Haydn Symphony No. 26 "La Lamentatione" | Kammerorchester Basel | Giovanni Antonini (Haydn2032 live)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 1 июл 2018
- Joseph Haydn (1732-1809): Symphony No. 26 "La Lamentatione" in d-Minor
Kammerorchester Basel | Giovanni Antonini, Conductor
Support Haydn2032 on Patreon.com/haydn2032
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. 26, Lamentatione, Kammerorchester Basel, Giovanni Antonini 
Видеоклипы
the adagio is just therapy .. love you papa Haydn .. every time i feel sad i play haydn and all my sorrows vanish away
There is nothing ‘Papa-ish’ about this music; the composer’s name is Joseph Haydn.
Didn't u get a bit dizzy in that soapboax?
@@luciuscornelius4037
Who’s ‘u’ ?
@@elaineblackhurst1509 u
@@luciuscornelius4037
More likely to be claustrophobic if I’m in it.
I offer you a challenge.
*Composers with silly nicknames*
1. Haydn
2.
3.
I can’t even get down to 2.
In short, really don’t know why Haydn is the only one stuck with this nonsense; Schubert called Salieri ‘Grosspapa’ but nobody seems interested in that at all, and he’s never referred to by anyone today as ‘Grosspapa Salieri’ (indeed it will be news to almost everyone here).
Які виразні обличчя у струнників... Браво, Джованні, браво Kammerorchester Basel! Molto impressionante!..
The slow movement is an absolutely unique and prodigious miracle.
The absence of a four movement is an intelligent strategy to enhance the importance of the second movement: the listener has no way to scape the dramatic message of this symphony.
Exactly
Early symphonies were but the 3 movements. For me not a weakness. Indeed, Schubert's so called unfinished has but the two, but not the less a magnificent piece of listening for all that. Why follow convention?
Early symphonies were in 3 movements but not is this form. They were essentially Italian opera Overtures in the form of fast, slow fast in 3 linked sections. The minuet was added slightly later to give the 4 movement shape the symphony has had virtually ever since. Haydn 26 is really a 4 movement work without the final
An absolutely fantastic performance of a very special and unique symphony - it so far in advance of anything being produced in Vienna, Mannheim, London, Paris, or anywhere else at the time, as to be almost miraculous.
Haydn has produced a sturm und drang, Easter symphony of such power, drama and emotional intensity, that it must have startled listeners in 1768 or 1769 when it was first performed.
The medieval, Gregorian plainchant melodies, in their eighteenth century Austrian form - usually in the second violins and first oboe - would have been recognised at the time; today they become ever more endearing on repeated listening.
Antonini and the orchestra play this amazing work with total commitment; they are clearly caught up in the drama of the symphony, and the tempi in all three movements are beautifully judged to allow the Passion story to unfold.
Once again, whilst there are a number of very fine performances of this well known work available on RUclips and CD, this recording becomes the benchmark by which all others must be judged.
lascauxle You are very welcome; glad you found it interesting and useful.
The second movement of this simphony brings allways tears go my eyes, of sorrow and joy at the same time . Absolutely a work of genius, together with the Stabat Mater by Haydn .
Christian Wouters
The quality of Haydn’s works written in his ‘sturm und drang’ period between c.1765 -1773 is truly astonishing and includes both this symphony and the Stabat Mater.
Haydn was very proud of the imprimatur of Hasse in relation to the Stabat Mater - he wrote to Haydn to express his admiration - and it contains some magical moments; quite what some contemporaries made of the final section with its incongruous mix of a strict species counterpoint choral fugue, mixed with extravagant flourishes for the solo soprano is an open question!
Charles Rosen in his essential book on the music of the period ‘The Classical Style’ (1971) wrote that Haydn at this time was writing music ‘...on a level that no other composer of Haydn’s time could equal or even approach’: your particular appreciation of these works is well placed.
You mention the Stabat Mater: Haydn nearly died sometime between 1770 and 1771; as a thanksgiving for his recovery from this dangerous illness, he wrote the fine Salve Regina in g minor of 1771 (Hob. XVIIIb:2).
We know about this because Haydn noted it at the time, and he was still telling the story of his recovery over twenty years later in London to his friend Christian Latrobe in 1791.
