1771 – The Music part 2 - Let's send the quartet to school

Hob. #	Genre	Key	Opus	New Grove No.	Instruments / Notes
26	Quartet	F	17 #2	17	2 Violins, Viola & Cello
25	Quartet	E	17 #1	18	2 Violins, Viola & Cello
28	Quartet	c	17 #4	19	2 Violins, Viola & Cello
30	Quartet	D	17 #6	20	2 Violins, Viola & Cello
27	Quartet	Eb	17 #3	21	2 Violins, Viola & Cello
29	Quartet	G	17 #5	22	2 Violins, Viola & Cello

Haydn conducting a string quartet

I like this picture; it is probably a 19^th century fantasy, yet its message is congruent with my own thoughts. It alleges to be an engraving (by one 'Schmid') of Haydn 'conducting' a quartet playing his music. The concept of him writing these works for his own enjoyment, to play with his companions, is too compelling for me to abandon for anything short of documented proof otherwise. Speaking here of just the early works, naturally. Next year, he will make the tragic mistake of composing Opus 20 and then the cat's out of the bag, now everyone wants to play them!

Like with Hamlet, for Haydn the play was the thing. He may not have been trying to catch the conscience of the King, but playing with companions had been a more than adequate reason since the time of the extended house party at Baron Fürnberg's Schloss. In the intervening years leading up to Opus 9, his music underwent some major changes, and so did the quartet genre for that matter. Others had taken his lead and were producing 'modern' quartets which were becoming immensely popular in Vienna and as far off as Paris, where his early works were still being printed and making money, although not a centime for him, of course!

In trying to understand why Haydn would return to writing quartets with no compulsion to do so, I propose that the question begets the answer: he was under no compulsion to do so! He saw the possibilities of the design and the framework built earlier, needed a medium through which he could develop his art, and chose the quartet specifically because the Prince had absolutely no interest in it. There is no documentation of Nicholas ever having uttered the word, much less commissioned a set. In the period when Haydn was going through a complete review of his art, and studying music as though he was a novice, what better choice than the string quartet? The timing was ideal. If, in fact, he finished his 'Complete Course in Composition' as he told Antonin Reicha, around his fortieth birthday, in 1772, then he certainly began it earlier. Placing that date in 1769, the year he also began Opus 9, makes a culmination in 1772, the year of his greatest dramatic symphonies (45-47) and the Opus 20 quartets, not only plausible but too great of a circumstantial probability to be dismissed out of hand. It is so much better than a 'Romantic Crisis', the totally lame idea we inherited from the early 20^th century! *Disclaimer* I haven't read anything in support of this concept, so you will want to keep it as something to think about rather than present it as a fact. Neither, will I say, have I read anything which would invalidate a single item presented. A scientist would call that bad science since there is nothing to prove or disprove. However, I like it, so I can at least present it for your consideration.

Which moves us ahead to Opus 17. Writers have tended to make Opp. 9 & 17 a continuous group, and indeed it is difficult to separate them, they are a solid progression, rather in support of the picture of a man improving as he goes. The connections between the two are impossible to avoid, really, since they were completed only a year apart. It is the structure which betrays their common origin. Of the twelve, ten have a sonata form first movement, two have a theme and variations opening. One in each opus. All twelve have a minuet and trio second movement. All twelve have either an Adagio or Largo third movement, all twelve have a finale which is either Presto or Allegro (di molto). Returning to the first movement, each opus has four openings which are Moderato, one each is Presto, the remaining two are Andante moderato and Poco adagio. Key similarities also exist, beginning with one minor key work and five major keys in each opus. As the King of Siam would say ; etcetera, etcetera, etcetera…

So what is this saying to us? Perhaps it is a lack of imagination? Ha! OK, not that, but what then? My own thought is that he was building a structural norm by repetition. Grave and Grave say he was composing each opus in an attempt to correct or update the flaws which he perceived in his earlier works. Thus Opus 9 is a response to Opus 1 & 2, and Opus 17 a response to Opus 9. And while this makes perfect sense, on the other hand, doesn't every artist attempt to improve on what he has done previously? So how does this make Haydn different? I don't think it does. I think if Opus 17 did not improve on bits and pieces of its predecessor, then he may have been in the wrong line of work. Again, I believe that he was consciously attempting to create a standard form for the genre. This is not a bit outré. It is what artists do, and no one was more conscious of his art than was Haydn!

If these works are viewed as workshop projects, the problem being worked on is the same which beset all composers of the time; how does one balance out the work so as to shift emphasis from a powerful beginning towards where it should properly be? Would we not prefer to have the climax at the end rather than the beginning? But we don't want to lose the great beginning either, else we lose the listeners' attention before we've fairly begun. You can judge for yourself his success with this aspect by listening to the music. Landon or Grave or many others can explain the how's and whys to you if you are so inclined, but you can hear the result for yourself. One thing about Opus 17; it has been overshadowed for many years now by its successors, and this is because of our tendency to compare early works to their later, evolved forms. Hard to see any element of fairness in that! However, neither Opus 9 nor 17 need take a back seat. If you compare them to contemporaneous works by other composers, suddenly their superiority becomes clear. Which is the only fair test, isn't it?

Next time, a little more chamber music. One can't help but like that!

Thanks for reading!