Haydn Seek

1758 – The Music part 2 – (More than) Slouching towards Eisenstadt

Hob 01:18 Symphony #3 in G for 2 Oboes, 2 Horns & Strings
Hob 01:2 Symphony #4 in C for 2 Oboes, 2 Horns & Strings
Hob 02:3 Divertimento a sei in G for Winds for 2 Oboes, 2 Bassoons & 2 Horns
Hob 02:7 Divertimento a sei in C for Winds for 2 Oboes, 2 Bassoons & 2 Horns
Hob 03:3 Divertimento in D for Strings Op 1 #3 for 2 Violins, Viola & Baßo
Hob 03:4 Divertimento in G for Strings Op 1 #4 for 2 Violins, Viola & Baßo
Hob 16:7 Sonata #2 in D for Keyboard
Hob 16:8 Sonata #1 in G for Keyboard
Hob 16:9 Sonata #3 in F for Keyboard
Hob 16:10 Sonata #6 in C for Keyboard
Hob 16:D1 Sonata #7 in D for Keyboard

What a nice, well-balanced variety of music presents for this year! If one was attempting to answer a question regarding Haydn's balance of talents, this list combined with the previous year’s would pretty much sum it all up. It is difficult to name another composer who has shown his hand in so many different genres in such a short time. We aren’t talking about a career’s summary of work here, but merely a few short years at best.

As you can see, I have begun to use a numbering system for the symphonies now, and it is the one based on the “New Chronology” that you will find on that little information page linked on the right. This is to help us to keep track of where we are at, not because I believe we are dealing with an unimpeachable source finally. Hoboken 18 in G is typical of this group of symphonies in having three movements, in medium, fast and menuet tempos, played by the 2 oboes, 2 horns, strings and basso combination. The opening Andante moderato is slow enough to lead one to believe the work itself might be in Sonata da chiesa (Church sonata) style. Which would make it the first in a long line. Of course, that sort of thing is one of those deceptive practices which musicologists love to toss at you, especially the old-timers. It has been definitively proven, in Haydn’s case at least, that the da chiesa style applied to symphonies makes it no more nor less likely the work was written to be played in a mass than any other of his symphonies. More on this later, since it is something of great interest to me, but I didn’t wish to become one of the group that leads you down the garden path! On the topic of tempos though, this same symphony presents an early example of ‘Tempo di menuet’ in the finale movement. What this really is, despite the name, is a movement in a rather quick ¾ time. It sounds nothing whatsoever like a minuet. I would suppose that one could dance to it, but the point here is that this is another deceptive practice, this time by the composer himself. And it also shows it pays to actually listen to the music than just read the tempo indications. Since I have actually read a few sweeping statements about how music from this time frequently ended with a minuet. Well, not so much. It is not like the minuets written for the dance hall. The next symphony, Hob 2 in C actually could be a church symphony. It is in the right key, and the music has a suitable attitude. And surprise! The opening movement is a brisk little Allegro in cut (²/₂) time. The inner movement, very typically, is played by the strings only while the winds catch their breath. It also has an attractive perpetuum mobile effect created by the violins playing in semiquavers throughout. The finale is Haydn’s first rondo in a symphony, simple and straightforward and with a lively tempo. I can’t verify this without a score, but it is said to be Haydn’s only symphony without a single repeat sign.

I’m sure you don’t want to read my method for dividing up the string quartets yet again, so a brief reminder that I merely spread out the 10 extant works across the 5 years period they are attributed to, and thus this year’s pair turns out to be Op. 1 #3 in D & 4 in G. As we all are aware, I don’t do structural analysis, I leave that to the thousands who can do it well and the dozens who appreciate it from the non-professional ranks. But a few interesting items about these two works; #3 is one of only two of the ten (the other is Op 2 #6) which has an opening movement in a slow tempo. Adagio in this case. Op 2 #6 actually begins with a theme & variations. While the Adagio openers are unique in Haydn’s quartet output, the theme & variations would certainly be around again many times over. Both #3 & #4 have a first movement sonata form structure, for those who have been wondering when this was going to come along. While I don’t analyze form and structure personally, I realize many people do so, and if you are one of these, I commend to you this book. It combines a modicum of history (why I got it) with a healthy dose of well written analysis of the entire oeuvre of the quartets. It is still readily available, and if you shop diligently you can even find it for a fair price.

The remainder of this year’s music consists of five works (at least) for keyboard solo. Since we haven’t even begun to discuss this genre, I will put that off until next time. So much excellent music to discuss!

Thanks for reading!

1758 – Part 2 – The Music part 1 - Harmonie and me were pretty good company

During the early and greater part of my life of listening to classical music, I wasn’t a fan of wind instruments in particular. After all, it was string concertos that drew me in the first place, and if one really wanted to hear classical wind music, it took a good bit of looking around to find it. Suddenly though, in the 1980’s and since then, a barrage of Harmoniemusik hit the shelves, along with the unique genre of the Classical Era, the string trio or quartet with a wind soloist playing the lead. The obvious type specimen, Mozart’s sublime Clarinet Quintet, is rather deceptive, since it was always available (it was Mozart, after all), but we started seeing and hearing names like Krommer, Reicha, Crusell, Danzi and Devienne. And hanging around in there was our Giuseppe. Not with those chamber works, of course, but with the early Harmonie works that were actually pioneering for the names mentioned above.