This thanksgiving for his recovery, the Salve Regina is a lovely, though rather more intimate work for organ, strings and four soloists; both the Salve Regina and Stabat Mater are highly effective works from this period, and well worth seeking out; both clearly meant much to the composer.
@@elaineblackhurst1509 You (and Charles Rosen) seem to have forgotten the truly superiour musical production of Friedemann and Emanuel Bach, around the mid of 18th century. Haydn (and Mozart) didn't do so. ;-) Neither the Baron Gottfried van Swieten. Apart from that, i prefer the Trevor Pinnock-version.
@@Aureaprimasataest
I would most certainly not ever forget the fascinating and highly original music of CPE Bach whom I rate very highly, though I would point out one or two relevant things.
Firstly, that Haydn 26 is a symphony with explicit religious overtones that colour the whole work; CPE did not write anything comparable.
Secondly, CPE’s greatest orchestral works largely - though not entirely - post-date Haydn’s Symphony 26 (1768, possibly 1769).
For example:
- the six string symphonies Wq 182 were written in 1773
- the four orchestra symphonies with 12 obbligato parts Wq 183 were written in 1775
- the six Hamburg harpsichord concertos Wq 43 were written in 1772.
Haydn always openly acknowledged his debt to CPE, though the links with Mozart are much less clear and often over-stated.
Baron van Swieten as you rightly say, included CPE’s music in the Sunday morning Bach/Handel sessions in Vienna.
I agree entirely that Pinnock’s performances of 19 ‘sturm und drang’ symphonies are excellent and it is a very fine set.*
WF Bach is I think possibly one of the most wasted talents in all music - on the rare occasions he gets it right, he is as you say capable of truly great thoughts.
Rather too much of WF’s music to me feels like a composer who never truly found his own voice, and often his works feel like an uncomfortable and incongruous mix of different styles.
Whilst I rate CPE, I struggle with WF - my problem!
* Pinnock uses a discrete harpsichord continuo, so we are able to make a comparison with Antonini who does not use one.
I enjoy the Pinnock performances, but have a question mark relating to the balance of the strings where I think the bass slightly under-powered.
One of the most interesting first movement s of any of his symphonies
I always thrill to hear
Soberbios los vientos ; el oboe y los cornos en el Adagio tocan en el cielo . Transmiten una emoción y dolor tan profundo ; maravilloso !!
One of the most beautiful Haydn symphonies. The second movement is unsurpassed in its kind. Early Haydn is more moving than let s say the Creation. Stabat Mater of about the same time is also an absolute masterpiece.
Fantastique, magique, divin.....
Work of indisputable genius. Leagues beyond the generic work of Krauss and all those dudes we're supposed to think are underrated. Haydn had ideas from the very outset of his astonishingly long career, pure musical thoughts--never about mannerism or effect or mood.. A true artist of the Enlightenment. Endlessly interesting. No one brings such intellectual and spiritual pleasure.
At least motivate your argument : why do you think kraus is generic ?
Terrific interpretation of this symphony! Thanks for sharing your talent and insight!
Thanks for listening
The slow movement is one of the most astonishing pieces in the history of Western music
Very special. Awesome.
There are some rare moments in music where you have the feeling that the music is unearthly, like not written from a man or woman. More like being dictated by the Universe, God, Nature or from whoever you may believe in. Such example is the second movement from this work. Incredible, standard setting performance by Maestro, orchestra, esp. oboes and horns.
Antonini enhances the dialogue between oboe and strings in the 2 movement; it seems to be in Paradise, what can do Haydn, a true genius, with a simple material!
Thanks! Gracias!
I hear a world in your playing. Magnificent performance!
Great job!
A very good, intense performance!
5:04
私の愛好する第2楽章が大きく占めるという特異性を持つこの交響曲は珍しく、数多くある中でも私の好きなハイドンの曲の一つです。
繰り返して聴いています。
Muy buena interpretación,bravo!!!
c'est un très grand papa haydn ,c'est beau
Joseph Haydn.
Majestic!!!❤😂🎉
Superb performances. Not only is the orchestra of world class caliber, as is the conductor, but the hall seems to lend itself acoustically with resonance to this project. Where may I ask does Kammerorchester Basel perform? I would so much love to visit and hear them under Maestro perform Haydn ... or anything else!
Steve Schatz
If you Google Haydn 2032 Project and go to the main website, you will find more information.
