistencies in the instrumentation of this symphony. The only movement which indeed HAS C-alto horns is the minuet.
1:38, 7:00, 12:09, 14:56
6:58
Among largely uninformative biographies and commentaries, I will take the liberty of including the chapter on Haydn by Cecil Gray in a Pelican Book entitled 'The Symphony', edited by Ralph Hill, of which the first edition appeared in 1949. I was given a copy of this book (possibly a 1950 reprint) as a child and first learned about the Haydn symphonies from the Cecil Gray chapter and from BBC broadcasts. In fairness to the author, he presents a 'positive' view of Haydn, which is, however, based largely on generalities rather than on specific information. I can't resist quoting one sentence from the Gray chapter: "Even in his happiest moments Mozart is never far from tears; with him one is always conscious of the Vergilian lacrimae rerum (Latin in italics) - with Haydn never." According to the commentary (by Robbins Landon) in the Eulenburg score of the Symphony No. 49 in F minor published in 1954, that work had appeared in the "B. & H. Gesamtausgabe, Series I, Vol. 4 ...... in 1933". Appendix I of Landon's 1955 book on the Haydn symphonies lists the volumes and page numbers for the printed scores of symphonies in this Gesamtausgabe, which - though an incomplete project - at least reached the Symphony No. 49, and appears to have printed the symphonies in 'Mandyczewski' order. From this, one can conclude that, for example, at least the minor-key symphonies Nos. 26, 39, 44, 45, and 49 had appeared by 1933/4 (with or without errata later corrected by Landon). Accordingly, one wonders whether Cecil Gray (or Ralph Hill) was/were aware of this fact - if so, it seems bizarre that the emotional force of the works just listed seems not be have been recognized by that author (and editor). One would not necessarily expect the author of a chapter in a book aimed at a general readership to dig into primary sources; however, due diligence for such a project would surely include exploring available secondary sources, such as - in this case - the B. & H. Gesamtausgabe volumes. Of course, as readers will appreciate, I'm not criticizing Gray and Ralph Hill for failing to anticipate Landon's book - rather, I'm commenting on their apparent unawareness of an edition that was already potentially available to them.
In the light of the above, it was a formative moment when I encountered Landon's book in the Cheltenham Public Library in around 1958/9, and first heard what used to be called the 'middle period' or 'Sturm und Drang' Haydn symphonies on the BBC Third Programme, an experience that enabled me to realize that 'lacrimae rerum' were indeed applicable to Haydn.
To end on an amusing note (at least to this writer), in Appendix I of the 1955 book mentioned above, Landon lists under 'Critical edition' for many of the symphonies: "G. A. Ser." I used to wonder about the identity of this person, and it may have been many years after doing German 'O' level (in 1961) that the idea of 'Gesamtausgabe ......' came into focus.
I remember this Pelican book well - did it have a turquoise coloured cover?
There was a copy in my school library, so your comment brought back memories.
I seem to remember the book when I read it in the 1970’s as having only a very brief section on Haydn - Mozart too - and my dim memory of it was something that seemed to be pointing me in the direction of mainstream Beethoven and Brahms as being more normal; the rest being something of a masterclass in selectivity and omission.
I seem to remember struggling to find much about Shostakovitch also, one of whose symphonies was being played in the Free Trade Hall in Manchester - the reason for my first exploring the book.
Roxelane
If you go back in RUclips youwill find a Toscanini broadcast of the G major symphony No 92, which is performed in a very similar style, and also close-miked. This video suggests a single double bass, but the sound suggests a modern symphony orchestra, and the video of the same group in Symphony 43, also on You Tube shows three double basses. Most Viennese orchestras in much of Haydn's lifetime contented themselves a single double bass in orchestral concerts. You can certainly feel more than one here! Whatever the energy and precision of this playing, it doesn't support the idea that Haydn was particularly concerned about giving instrumental opportunities for his players, but perhaps in perfomance he was more generous than Signor Antonini seems to be. There's a fine line between energy and scale of climax here , and this recording destroys it.
J
warum so gehetzt, warum so eruptiv
Who else is here after watching The Magnificent Century?
Long live haseki Hürrem Sultan
The slave girl who changed the Ottoman Empire forever.