As with all of Haydn’s efforts, they were good enough to inspire fraud among musicians and publishers, and thus we see Brahms, a hundred years later, getting tricked into Variations on a Theme of Joseph Haydn, with a theme that certainly wasn’t ‘of Joseph Haydn’. He made the best of it though, to be fair.

The four surviving works that are scored for pairs of oboes, horns and bassoons are unprepossessing little five movement divertimentos, arranged rather symmetrically around a central slow movement. What makes them clearly and uniquely Haydnish is the divided parts for bassoons (rather than just doubling each other) and the always special use of horns in high/low pairs, also divided. This sort of ‘partner’ horn writing was Haydn’s forte, and he apparently started doing it early times. As I mentioned a few days back, the Morzin band had some very good hornists, and these little works take advantage of that. It is a pity, really, that more of these don’t survive. While they aren’t ‘Great Music’ they are entertaining, and must certainly have been so in their time and place.

The tradition of the wind band began at the turn of the 18th century, reliably dating at least to 1704 in Prussia. Although they were sometimes employed for Tafelmusik throughout their existence, they were also expected to play outdoors, although calling them military bands, as is frequently done, is hardly accurate either. With or without the supplemental strings, they were the main exponent of the divertimento in all its guises. The New Grove, in their article entitled Harmoniemusik, tells us;

Prince Paul Anton Esterházy retained a sextet Feldmusik from 1761, and the divertimentos for pairs of oboes, horns and bassoons recently written by the new Kapellmeister Haydn probably formed part of its repertory.

Since the dating of these works is tricky and unresolved at best, I think Grove’s has shown a masterly touch in being entirely noncommittal towards whether the pieces were written for Morzin or Esterházy, but the fact that the two from 1760 are dated on the autograph would seem to indicate that Morzin should get the nod. It isn’t as though this is a matter of life or death, it simply adds to the ambiance of life with the Morzin’s if their putative Feldmusik gets the nod for these. Esterházy gets so much, after all.

These are the four verified survivors;

Year     Hob       Key                 Instruments
1758       3          G      2 Oboes, 2 Bassoons & 2 Horns
1758       7          C      2 Oboes, 2 Bassoons & 2 Horns
1760      15         F       2 Oboes, 2 Bassoons & 2 Horns
1760      23         F       2 Oboes, 2 Bassoons & 2 Horns

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It is probably not surprising that these works haven’t been recorded often. Early times, the London Wind Soloists did them quite nicely, and  they also included three ‘attributed to Haydn’ works that round out a nice disk. And of course, Dieter Klöcker, in his monumental survey "everything that has ever been said to be wind music by Haydn" did those 7 and many more. All of those are very well played on modern wind instruments, and if you prefer modern instruments (MI), then you really should pick up one of them. If you prefer period instruments (PI), then your options are pre-narrowed, since the clear choice, Haydn Sinfonietta Wien / Manfred Huss, limit themselves to only the certainly genuine works. It was an easy pick for me, and I’m sure that, knowing your own tastes, it will be easy for you too.

Thanks for reading!

1758 – Lukavec & Vienna (and maybe Prague)

*Deep voice-over* “In a world where the facts are lost in the misty shroud of time, one man searches for the truth amid the wreckage of history”…

... Haydn in Lukavec. Haydn in Prague, or maybe it was Vienna… Who knows? The Morzin family undoubtedly partook in the annual peregrinations of their class; summer in the country, obligatory time spent at their seat of nobility, then time in the regional capitol, time in the Seat of the Empire. This was standard fare, and chances are very high in favor of our lad having spent the summer of 1758 in Lukavec (Dolní Lukavice, now in the Czech Republic), surely a far cry from Vienna in many ways, but the place to be in summer. This, after all, is where the music was made, the band lived, the friends and family came for holiday. Ultimately, it is where most of the early symphonies were composed too.

Here again, a diary or journal would be worth its weight in jewels. Haydn seems to have pretty much forgotten all about the place by the time, dozens of years later, when he told Griesinger and Dies about it. The only anecdote he could bring to mind was from when he was playing the cembalo for the lovely young Countess and her blouse fell open as she leaned over the instrument! The lusty young 26 year old composer was suitably impressed, as who would not have been? However, other than the amusing picture this paints of Haydn (and the provocative one of the Lady), it doesn’t tell us a whole lot about life at Lukavec. It isn’t even certain that the Morzin retinue put in at Prague in those 2 or so years. Nothing exists to tell us the story. Nor do we know what the traveling company consisted of. Did all the musicians go along? Or did they go to their respective homes for the winter. Morzin didn’t need to bring his coals to Newcastle… ahem, his band to Vienna in any case. Although he was certain to have brought Haydn, not least to show him off but also to give him a chance to learn more by socializing with other musicians in the eastern crossroads of the musical world.