This includes the venues of the live concerts in Basel, Vienna and Rome, or wherever, which Antonini’s two orchestras use regularly in this series.
This is a unique symphony for Haydn. Did Esterhazy specifically request a symphony of this nature to honor the Easter holiday? If so, Haydn delivered in a big way. It is beautiful and haunting all at the same time. Antonini is a gifted and exuberant conductor.
Anrew Martin
Haydn wrote a number of symphonies with clear religious purpose, and/or intended for performance around Easter.*
(Many other symphonies were composed for very particular reasons, commissions, purposes, audiences, and so forth).
Many such quasi-religious in tone symphonies - but not all - were in the old Baroque ‘sonata da chiesa’** form, ie slow/fast/slow/fast, with the second ‘slow’ obviously becoming a Minuet in Haydn’s time.
Whilst Symphony 26 is not in the sonata da chiesa form, like some others too, with its Passiontide overtones, it was clearly intended to be played at a particular time of the year, and perhaps in church - this was not unusual at the time and they occur elsewhere by other composers too, for example Mozart’s Symphony 19 (K132).
Symphonies 5, 11, 15, 21, 22, 34, and 49 all follow the sonata da chiesa pattern, symphonies such as 22, 26 and 30, whilst not in sonata da chiesa form, incorporate old religious plainchant type melodies into the fabric of individual movements.
Passion melodies - in their 18th century form - obviously appear in this symphony in both first and second movements.
The symphony would have been played at Easter, and the melodies - and probably the associated stories - recognised by everyone.
Illustrating the huge variety of structures found in Haydn’s early symphonies:
- Symphony 18 is a slow/fast/Minuet form ie a sort of truncated sonata da chiesa,
- Symphony 25 is a slow and fast/Minuet/fast form,
- and there are the more usual four movement works, fast/slow/Minuet/fast,
- and the more Italianate three movement sinfonia or overture style works lacking a Minuet,
- Et cetera.
In short, some symphonies besides those in sonata da chiesa form, like Symphony 26 and 30 were also probably performed in church.
The greatest of these sonata da chiesa works is usually reckoned to be the last of them, Symphony 49 (‘La Passione’), but I agree with you that this beautiful and haunting symphony is very special; it is constructed in an extremely sophisticated, thoughtful and intellectual manner, and whilst strictly speaking not absolutely unique, it is true that there is nothing quite like it.
Note: whilst the literal translation of the word from Italian to English is straightforward, the undertones of ‘Church sonata’ in English are misleading, implying something to do with church, which actually in the Baroque period was normally *not* the case.
For example, in Corelli’s Opus 6 Concerti grossi, the eight concerti da chiesa really have nothing to so with church at all, though stripped of the dance movements found in the concerti da camera, they would undoubtedly have been more suitable.
This is really the only real difference between the concerti da chiesa, and the four contrasting concerti da camera - the slow/fast/slow/fast sequence does not contain dance movements such as Allemande, Corrente, Minuetto, Sarabanda, Giga eccetera which appear in the concerti da camera.
* Similarly, a number of composers earlier in the century had written ‘Christmas’ concertos (Corelli Opus 6 No 8 for example), and you will find other examples as well such as in Scarlatti’s sonata K513 which clearly has a Christmas theme and is labelled ‘Pastorale’.
** In Italian, chiesa = church.
I love how your ensemble delivers the deep beauty out of what most would think was a shallow progression.
Nothing shallow at all in this music. Simplicity does not equate to shallow
movement 1 0:18
movement 2 5:04
movement 3 13:34
Thanks Jack for putting up the beginning times of each movement.
Why didin't Haydn add a final movement? The same question concerning Beethoven's op 111.....A spiritual and esthetic mistery
@@andreagriseri7656 That’s the thing I’ve been always wondering about this symphony. The Third movement is not conventional; just look at the audience at the conclusion!
I think id the greatr symphonies with clock from the gennius of papá"father" Haydn
Always liked this symphony
The" slow " movement was the probable first of his great Adagios
Possibly the first of ay great symphonic Adagio s
I get your point, but it perhaps needs to be mentioned that Symphony 26 (1768 or 1769) is one of those that is badly mis-numbered and is chronologically probably the 46th symphony.
