1775 - The Music part 3 - Love it or hate it

Hob	NC	HRL	Key	Name	Instruments
69	67	67	C	Laudon	2 Oboes, 2 Bassoons, 2 Horns in C basso & F, 2 Trumpets in C, Timpani & Strings
66	68	66	Bb		2 Oboes, 2 Bassoons, 2 Horns in Bb alto & F & Strings

Our final two symphonies of this year have generated a love/hate relationship with fans and musicologists for some long while now. Doubtful anything I say here will change anyone's mind, nor should it, unless you've avoided listening because of something you read rather than something you heard!

Hob 69 in C major

Field Marshall von Laudon

I    Vivace                                                 ₵ (2/2)
II    Un poco adagio più tosto andante in F - 3/4
III    Minuet & Trio                                     3/4
IV    Finale: Presto                                     2/4

Here is a work which had a name to it which Haydn actually knew about! In reality though, it came from Artaria rather than from Haydn. It was dedicated to Field Marshall Ernst von Laudon, a hero of the Seven Years War. In 1783, when Haydn arranged a piano reduction of it, he wrote to Artaria that he "left off the finale because it wasn't suited to the keyboard, but in any case, the name 'Laudon' should sell ten times more copies than any finale"! Landon interpreted this to mean Haydn was suggesting the name, but actually, Artaria had named it and Haydn was merely giving his tacit approval. Anyway, no cynicism there…

A note about the scoring, the horns in Robbins-Landon's book are said to be in C basso and F, although the score itself merely says 'C & F'. I have heard from Haydnisto Antony Hodgson they should rightly be in C alto, and it is being played that way by the English Haydn Orchestra with Anthony Halstead, sadly unrecorded, and sounds fantastic. The devil is in the details! In reading Landon's 'Symphonies' book and Chronicle & Works, I can find no reference at all as to why he chose C basso instead of alto. It is out of character for Haydn, and ordinarily it would be for Landon too.

The first movement is similar to #48, Maria Theresia, but with less nervous energy, more decorous sounding. Landon attributes this to the cultural difference of seven or eight years, and to Haydn's apparent loss of spirit which has caused him to abandon Sturm und Drang. I think the loss of spirit is Landon's. His initial mistake is in believing that Haydn would have wanted horns in C basso if he didn't specify otherwise. The difference of an octave in the horns is tremendous for the sound and tonal brilliance of the work. Another error which seems to have influenced Landon's thinking is believing from the start that Haydn intended this work specifically for Laudon, and he wrote it conservatively thinking Laudon must be conservative due to his position. Or he just didn't like Laudon. But Haydn didn't write this work for Laudon, Artaria did the dedication and then, not until 1783 and purely as a money-making proposition. From Peter Brown we get the idea the movement sounds un-Haydnish, because, as Brown speculates, it was an experiment using regular phrase lengths instead of Haydn's typical uneven ones. Perhaps he just wanted to hear what would come of it. But the result is a too-regular rhythm which detracts from the interest.

The second movement is a different sort; it uses an odd harmonic structure which places a big crescendo at the end of each section and then follows it with a dying away (perdendosi). I don't know how well it works for you, but I never heard anything else quite like it and so I'm going with it. In my own perverse way, the fact the musicologists don't appear to like it simply gives it more appeal for me. It is really quite interesting, and a new idea is a new idea.

I laugh when reading about this minuet in Landon; he so obviously dislikes the entire symphony he tosses out the minuet along with the rest and no more than a dash of 'bah, humbug' for good measure. Webster, on the other hand, claims the minuet is a new sort, with misplaced accenting which gives it, and the interesting trio, more flair than Landon seems to hear. I agree, it is an interesting sounding thing.

We are all agreed, though, the Finale: Presto is the best part of the whole piece. There is an extended middle section in c minor which brings out some fine violin work, followed by some delicate solo work for the first violins. It is a zippy four minutes which makes you almost overlook the certain weaknesses of the earlier parts. Unless your initials are H.C.R.L..   The irony here seems to be Haydn's refusal to reduce this movement for the piano score; it is the best of the lot!

Hob 66 in Bb (Horns in Bb alto and F)

I    Allegro con brio                        4/4
II    Adagio     F major                    3/4
III    Menuetto & Trio                      3/4
IV    Finale: Scherzando e presto     2/4

When this symphony starts out, if you are a seasoned listener to Haydn's symphonies, you will think 'hey, I know this!'. After a short while you will be in new territory, but the first familiarity is a fair cop. Haydn, for reasons known only to him, particularly liked this theme, and used it five times in a five year period, first here, then in the 'Overture in D' (Hob 1a:7) of 1777, another version of that overture with different instrumentation, then again as the finale for Symphony #53 in 1778, and finally as the opening to Symphony #62 of 1780! Actually, there is sufficient reason for Haydn to have been so fond of this theme; it is pretty darn good! As a point of interest, is it saying something about the development stage of music at the time which allows one piece to be either an opening or a finale? In Austria, at least, things seem to be loosening up.

And finally, our various sources are happy; the old Haydn is back, in mood at least. This is an aggressive sort of opening movement, it varies between elegant and brash. The consensus seems to be it is reminiscent of J.C. Bach, although I don't know if Haydn ever heard any J.C. Bach. The Bb alto horns lead the way through the beginning of this movement, and help maintain the pace throughout. The second movement, Adagio, is not one of those long lyric style Adagio's, rather it is in short phrases which gradually multiply to sextuplets (six note figures) until we have what sounds almost like a cadenza in a concerto.

The minuet is one of the high points. It has a catchy tune, to start with. Also, a few of the orchestration tricks which make Haydn so interesting. At one point he has the strings stop and leave the winds playing alone. As Webster says, the only predictable thing about the minuet is it's unpredictability. The trio is scored as in a divertimento with a solo oboe and bassoon and no viola. It is most attractive.

Yet again, the Finale: Scherzando e Presto (fast and in a jocular manner) is the peak of interest. If you recall what we discussed in the mid-1760's, shifting some of the weight of interest in a symphony over from the opening movement to the end was a challenge which Haydn undertook. As we are seeing now, these efforts are coming to fruition. Not only is the opening movement maintaining its level of interest, but the finale has become its equal in many ways. This rondo is essentially an exercise in developing the material of the first four measures into a full movement. Each return after a new episode is a variation of the original, and so we have a Rondo and Variations, something which would become a dominant force in music for the foreseeable future. This is a great movement to end our symphonic year on!

Our next group of works will be unique to 1775. Divertimento/Octets featuring the Baryton are also unique to Haydn, and we will see how occasional works like this were finally shed of their old-style fetters and modernized. I'm looking forward to it!

Thanks for reading!