In addition to the symphonies already discussed, it is nearly certain (gosh, I hate that phrase. Sorry, it’s the best I can do!) that Haydn wrote a total of fifteen symphonies for Morzin. We will look at them in future, but it should be noted here that one of the ‘amenities’ that Morzin provided and Haydn serviced was a wind band. These were military bands, and their divertimentos had the name Feldparthie. Morzin’s had 2 Oboes, 2 Horns & 2 Bassoons. Unfortunately, much of the music that Haydn wrote for them is lost. There are, however, four remaining, two from 1758 and two from 1760. This delightful music is the predecessor of the later Harmoniemusik, which became a national cult by the turn of the 19th century. We will also have several keyboard sonatas to look at, and this will be an opportunity to look at how they stack up chronologically.

So next time, we will look at the music of 1758. I promise to stay on track this time. Other than the chronology of the keyboard sonatas, I will stay on track. Well, and maybe a look at the history of wind bands, but I promise, that’s it. You know, they started out as double-reed bands sort of like a fife corps….

Thanks for reading!

1757 – A survey of the music – Part 6 – The Big(ger) Band works

Hob 01:01 Symphony in D  (2 Oboes, 2 Horns & Strings)
Hob 01:37 Symphony in C (2 Oboes, 2 Horns & Strings)
Hob 02:11 Divertimento in C for Winds & Strings (Flute, Oboe, 2 Violins & Basso)

When Robbins-Landon starts out discussing Haydn’s earliest symphonies, he shows little or no hesitation in beginning with the early divertimentos and making a natural segue into the symphony. As I mentioned earlier, the divertimento was serving as a training ground for Haydn in learning how to orchestrate, how to master various devices, and how to make his music pleasing to the ear. This early divertimento in C achieved a popularity beyond its merits, perhaps. The tune of the Andante, called ‘Man & Wife’ (Mann und Weib) was/became quite popular, possibly the theme was a folk standard of the time, or it became one later, being republished several times as various arrangements (keyboard sonata, violin sonata, flute quartet and more!) throughout the 1760’s. None of those arrangements had all four movements of the divertimento, however. This disk by the Kuijken Ensemble features a version for flute and strings that actually does contain all the movements, and is a very nice arrangement as an example of how the best arrangements were done in the 18th century. This next disk, by the Schönbrunn Ensemble, is one of many very fine versions  available of the original version. Both of these are highly commendable.

The tie-in with symphonies comes in the last movement though, it is a theme and variations, one of the earliest occurrences of a form that would become one of Haydn’s greatest trademark expressions. The instruments take turns varying the theme throughout, until the final variation (#8, that is) in which they play it tutti to the finale. This would be the same formal structure used in the finales of two other symphonies within a few years; i.e. - #31 & 72 of 1765 & 1763 respectively. Possibly more surprising, although not in view of works which came later, is that Haydn appropriated the finale theme for reuse as the slow movement of Symphony #14 in 1762. While he would do the same thing for his whole career, this was one of the earliest instances. The important point here is that Haydn was learning how to integrate his ideas about symphonic part writing with the realities of having to simultaneously move away from Baroque , concertante ‘note-spinning’ while retaining enough of it to blend a gradual transition with the modern galant into what would eventually become ‘classical style’. This process, in Haydn’s case, actually took nearly all of the next decade too. Very little in the way of instant gratification here, I’m afraid.

All this being said, I still remember the first time I heard Symphony #1. The strings and horns opening with a little horn call, the tripping little runs in the violins and the stylish horns, presto in D; in short, classic Haydn! Despite the fact I was just dabbling in Haydn at the time, if you had asked me whose work was being performed, no doubt it was Haydn. But there is something else which I thought would be the case, since I only knew the barest essentials of these works and his situation at the time; I think I expected the music to be geared for less capable players, and also be the unpolished efforts of a beginner. Symphony #1, after. all. I was so wrong. Morzin’s band may have been small in size, but not in talent. Bohemian hornists, reputedly the best in Europe, were well represented here. I can’t believe Haydn’s later attitude of 'write the best and someone would be able to play it'  was in effect at this early stage, so the next logical jump is that these guys were good! There is very little doubt that the symphonies are spun from different cloth than the divertimentos and chamber works, although as a non-musician I would be hard pressed to define the why of it. Clocking in at just over thirteen minutes, this little work in three movements captures your attention from the first and doesn’t release it. The same is true of the second symphony, Hob I:37 in C. Like all of the first several Morzin works, this symphony is again in three movements, much like an Italian overture in structure. The fact that Haydn was already writing his symphonic works in modular style created momentum in the music that never allows the feeling of being out of forward motion. This symphony, of which the earliest known manuscript copy is dated 1758 (allowing for a 1757 creation date), is also in the Viennese C major festive tradition, having optional trumpet and timpani parts in some copies. Overall, these are a fine pair of works to be able to call Nos. 1 and 2 of what is easily the most estimable series of symphonies ever created. These 2 disks both have fine versions of Symphony #1. Goodman uses a cembalo continuo to support the bass line throughout. I don't find it at all obtrusive; many do. He also doesn't play #37, here or elsewhere. His '1 - 5'   is Hoboken 1 - 5.  Hogwood though, as we discussed earlier, doesn't use a keyboard continuo. And as you can see from the front cover, he plays all the works in chronological order. I don't find the lack of continuo to be a problem; many do....