This later actual numbering as opposed to the Mandyczewski/Hoboken catalogue number increases the competition considerably in terms of first great symphonic adagio.
Geweldig ! thank you all ! The conductor is very clear, very good !
please : how much viola's ?
Looks like two...
@@Sshooter444 : An important question ("Igor" is a violist and violinist himself)... Have to disagree though with the suggestion that there are just two violas. It certainly appears as if "l'altos" consist of (at least^^) 2 stands / desks ("pults", German, or "pupitres", French), for a total of 4 violists / "bratschists". Btw, it is readily apparent that the orchestra is set up with antiphonal violins (1st violins to the conductor's left, from his perspective, and 2nd violins on his right), so it is somewhat unusual, albeit totally "nifty-cool" [f-holes / sound-holes aligned in the optimal direction], for the violas to be on the inside left.
La "inconclusa" de Haydn, Ultraterrena.
The ancient (and beautifully harmonized here by Haydn!) chant tune in the slow movement was used by Mozart in his Masonic Funeral Music K. 477 (who further enriched this tune with chromaticism and counterpoint). I wonder if this symphony might have prefaced a choral work appropriate for the season, thus the absence of the finale.
Iggy Reilly
Check out my reply to Anrew Martin - below - which gives some background and context to Haydn’s symphonies like this one, written with clear religious purpose, for performance perhaps in church, and/or written in the sonata da chiesa* form.
This symphony was not intended to preface any choral work; it is an entirely stand-alone work.
* Sonata da chiesa: *slow - fast - slow* (Minuet) *- fast,* as found in Haydn Symphony 49 for example.
In Italian, chiesa = church (pronounced ‘kee-AY-sza’).
The funniest ending - obviously the audience hadn't heard this symphony before.
There is a perceptive comment in H. C. Robbins Landon's 1955 book on the Haydn symphonies, to the effect that the switch from D minor to D major in the recapitulation of the first movement of this symphony paradoxically intensifies the "wild, bitter mood". This dramatic arrival of D major, in a movement based in D minor, seems to prefigure (by some 55 years) the arrival of the major key at the onset of the recapitulation in the first movement of Beethoven's 9th Symphony (which, however, reverts to D minor for the end of the movement). In the case of Haydn 26, the juxtaposition of two rather distantly related major keys at the end of the first movement (D major) and the start of the second (F major) appears to be one of the first examples of an approach that became relatively standard in his post-1790 works (different movements in a given work, in which the keys are a third [minor or major] apart). In this respect, the symphony is prescient of the composer's later approach to inter-movement key relationships. (In a spirit of full disclosure, I had recently entered a comment similar to this one, which appeared not to have been saved. Please make allowances for any duplication.)
Martin, I'm curious, what does Landon has to say about this Third Movement in his book? The ending is very peculiar!
@@McIntyreBible
Robbins Landon is clear about the three movement structure of the work being Haydn’s complete, intended symphony.
In Volume 2 (Haydn at Eszterhaza) of his five-volume standard biography of the composer, p291, HCRL writes:
‘The work consists of three movements of which the last is a minuet. Various writers have suggested that the real last movement may be lacking. This erroneous view was based on a false title by which the work seems to have been known…’.
My feeling is that the work lacks nothing, and is complete in itself as an effective three-movement symphony.
However, HCRL goes on to describe the Minuet finale thus:
‘ The rather whimsical Minuet and Trio are something of an anti-climax’.
(Though rather oddly, he goes on to identify ‘…some matters of interest’ in the movement).
I absolutely disagree with HCRL about his view of movement* which *does* I think end the work in an effective and satisfying manner.
* As in fact I do about almost every word of his bizarre description of the magnificent Moderato e maestoso opening movement of Symphony 42 which he hears as ‘witty’, ‘joking’, ‘…influence of Italian comic opera’, ‘could be a sinfonia to some opera buffa’, ‘…one sweep of the buffa broom’; I hear none of this at all.
I can’t believe I’ve just written that about the great man - with whom I spent a fascinating day at the University of Bristol in 1982 - so I suggest you read, listen, think about it, then make your own judgement: I would suggest that HCRL is without question right about the three-movement structure of Symphony 26, but wrong about the character of the Minuet.
@@elaineblackhurst1509 the 26th is not really one of my favorites.
