J. Haydn - Hob I:83 - Symphony No. 83 in G minor "The Hen" (Brüggen)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 26 июл 2024
- The symphony is set in 4 movements:
1. Allegro spiritoso (0:00)
2. Andante (7:16)
3. Menuetto: Allegretto (15:41)
4. Finale: Vivace (19:21)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symphony...)
Performers: Orchestra of the 18th Century, conducted by Frans Brüggen. 
Видеоклипы
The nomenclature of No 83 has gone amiss for centuries thanks to the French,. It is really "The Squab" symphony and to complicate matters every Haydn symphony has a squab in it somehwere. All 104 of them. Take it from your local insane musicologist. That joyous little bird.
(1785) Il nome, escogitato dall'editore parigino, si riferisce al secondo tema del primo movimento e, in particolare, al suo accompagnamento su ritmo puntato, che in realtà rammenta il verso di un razzolante pennuto. Ma la sinfonia non ha nulla di agreste, anzi costituisce un tentativo, sia pure parziale, di ritornare all'atmosfera dello Sturm und Drang. La scelta del tono minore e il motivo di testa testimoniano una particolare inclinazione dell'anima al raccoglimento. Il fatto che anche queste ultime sinfonie in minore siano state composte a breve distanza l'una dall'altra, come le sei degli anni intorno al 1770, potrebbe far pensare ad una nuova "crisi". Ma qui si tratta di una malattia leggera che il salutare ottimismo haydniano supera con facilità, senza modificare in modo sostanziale il proprio atteggiamento espressivo. Come nelle sinfonie n° 78 e n°80, Haydn scivola dal tono minore in quello maggiore già nel corso del primo movimento e vi rimane poi per il resto dell'opera a confermare l'equilibrio saldamente raggiunto. LDC
14:36 - Pachelbel's canon! Nooooo!
+Saturn
Why no?
It's my worst nightmare....( Coming from a cellist) ;)
Just a circle of descending fifths though.^^
Yessssssss it is pachelbel
Really should be called Symphony in G major. Yes the opening is a bit stormy and the slow movement in a bit of an unexpected key.
Andrew Pfeiffer
Haydn increasingly as the years went by, considered the symphony as being something of a tonal journey, rather than something fixed on one particular key; the days of a four movement symphony such as Symphony 49 with everything except the Trio of the Minuet in f minor, or the e minor/E major (slow movement and Trio) Symphony 44, are long gone.
You are quite right about this symphony; the opening g minor does not even survive to the end of the first movement which resolves into G major, to be followed by an E flat Andante, then back to G major in the two concluding movements - though there are some diversions into other keys along the way.
This idea of the symphony as a tonal journey which begins in one place and is carefully manoeuvred to another by the end is something Beethoven - and other composers of the 19th and 20th centuries - picked up from Haydn, almost identically so in the case of his c minor 5th symphony following the pattern of Haydn’s c minor 95th.
@@elaineblackhurst1509 I understand the idea of a symphony as a journey, although I also find homophonic works fascinating. I feel the ending key often has more emotional weight to symphonies than the beginning. And I don't like to be surprised. So I think it would be less misleading to bill works as being in the key they end in rather than begin in. This symphony of Haydn, past the first few minutes, doesn't have terribly much in common moodwise with Mozart's G minor symphonies. Of course then we'd have to find something to do with Picardy thirds, otherwise Book I of the Well Tempered Clavier would be found to have only one minor key fugue. I think there's a place for Picardy thirds (Shostakovich's F minor prelude and fugue is hard to imagine without them) but I think they're overused. Minor chords are plenty consonant to resolve with. Picardy thirds are messy because they're inconsistent with what came before. (Now how did I end up here from what you were saying?)
Andrew Pfeiffer
Some interesting points.
I would suggest you leave Mozart 40 out of any discussion of Haydn 83.
As I explained, Haydn has a specific purpose, but Mozart’s was very different, probably deliberately so; attempting to compare the two works will only highlight the differences.
Indeed Mozart’s g minor Symphony 40 is actually a musical cul-de-sac, or dead-end.
I say this because neither Haydn, Beethoven nor any other composer in the nineteenth century ever attempted anything like it, or that could be said to be a development of it, or from it.
There is a clear link between Haydn’s first three ‘Paris’ symphonies (82, 83, and 84) published in Vienna just before Mozart sat down to write his last three (39, 40, and 41).
Mozart knew the Haydn symphonies and used exactly the same three keys:
Mozart 39 = Haydn 84 (E flat)
Mozart 40 = Haydn 83 (g minor)
Mozart 41 = Haydn 82 (C major).
This is not coincidence.
However, rather like Mozart being stimulated and challenged by Haydn’s Opus 33 string quartets to write his own six ‘Haydn’ quartets, he did his own thing - as indeed then did Haydn with his following Opus 50 quartets written after those Mozart had dedicated to him.
The other point worth mentioning is that it was Haydn who battled very hard to find a formula to balance the weight of the second half of a Classical symphony with that of the first.
Many early Classical symphonies had lightweight final movements that were often an anti-climax, the Minuet and Trio also being a release of tension from the first two movements.
This lack of balance occurs sometimes even in Haydn and in most of Mozart’s earlier works. Haydn in particular was aware that this was a problem and made several different attempts to solve it.
Haydn tried to fix this sometimes with extreme measures such as writing fugues - Symphonies 3, 13, 40, 70 - and also in a number of string quartets, and other works.
However, post sturm und drang, he found better ways by writing sonata-rondo movements ie with much more first movement type development included, or including more contrapuntal passages for example.
After Mozart arrived in Vienna and knew more of Haydn’s works, his final movements similarly are far more substantial and a world away from the lightweight 6/8 gigues of Salzburg.
In short, you are right to make the point about where a symphony ends; in Haydn and Beethoven, the idea of a journey from conflict to resolution, and question to answer is very important to understanding the composers’ intentions.
In Mozart, it does not always work in quite the same way where ‘mood’ tends to be more consistent throughout the work, each of his final three symphonies being a good example of this.
@@elaineblackhurst1509 Oops, I meant homotonal, not homophonic.
Your comments are always highly knowledgeable and you've found a way to listen to the music on its own terms where sometimes I try to transplant baroque or modern ideas onto classical and romantic music.
What you said about the two halves of the symphony was fascinating. Anti-climax is a great way to put it and probably why I struggle with early classical a lot. When you're used to having a Grosse Fuge or even a five-interwoven-theme Jupiter symphony sort of ending and then you have this four minute little Vivace from Haydn it's gonna take awhile to get used to that.
Another reason why my view of this music is a bit distorted is having a hard time with music as entertainment. There's no historical reason for this because every era has hundreds or thousands of examples of music-as-entertainment. And then I come along and say, isn't that intriguing and prescient that Mozart was using the whole tone scale and polytonality in Ein musikalischer Spaß? When I suppose he was actually trying to mock subpar musicians and composers. Or isn't Haydn forward-thinking and dark with a fade-out ending in No. 45 when he historically was making a short-term practical point about overworked musicians in a characteristically witty way.