Thanks for reading!

1757 – A survey of the music – Part 5 – Nighttime and daytime diversions

One of the things we’ve done to Haydn’s early music over the centuries may actually be for the good. Did I really say that? Yes, I really said it, against all odds.

“Well, Gurn, what might this be?”, you ask.

It is actually one of the things I would normally complain about, which is the giving of ‘modern’ generic names to all and sundry of the ‘divertimentos’ constituting the bulk of the material from pre-1765. Everything from a keyboard sonata to a chamber orchestral work was a divertimento at some time in its life. Despite what I said earlier about the early string quartets, to NOT call them string quartets in the face of the looks of incomprehension from non-professionals is merely an affectation, a thought I am sure you entertained whenever you saw me write divertimento de quattro over and over again. Of course, I was doing it to make a point, differentiating the first ten from the subsequent fifty-eight.

Naturally, at the time Haydn wrote all these divertimenti, he was never looking at what would eventually be the sum total of solo sonatas, string trios, keyboard trios, string quartets, actual divertimentos, concertini (keyboard quartets); in short, pretty much everything not a symphony! So let us finally take a brief look at what comprises this vast ‘note gumbo’ of cassations, notturnos, serenades and, well, divertimentos.

Pigeonholed into 1757, and it is a tight squeeze too, we have a keyboard sonata (Hob 16:G1), 12 string trios (I doubt the number is coincidental!), 8 keyboard trios, 2 string quartets, 2 keyboard quartets, a lovely sextet divertimento and last but not least, 2 symphonies. If I am wrong about this being a broken loose logjam of music, then Haydn had himself one heck of a busy year in 1757! Before we can take these works and divide them up by their differences, it might be more interesting to look at their origins. At this time, Haydn was still primarily a teacher. Giving lessons had to have been his main source of income. The stipend from his incessant but not highly remunerative church work, the fee for the occasional serenade, even the fiddling at dances; these could not have been much more than supplements to what he took in for teaching the wives and children of the local minor nobility and bourgeoisie how to play the cembalo and violin. As a social phenomenon, making music at home was just beginning to be Big Business which will have grown to overwhelming proportions by the time of his death. Five gulden for a series of lessons was what put food on his table, and to do it properly he wrote his own music for his students to practice. This is almost certainly the genesis of the keyboard sonatas and variations. In addition, the string trios and accompanied sonatas (keyboard trios) are nearly certain to have arisen from this source also. If this surmise (which I report, not make) is correct, then one can only admire the intricate craftsmanship that went into them. As I noted in passing earlier, the fact that twelve keyboard trios are grouped together here is very likely to be an artifact of the custom, carried over from earlier times and continued up to Beethoven, of writing small chamber works in groups of six or twelve (or even higher multiples of six in Italy). I have never seen a definitive reason for this, but it allowed composers to become quite clever and creative with key schemes within the opus, for example spacing keys by major thirds or fifths.

The next group of divertimentos are this year’s allotment of two string quartets. We know what they were written for, not as teaching tools but as entertainment for a small company of musicians and their connoisseur host. This fact says much to me about why the genre became what it did. Even to this day, the string quartet is widely respected as the king of music. And despite the fact Haydn called his divertimentos, we know, simply from listening, they were always more. When I hear his works up through Opus 20, the mental I picture I can’t avoid conjuring up involves four players with little or no audience, and some of the most intense musical intercourse imaginable. People who really know and understand music, playing for their own satisfaction and enjoyment. I completely believe that Haydn had an underlying aim in mind for these works; having fun!

Next time we will look at the remaining works of this year of great growth. I hope by now you will have had an opportunity to listen to some of them and maybe even a few have caught your ear. As listeners, we frequently complain about not having new things to listen to. Sometimes, old is new too, especially if it is new to you. Take a chance, you won’t regret it.

Thanks for reading!

 

The result of one of the great Haydn projects undertaken in recent years. Also available on Blu-Ray, this box contains all of the certain works for solo keyboard played on appropriate keyboards and in a style that reflects the norms of the time. A wonderful acquisition if you love the music.

 

 

 

 

 

1757 – A survey of the music – Part 4 – This time for sure!

Alright, I sort of got away from the subject. I promise not to do it again. It is only because there are so many things related to understanding the context of the music which are as important to write about as is just a list of works. Where else will the enjoyment come from?

Of course, we can’t remake ourselves into our 18th century forbears. This was a common fallacy that nearly destroyed the early music movement in the cradle. We don't (and never will) hear music the way our predecessors did. Their lives are so alien to our own that any semblance of intellectual/musical kinship is illusory. One of the things we, the average, common man of the 21st century seem to forget; if we lived in the middle of the 18th century, the only way we would even hear this music would be while we are serving tea to the gentry, or through the window as we are trimming the hedge. We would catch a snippet and think ‘this would never work out down at the Gelded Unicorn on Friday night!’.