@@McIntyreBible
One thing to remember with Haydn’s symphonies is that they were written with very different purposes in mind so are therefore very different in style; it is therefore inevitable that some will appeal more to individual listeners than others.
The eight symphonies written between 1765 and 1768 - including ‘Lamentatione’ - illustrate this point clearly:
26 was laden with religious overtones and was intended for performance during Passion week.
38 is a big ceremonial C major symphony with high horns (trumpets and drums in some sources).
58 is in effect a chamber symphony (total contrast to 38).
59 is a theatrical symphony.
39 is an early sturm und drang-type work.
The other symphonies of these years 34, 35, 49, and 58 are also very varied.
Favourites - or least favourites - are fine, but as explained, are hardly surprising.
@@elaineblackhurst1509 I guess you’re right; but still, it’s an unorthodox way to end a symphony!
In relation to literature on so-called Sturm und Drang symphonies, the following recent book is most informative: Matthew Riley - 'The Viennese Minor-Key Symphony in the Age of Haydn and Mozart'; Oxford University Press (2014). Coverage of Haydn's predecessors, as well as contemporaries (notably Vanhal), is extensive in the book, and the author also makes a convincing case that the mature Mozart was consciously revisiting the genre in his big G minor Symphony of 1788 (K. 550). To this, I would add that the same may have been true of the 19-year-old Schubert in his C minor Symphony of 1816 (the Symphony No. 4).
This is a fascinating comment to which I will only make a brief reply as I have not yet read Matthew Riley’s book which covers an important area.
The most striking thing for myself, highlighted in your comment, was Riley’s attempt to link Mozart’s Symphony 40 (K550) to the Viennese sturm und drang period which had ended about fifteen years earlier.
It is a subject which I have considered previously, and dismissed almost completely.
As mentioned, not having yet read Riley’s book, I obviously need to re-visit this, but regardless of any suggested links, I do believe that there were some key elements of sturm und drang inherent to Mozart’s minor key music which would have been there even if sturm und drang had not existed.
These inherent characteristics were not necessarily sturm und drang per se.
Mozart’s minor key music was a unique sound, the product - by 1788 - of a powerful and complete musical personality, and to my ears it is the differences between K550, and the earlier sturm und drang works of other composers - and his own K183 - that are more apparent than any perceived, or mis-diagnosed similarities.
I do agree that earlier works such as the first g minor symphony of 1773, and the ‘Paris’ Symphony 31 (K297) of 1778 are clearly indebted to models - respectively Haydn/Vanhal/JC Bach, and Mannheim - as are a number of the earlier symphonies.
The Mannheim sound in the case of the ‘Paris’ symphony being particularly obvious; on the journey from Mannheim to Paris, Mozart clearly had Cannabich’s Symphony 63 in D major, also in 3 movements played by the fantastic orchestra there, ringing in his ears.
Ten years later with K550, in 1788, I do not think Mozart was re-visiting anything.
Mozart’s music was more the result of a lifetime of assimilation of a huge range of musical stimulae which then led to the enrichment of a unique musical voice; sturm und drang was just one - a minor one - of these influences.
I have previously believed that Mozart - and Haydn too - both developed new forms of minor key expression post-sturm und drang, as did Beethoven in the next age.
There is also an important point that both Mozart and Haydn in certain keys followed sometimes particular patterns which were recurring, even over long periods.
Studies in tonality and key, relating to ‘favourite’ keys, for example Mozart specifically in g minor - Haydn in f minor and Beethoven in c minor - will reveal interesting common characteristics that may answer some unanswered questions.
These patterns - particularly relating to modulations, the key of the exposition second subject, the opening of the development section, the key of the slow movement, and so forth, the are evident in other common keys also.
Picasso is not re-visiting Goya because he uses red and blue paint, he is using red and blue paint as a means of expression, and you cannot imply links between the two because of the shared use of two identical primary colours.
Similarly, matched against a list of twelve standard characteristics of a typical 1765 - 1775 sturm und drang symphony, inevitably, some will be found in K550, but not others.
The opening of Mozart 40 and Haydn 45, or the finales of Mozart 40 and Haydn 44 illustrate well my problems with the idea of Mozart consciously going back to sturm und drang.
Having said all that, I do think in the interests of balance that it should be mentioned that some scholars DO think Mozart re-visited sturm und drang in some of his later music.
