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!