The obvious conclusion to be drawn when first contemplating this fact is ‘music costs money’. True enough, in fact the nobility paid a fortune annually to have live music as readily available as when we turn on the radio. Drat, I date myself. I mean when we stream Rhapsody or iTunes or Naxos Music Library onto our quasi-phone devices. So what did our current noble, Count Morzin, spend all this money on? Did he get his money’s worth? Let’s check out the Boys in the Band.

The size of Morzin’s orchestra was probably fluid. Commonly, other than the stars of the show, members served dual roles in the household. While we don’t know many specifics about this band, there are inferences we can make from such things as numbers of authentic parts for some big works, and the known parallel situations provided from other establishments which were scattered across the Empire. As I wrote earlier, “we can be fairly sure that there were 3 or 4 first violins, 3 or 4 second violins, and a viola. There was a wind band which Haydn wrote a good deal for, it consisted of 2 oboes, 2 horns and 2 bassoons and would have certainly played in symphonies. Finally there will have been the bass section of a cello and a double bass. The bassoon(s) would have been there too, although they did get the occasional obbligato part. So that makes around fifteen players.” I think that’s a safe assumption. In the notes to Volume I of the Hogwood symphonies set, James Webster also agrees with that, saying that a full complement would be 3-3-1-1-1 on the strings, 2 oboes, 2 horns and a bassoon doubling the cello part. Another demonstration of the versatility of these players is that the second bassoon in the wind band was very likely to have been the violone player or some other string player who could also play the bassoon. Apparently though, none of the players could double as a flautist, so none of the music Haydn wrote in this period for Morzin included flute parts.

If you, like myself, are an enthusiast for period instrument performance, Hogwood’s performances, or Goodman’s or Solomon’s, all of which use an orchestra based on period size, can amply demonstrate that fifteen players are plenty to power this music appropriately.

The other major instrument, and the one that Haydn would have played there in addition to the violin, was the harpsichord or (clavi)cembalo. Although he unquestionably played on the clavichord in his room or composition studio, the cembalo was the only appropriate instrument for performance, since listeners would have had to practically sit on the bench with the player for the clavichord to shine. The cembalo had, by this time, evolved into a large, beautifully toned instrument with all the volume needed to hold its own playing solo, or with accompaniment of a violin and cello or violone in accompanied trios, or even in the concertino/divertimentos with two violins and a basso (probably violone).

After having associated for many years with modern lovers of classical music, I have discovered a strong antipathy for the cembalo which totally puzzles me. This actually seems to be as strong or stronger among those who prefer it for Baroque music like J.S. Bach’s. When galant music appears, suddenly the piano, or in the case of period instrument persons (P.I.ons, as I call us) the fortepiano, becomes the only thing they will listen to. It is really a pity, and something that I hope you can get past in yourself if you share this dislike. The music of the early trios especially, as well as the concertinos is totally composed to allow for the blending of tone of the instruments. Seriously, make the effort to try to train yourself to enjoy the sound. I guarantee, it won’t be long before no other will seem quite right!

Almost forgot my second question; did Count Morzin get his money's worth?  Well, as we will see soon, he went off the fiscal deep end in late 1760 and had to divest himself of a fine musical establishment. Did HE get his money's worth? As I sit and listen to Haydn's music from that time, I don't see how the answer could be no. 250 years later, I am still reaping the benefits from his investment!

There, I have totally gone off the rails, despite my promises to myself. Well, this was all information which will be useful as we explore the next few years. There is a great heap of music between now and Prince Paul Esterházy, and it is just waiting for us to dive into and enjoy. I think I’ll take a dip now!

Thanks for reading!

 

 

The Morzin Symphonies performed by the Academy of Ancient Music

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The concertino/divertimentos for cembalo, 2 violins & basso performed by Roberto Loreggian and L'Arte dell Arco

 

 

 

Enjoy!

1757 – A survey of the music – Part 3 – Rant redux

I wouldn’t want to get off-track here, but some things I read in musicology texts drive me crazy. The use of certain words, for example. ‘Adumbrate’ is one of those. It is perfectly legitimate, from the Latin meaning ‘to foreshadow’, and it is usually correctly used too. And used. And used again. I have read thousands of books in my life, on every topic you can imagine. It is more or less what I do. But I have never, even once, seen this word used in anything but a musicology book. And not by any particular author either, it is a general illness apparently. But I digress.

What bothers me is a tendency I see to steer a proof in a certain direction in order to end up with a neat package that makes a whole concept convenient for all concerned. An example of this is the ‘basso / Baßo / bass’ in the divertimentos a quattro. The conclusion which would seemingly make everyone happy is ‘these were the first string quartets’, and the ensemble must then be two violins, viola and cello. Never mind that Haydn wrote ‘Basso’. What did Haydn mean by ‘basso’ anyway? We have been taking a look at this all along as I have tried to point out occasions when basso occurs and have avoided being more instrumentally specific. In fact, he was most perfectly satisfied when the 'basso' consisted of a cello, a violone and a bassoon. He is on record as stating that this combination provided the best tonal color.I'm pretty sure he said it; if he didn't, he should have. (And of course, he DID express exactly that, in the famous Applausus letter in which he gave performance directions for that work because he couldn't be there himself).