No less than the great HC Robbins Landon in his ‘The Mozart Essays’ wrote:
‘Although Mozart wrote only one exercise in this manner in the mid-1770’s, later, when he moved to Vienna, he would return to it with a vengeance’.
I fundamentally disagree with this position, which is re-stated in some of his other writings as well.
I have read the reviews of Riley’s book, and know that he has made a wide ranging and important study of a number of minor key sturm und drang works by many composers; the most obvious question for myself, would be why Mozart should be recalling a long dead movement that he had almost completely eschewed at the time - K183 excepted.
I really must get hold of Riley’s book, and see if his analysis and conclusions can challenge my current thinking; regardless of the Mozart issue - which I hope is not just clickbait, and/or a promotional ploy - the reviews are universally complimentary about the detail and research.
Many thanks once again for another interesting, and thought-provoking post - it is interesting to be challenged in this way and I will read Riley’s book with an open mind.
I have written this reply straight off the top of my head having just seen your comment; sincere apologies for any nonsense enclosed, and I have subsequently edited out one or two errors.
Postscript.
I have just acquired Jan Swafford’s new ‘Mozart: The Reign of Love’.
Swafford describes any suggestion of Mozart returning to the world of sturm und drang in K550 as ‘improbable’ (I used the index).
This obviously confirms my strongly held view as explained above - and elsewhere - and when I have read the book fully and digested the contents, I may return to this interesting topic.
Can anyone please tell me the name of the oboe-like instruments used here? Thanks in advance.
I think it's a prehistoric oboe, although it looks like a recorder with double reed shoved up it's orifice. The modern oboe differs by two points, the discovery and mass execution of ebony trees and the ability to produce accurate and cheap small metal parts after about 1840.
This symphony should be called the Dramatic..
not unlike Mozart's 25th
Mozart’s 25 (K183) was written about five years after Haydn 26.
The construction and style of Haydn’s 26 - an almost unique work - is entirely different from the Mozart, it is really only the minor mode that they have in common.
Another obvious difference is that Haydn 26 was intended for performance during Holy Week - with all that entailed; Mozart 25 clearly was not, it is a concert piece..
If you want to listen to Mozart’s model for his own Symphony 25, listen to Haydn’s 39 (c.1767/8) - g minor, four horns, Sturm und Drang, et cetera.
The impact of Haydn 39 was such that it spawned a series of copycat g minor symphonies all across Europe by composers such as JC Bach, Vanhal, Maldere, and most famously, Mozart 25.
I agree, the structure of the piece is different. It is just the opening syncopated motif that I thought bears resembelance
25 or 6 to 4 by Chicago is also in a minor key and the tune is syncopated across the entire measure in the melody. The title really means 25 or 26 minutes until 4 O'Clock, the moment they finished writing the song. So, 25 or 26? Definitely a connection.
@@elaineblackhurst1509 I'm very interested in this Sturm und Drang movement and have heard symphonies by the composers you have mentioned. My understanding is that "Sturm und Drang: began as a literary phenomenon; but musically, are you saying Haydn was the originator? If you could point me to some sources, I'd much appreciate!
Steve Schatz
You are correct; Sturm und Drang was the name given to a German literary movement in the 1770’s and took its name from Klinger’s play of the same name (1776/7).
The features of Sturm und Drang such as emotional intensity and a break from normal artistic conventions was taken up briefly by other writers such as Goethe and Schiller; there were also parallels found in painting and music.
The name became attached posthumously to some aspects of Austrian music in particular between c.1765 - 1775 (although sturm und drang style works were composed elsewhere too), in many respects the music actually pre-dated the literary works.
The title ‘Sturm und Drang’ is generally considered to have been applied to music only from1909 when the term was appropriated by a French musicologist and then was adopted almost immediately universally.
However, the features of the two movements - musical and literary - had similarities.
In music, there was a new found intensity far removed from the galant, rococo and even empfindsamer Stil sounds of much contemporary music. Minor keys, syncopated rhythms, plunging silences, sharply accented rhythms, frenzied string configurations, greater use of dynamics, more extreme modulations, a much greater use of musical rhetoric, jagged melodic lines, wild leaps, boldly shaped unison figures, contrapuntal techniques and textures are just some of the features that were very new.