In 1977, James Webster wrote an article in Musical Quarterly which addressed this issue with the quartets. His conclusion was from Op 9 onwards, the solo cello was the intended instrument. However, for Op 1 & 2, there was simply no way to determine what the basso part was written for. I like Webster, he is imaginative and not spectacularly dogmatic. He even goes out on a limb enough to speculate the part could have been meant to be played by a cello AND a small double bass or violone, which adumbrates Mozart in his Serenade in G, Eine kleine Nachtmusik.  Damn, now I'm doing it! No matter, the point here is he is stuck by facts into the position of having to say he ‘can’t rule out’ other instruments besides the solo cello. Of course, where this is going is to the subsequent position that has since become the high ground; it is most likely a solo cello. HA! They ARE string quartets!!

I’m not completely happy with this, as you have no doubt discerned. When one looks at other Haydn divertimentos of the immediate temporal vicinity, we are all happy to have a violone, cello, harpsichord and/or bassoon playing the basso. And we look at the structure of the works overall and we see tremendous similarity in the number and tempo of movements, in the overall flow of the music, either the galanterie or the more serious aspects of it. And we allow ourselves to apply these same identifying characters to the divertimentos a quattro, but then, when we get to the basso, we immediately seize on the cello.

Bearing in mind the term ‘string quartet’ had not been invented yet, it goes without saying Haydn never used it until much later. One standard nomenclature for music then was to call it by the number of parts. This didn’t mean the number of instruments, but rather the melodic divisions or voices of a composition. It was very common, for example, to see a piece called ‘sinfonia a quattro’, and this certainly wasn’t a quartet but a symphony for four musical voices played by any number of instruments on a part. But once the popularity of the string quartet concept became firmly established, publishers and musicians found it highly advantageous to standardize all the features. It then became a natural imperative to retroactively apply the new ideals to the works which predated them. So by 1765 the string quartet concept had become so entrenched already that when Op 2 was published in Paris (without Haydn’s knowledge and with no payment, of course) it was made up of ‘string quartets’.

Are there alternative listening experiences available? I only know of one, which I recommended in my previous essay. This is Piccolo Concerto Wien playing Hob 3:3 (Op 1 #3) in D and Hob 3:7 (Op 2 #1) in A along with a most attractive Hob 3:deest in D which has a theme & variations opening movement. Their ‘basso’ is an Austrian Violone, a more compact, fretted bass of the style that was universally used in Austria in the early-middle 18th century. The resultant sonority of this ensemble is sublime. If you, dear reader, are aware of any other recording in this vein, please do tell.

I don’t imply modern musicology has steered this boat onto the sandbar, that was fully accomplished 250 years ago. I will merely note in passing that very little has been done to rock the boat OFF the sandbar. Sadly, the occasional realization of great beauty isn’t enough to accomplish this end either. Maybe one day someone will have the fortitude and the motivation to push this idea to fruition. I certainly hope so, I have nearly worn out this one recording already!

Thanks for reading!

1757 – A survey of the music – Part 2 – A mild yet heartfelt rant…

As I have mentioned several times, precisely dating many/most of these early works is something on the order of finding water with a divining rod. Myself and all interested parties are (or should be) grateful for the efforts expended by generations of scholars who have narrowed the field of choice down from ‘before 1766’ to ‘between 1757 & 1761’.

Still, this is a pretty broad range when one is speaking of groups of a few works each, and trying to determine how the music evolved over a period of time. Even this span, a mere five years, seems small when looked at over the course of 250 years, but it wasn’t small in the life of Haydn. It was the time (just in broad strokes for now) from when he bid his first love adieu and played his music at her farewell mass, when he discovered a particular facility with ‘divertimentos a quattro’ at Fürnberg’s summer chateau, found employment with the Morzin family and began writing symphonies, keyboard trios, music for wind band, got married and finally ended his employment with Morzin and was instantly taken up by Prince Paul Esterházy! So really, it wasn’t a mere five years to Haydn. At the time, it was nearly 20% of his life to date!

I hesitate to make this about myself, but realistically any sort of work like this is about its author as much as its subject. I got interested in the chronological aspect of Haydn’s life and work because I was looking for a methodical and accurate way to catalog and organize my sprawling collection of Haydn’s music. Of course it takes more than a little basic knowledge to accomplish this in an acceptable way, so I determined to spend a few weeks learning everything there was to know about the subject. Seven years later I truly believe I have the bull by the tail and a good idea about which end can hurt me (again!). And I am also pretty sure Symphony # 104 was composed in 1795, but I’m willing to accept amendments as the latest information surfaces. Of course, the underlying motive to this process was to entertain myself with the greatest music and do it in a way I find pleasing; with quality performances, variety of genres, the obscure works along with the famous ones. So for example, if an evening’s entertainment will consist in the works composed in 1757, then as you can see from the list in the previous essay, I will have symphonies, divertimenti, some string trios and quattros, some keyboard trios, quattros and solo works; in short, just what I was looking for.

So I should complain now? Well, of course. There are always a thousand things to complain about, but tonight’s complaint has to do with the divertimentos a quattro. There are ten surviving, and they are presumed to spread out over the entire five year period mentioned above. The solution I came up with for my listening pleasure was to simply place two of them in each year of the period. Beginning with Op 1 #1 & 2 in 1757 and continuing through to the end. Now, do I think this is the correct ordering and tempo of composition? No, I certainly do not. What works very well for my entertainment (and for yours too, by the way, which is why I am telling you this) is hardly a scientific criterion for ordering an accurate list. So you should never, ever make a bet at your local Classical Music Bar on the dating of Op 2 #1 based on Gurn’s dating system! One wager I am willing to make with you though; in my lifetime, the dating of the 10 extant divertimentos a quattro will still be ‘between 1756 and 1760’.   Or somewhere thereabouts...

Thanks for reading!

A CD that every Haydnisto should own!

 

1757 – A survey of the music – Part 1

We come now to one of the most difficult hurdles concerning the chronology of Haydn’s music. How do we go from such a paucity to such a glut nearly overnight? Well, as I have been alluding to all along, I think the simplest answer is many of the works we are dealing with now, and in the next few years probably antedated the verifiable manuscript copies that we have of them.

It seems to be a popular misconception when we talk about ‘authentic manuscript copies’ we mean the fair copy the composer wrote as his final draft, so to say. But actually, ‘manuscript’ means nothing more than ‘hand-written’, and virtually everything is hand-written in those times. There was money to be made in being a copyist, both fairly and under the table. Haydn had professional, identifiable copyists for most of his career, and even though the actual names of the earliest ones are unknown, their handwriting most certainly is recognized! So we see names like ‘Viennese Professional Copyist #2’ or ‘Keszthely Castle Copyist #4’. Even if these manuscripts then pop up far away, we know who made the copy and who he worked for. This is an invaluable aid in both dating and authentication.

However, as I mentioned earlier, all it really aids is dating when the copy was made, not necessarily when the work was composed. When Haydn went to work for Fürnberg and the Morzin’s, he had at his disposal a group of 10 or more copyists who have been identified. Since he had to produce a certain volume of music to satisfy his job requirements, I believe some of the works he had them copy had been already composed, and thus the sudden proliferation of string trios, keyboard trios and divertimentos becomes more explicable. I am sure someone, somewhere, has made this surmise, but I have never seen it in print. If the question is addressed at all, the answer is 'it seems Haydn had reached a stage of maturity and a need to produce for his job so all these works simply flowed from his pen one after the next'. Well, maybe so….

So what sorts of works were produced in this watershed year? Here is a list of what is currently dated late 1756-57, compiled from various sources;

Hob 01:01 Symphony in D
Hob 01:37 Symphony in C
Hob 02:11 Divertimento in C for Winds & Strings
Hob 03:01 Divertimento in Bb for Strings Op 1 #1
Hob 03:02 Divertimento in Eb for Strings Op 1 #2
Hob 05:01 Divertimento á tre in Eb for 2 Violins & Bass
Hob 05:02 Divertimento á tre in F for 2 Violins & Bass
Hob 05:03 Divertimento á tre in b for 2 Violins & Bass
Hob 05:04 Divertimento á tre in Eb for 2 Violins & Bass
Hob 05:06 Divertimento á tre in Eb for 2 Violins & Bass
Hob 05:07 Divertimento á tre in A for 2 Violins & Bass
Hob 05:08 Divertimento á tre in Bb for Violin, Viola & Bass
Hob 05:10 Divertimento á tre in F for 2 Violins & Bass
Hob 05:11 Divertimento á tre in Eb for 2 Violins & Bass
Hob 05:12 Divertimento á tre in E for 2 Violins & Bass
Hob 05:13 Divertimento á tre in Bb for 2 Violins & Bass
Hob 05:15 Divertimento á tre in D for 2 Violins & Bass
Hob 14:03 Concertino in C for Keyboard & Strings (2 Violins & Bass)
Hob 14:07 Divertimento in C for Keyboard & Strings (2 Violins & Bass)
Hob 15:01 Trio in g for Keyboard & Strings
Hob 15:34 Trio in E for Keyboard & Strings
Hob 15:35 Trio in A for Keyboard & Strings
Hob 15:37 Trio in F for Keyboard & Strings
Hob 15:38 Trio in Bb for Keyboard & Strings
Hob 15:40 Trio in F for Keyboard & Strings
Hob 15:41 Trio in G for Keyboard & Strings
Hob 15:C1 Trio in C for Keyboard & Strings
Hob 16:G1 Sonata #4 in G for Keyboard

These works were produced for both Fürnberg and the Morzin’s. As we recall, they were (perhaps close) friends, and Fürnberg was essentially sharing his new discovery (Haydn) with his friends. Possibly he even encouraged Morzin to hire Haydn? In any case, the sudden appearance of all this music argues strongly (to me) that they were accumulated works looking for a venue. The string trios, for one, almost certainly were composed long before 1757, and the sudden flowering of keyboard trios is hard to explain, especially since they are so wonderfully written, hardly the work of a composer trying his hand at them for the first time! 