Haydn contributed a number of works in this Sturm und Drang style; because of his stature and the fact that some of the works such as Symphonies 26, 44, 45 and 49 were basically beyond the capability of any living composer.
Along with works such as the quartets Opus 20 and the c minor piano sonata (Hob. XVI: 20), Haydn’s name is the one that dominates the list of works and composers writing in this style.
Many other composers contributed multiple works, Vanhal is often quoted as an example though he is only one of many; whilst there are some interesting works, none are comparable to those of Haydn.
Others however, such as Mozart with his Symphony 25, which perhaps not surprisingly, is the only work to come close to those of Haydn, or JC Bach’s Opus 6 No 6 - another untypical but very fine symphony, contributed very few works. Both these symphonies are uncharacteristic one-shot attempts at writing a sturm und drang style symphony.
Sturm und drang features were evident in many aspects of music, by many composers, across many centres in Europe.
There were many other key influences on the musical crisis of the period: for example, Gluck’s ballet Don Juan of 1761 (a seminal work which pre-dated anything in this style by Haydn); in addition, composers such as Fils (Filtz), and Beck for example, had written g minor symphonies in something resembling a sturm und drang style as early as c.1760.
Additionally, there were the works of CPE Bach who did move amongst modern literary circles in Berlin when he could escape his chord filling at the musically conservative court of Frederick the Great - they all influenced change and development in music to a greater or lesser degree.
In some respects, CPE Bach’s very particular Empfindsamkeit aesthetic foreshadows some aspects of sturm und drang and had already incorporated some of its features.
Haydn had studied CPE assiduously and understood him better than most; Haydn told his earliest biographers Greisinger and Dies that CPE had said of him that he (Haydn) was the only composer to have understood his writings properly and knew how to make use of them.
However, sturm und drang works remained a minority of symphonies composed, I suspect that many patrons would not have appreciated them and asked their resident composers for something else; in this respect Haydn was fortunate - he was remarkably free from restrictive instructions from Prince Nicholas, apart from the requirement to provide Baryton works up to about 1775 and thereafter to satisfy the Prince’s appetite for opera.
Whilst the literary and musical movements share some similar features and aesthetics, it is difficult to prove a direct link between the two, especially as the first sturm und drang style music appears to pre-date the literary works.
What is true is that the music has adopted the word used to describe the literary movement and it seems to me to be an appropriate label that is both useful and more importantly, widely understood.
That's a strange way to end a musical piece; It sounds like the end of a second or third movement of a four movement symphony! To me it seems that Haydn intentionally left out the fourth movement! Even the audience doesn't know that its time to applaud at the end!
To continuo or not continuo... In some of the very sparse textures in the adagio I wouldn't have minded a harpsichord.
It’s a good question.
If you are interested, I have written a detailed answer to this issue in response to the question ‘Where is the harpsichord’ which appears in the comment section of Antonini’s performance of Symphony 12 in this series - you may find it helpful.
The only specific point I might add is that I do not actually agree that the second movement of this symphony is particularly sparse, but I do agree that Haydn’s orchestration is sometimes deliberately so.
It is also important to note that this movement is very carefully orchestrated for a particular purpose: the two horns are silent until bar 58 (9:50); their first entry - piano - reinforces the melody in the first oboe and is very powerful - it has a striking impact.
I do think a harpsichord continuo - as well as being superfluous - would detract from this piece of masterful orchestration, and its stunning effect.
It is however not sparse in the manner of CPE Bach for example where the continuo is absolutely essential and implicit in much of the writing.
In Haydn, this is not the case - Haydn’s symphonies are not composed with the expectation of a harpsichord continuo filling in the parts.
The other thing I would suggest, is that as the work was intended for performance in church, if a continuo was used, could it have been an organ rather than a harpsichord ?
My feeling is that it was probably neither; we know that Haydn himself was the only keyboard player available at Eszterhaza and Eisenstadt and as Robbins Landon, James Webster and others have established, Haydn would normally play the violin.
Hope that helps.
If you do prefer the harpsichord continuo, the answer I referred you to above (Symphony 12), lists those conductors who in these symphonies use one, along with those who do not.
Dear God, no. skeletons copulating on a tin roof - Thomas Beecham
No need for a conductor. He's adding nothing
What?!!
@@PatrickOfTav no need, the musicians can do the same without him