All of which leads me to what I really wanted to talk about; the fact that once Haydn got beyond his 'schoolboy mistakes' phase, his inner genius took over and he was 'suddenly' a fully mature composer, brimming with musical ideas and fully capable of expressing those ideas in a professional and persuasive manner. The traditional view, expressed for the last 200 years, involves a long and gradual maturation process until voilà!, classical style was born. Well, my friends, this just isn’t true. After circa 1755, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever of an immature, unsure student of composition. Do these works differ from the style of 1770, ‘80 or ‘90? Of course they do. Even if Haydn was the one who eventually created the styles, he still went through a process. He made improvements in his own idiom. But it wasn’t because what he was writing was poor and needed work. In fact, his contemporaries and the music loving audience instantly recognized him to be a jewel of the first water!

Music fails to meet our expectations in so many ways, and especially in this one; evolution of style doesn’t exist in the present. It only offers itself as subject for discussion when one takes the long, retrospective view; backwards! In other words, it doesn't exist in real time. It is an artificial construct that allows us to categorize something, and thus we have control over it. It is defined, we own it! But the whole notion of striving towards a classical ideal with a few humble bumblings is so much fairy dust. I urge you to give this music a listen. It doesn’t deserve to be left moldering in a trunk in music’s attic!

Next time, we will take a closer look at the works, until then,

Thanks for reading!

1757 – It’s a job

Twenty-five years old and finally with a full-time job. A top-of-the-line job in a less than top rank noble house, but certainly a huge step up from the garret in the Michaelerhaus!

It is at times like this where one really wishes Haydn had kept a journal; “Dear Diary, today we… ” would be such a convenient path into the inner workings of both the noble houses and the people who occupied them. However, lacking that, we are once again in the position of having to extrapolate from a little specific knowledge, a good amount of general knowledge and our inference tool (i.e. - imagination!).

Possibly because he had a lot on his mind then, Haydn’s memory concerning the Morzin years was at an all time low point, so no help from that quarter. As an officer of the house, Haydn would have been treated at a level with the highest rank of the hired help, wearing livery every day, eating at the first table; in short, the sorts of things he would certainly not take for granted given what life had so far brought his way. As he told Dies many years later; “although my dear mother was no longer living (since 1754) my father had the pleasure of seeing me as Kapellmeister”. Even though in our modern time of proud independence we may look at this statement with some element of condescension, in fact for a young man born in the lower classes and getting by simply on his talent and industry, this was a huge accomplishment!

The duties were not so clearly delineated as what we will see later with the Esterházy family, but at the least he had full responsibility for the music in all its variety. Very likely the biggest change for him would have been re-aiming his focus from church music to instrumental. It is a cultural fact of life which we would do well to remember; vocal music was the non plus ultra of the era. Instrumental music was simply created to pass the time. Chances are he was very much in charge of church music, it isn’t known if the family had their own chapel but at least when they were out in the Bohemian countryside they likely did have. Still, the prime job for Haydn would have been ‘Entertainment Director’. This fact would explain the sudden surge in numbers of string trios, the further composition of string quartets, the sudden appearance of keyboard trios (accompanied sonatas), the continuation of divertimentos and a whole new series of divertimentos for wind band, and the newly begun series of ‘concertinos’ for cembalo and strings. However, the biggest breakout of 1757 was the appearance of the first symphonies!

One of the biggest questions we seem to have about this time was what sort of orchestra Haydn had to work with. Here again, inference will have to suffice since specifics are pretty much lacking. Some of these inferences, however, can be based on pretty solid evidence, because authentic original parts exist for many works. So we can be fairly sure that there were 3 or 4 first violins, 3 or 4 second violins, and a viola. There was a wind band which Haydn wrote a good deal for, it consisted of 2 oboes, 2 horns and 2 bassoons and would have certainly played in symphonies. Finally there will have been the bass section of a cello and a double bass. The bassoon(s) would have been there too, although they did get the occasional obbligato part. So that makes around fifteen players. The remaining questions then would have been ‘was there a cembalo playing continuo?’ and ‘what did Haydn do?’. Those two questions may be inextricably tied together if my own solution is correct. The other answers are equally speculative all the way around, with the thoughts being Haydn either led from the front as a time beater (very common then) or led from the first violins as a concertmaster (even more common). The continuo argument has raged for years, with seeming intractability from both camps. Simply put, one side says that if there was to be a figured continuo, why wasn’t it written out like it is in Haydn’s church music or divertimentos? The other side points out that even in symphonies where it is known there was continuo, it isn’t written out. My own speculation, thrown into the mix, is that Haydn directed from the harpsichord (as he did all the operas in Esterházy times) and the continuo isn’t written out because he didn’t need to, he made it up as he went along. In any case, my opinion is worth as much (to me) as anyone else’s. So is yours. You might consider helping to resolve the greatest mystery since Nostradamus!

Next time we will look at the music of 1757. From this point on, it is going to be difficult to discuss more than one year at a time. Now that it was a job, Haydn really began to turn out some music. I hope we can look at some aspects of it which aren’t usually touched upon.

Thanks for reading!