1785 – The Music part 1 - Taking Paris by Storm!

Hob I:	Key	NC	HRL	Name	Instruments
87	A	84	84		Flute, 2 Oboes, 2 Bassoons, 2 Horns & Strings
85	Bb	85	85	La Reine	Flute, 2 Oboes, 2 Bassoons, 2 Horns & Strings
83	g	86	86	La Poule	Flute, 2 Oboes, 2 Bassoons, 2 Horns & Strings

 

Symphony 83 in g minor
I certify that this symphony is entirely written by the hand of my teacher, Joseph Haydn
S(igismund) Neukomm, Paris - 1854

It is a fair thing to say; from this point forward, nearly all things Haydn will be painted with an international color. His music had far outgrown the boundaries of Eszterháza or even Vienna. London and Paris were calling!

As we saw in the previous look at Freemasonry, Haydn formally applied for membership at the very end of 1784, and he was approved almost immediately in January, and formally inducted in February. Certainly there were many factors involved in the decision to join, we looked at some of them already, but another one also looms; it is highly likely that the Olympic Lodge made tentative feelers to Vienna through Masonic connections there. Above all else, it was necessary for Haydn to be a Mason. When this came to fruition on 11 February, 1785, the door was now open to commission six symphonies at a phenomenal price.

Why Haydn, why now? Haydn was not an unknown quantity to Paris, although Paris was an unknown quantity to him. Beginning in the late 1770's a Cult of Haydn had grown up, with its roots in the Concert Spirituel. Of the various works which Haydn had written by this point in time, one would have been hard-pressed to have guessed what the groundbreaker was; Paris fell in love with Haydn's Stabat Mater!

It is hard to impress on anyone just what heights Haydn reached in Paris in the 1780's, so I took some numbers which were compiled by Bernard Harrison in his Cambridge Handbook on Haydn's 'Paris' Symphonies and charted them here:

Claude-François-Marie Rigoley, Comte d'Ogny was the music coordinator for Le Concert de la Loge Olympique (Orchestra of the Olympic (Masonic) Lodge), the elite Masonic Lodge in Paris. This orchestra was made up of the finest musicians in Paris, with the membership qualification being membership in the Freemasons. Since he saw these numbers from the Concert Spirituel, and was

Chevalier de Saint-Georges in 1787 - Gabriel Banat

doubtless a Haydn fan himself, he determined for the Lodge to have Haydn music of their own. The commonly held story is that d'Ogny prevailed upon Joseph Bologne, Chevalier de Saint-Georges (Le Mozart Noir), to make the deal with Haydn. It is a pity none of this correspondence remains: no doubt Haydn was familiar with Saint-Georges' music, his violin concertos were played in Vienna, as elsewhere. I recommend you read the biographical link provided; this is a fascinating man of many parts! Haydn was to be paid 25 louis d'or for each symphony plus 5 louis for the French publication rights (from Imbault). Comparatively, Mozart had only received 5 louis in 1779 for his Paris Symphony. This information is disputed, since it was first published in 1873, and the sums involved are so astronomical as to be unbelievable. Other 'facts' given in the account are demonstrably incorrect (Saint-Georges was not the 1^st violin (concertmaster, that is), and Sieber was not the publisher, for example), so this one may well be too. Nonetheless, the payment was well above the going rate. At standard exchange rate of the time, it was equivalent to 1300 gulden, about 70% of his annual salary from the Prince! Also about five times the going rate for symphonies. If it IS the correct number, it was indeed phenomenal! Since I haven't seen any attempt to refute these doubts put forth by Daniel Heartz, I would begin by merely pointing out the chart above; with Haydn being the main 'cash cow' of the foremost music palace of Paris, even a fee which was this far out of line would have been easily recouped in the first season.

What sort of orchestra would Haydn be composing for? There were sixty-eight members, including 14 1^st Violins, 14 2^nd Violins, 7 Violas, 10 Cellos, 7 Double-Basses, 4 Horns, 3 Flutes, 2 each Oboes, Bassoons, Clarinets & Trumpets, plus Timpani. Many of the players are known even today; 1^st flute was François Devienne, Jean-Louis Duport was a cellist, 1^st horn was Jean LeBrun. Imbault was a 2^nd violin, and newly minted music publisher. Not everyone will have played every concert, of course, for example, Haydn never used the clarinets. Overall though, on any given night, this orchestra was easily twice the size of any which Haydn wrote for regularly.

I am not going to change my ways and suddenly begin doing in-depth analyses of these works. There is plenty of literature out there on them, since we are now looking at famous works. No paucity of information or recordings either! If you would like a few recommendations, I have footnoted the ones which I found most informative. The order of the works here is that given by Haydn to Artaria, but not followed by any particular publisher. In 1785 we find #87, 85, 83. In 1786, 84, 86, 82. And so the last shall be first, and the first, last. Here, though, is a summary of my listening adventure.

#1 Hob. I:87

I	Vivace	A	4/4
II	Adagio	D	3/4
III	Menuet	A	3/4
IV	Finale: Vivace	A	2/2

Instrumentation: 1 Flute, 2 Oboes, 2 Bassoons, 2 Horns (A alto & D), 1^st & 2^nd Violins, Violas, Cellos & Basses

In his Cambridge Music Handbook on the 'Paris' Symphonies, Bernard Harrison proposes that Haydn's choices for the ordering of these symphonies was based on the sorts of appeal which these works were designed to have. He chose #87 to be first in the first set of three, and #84 in the second set, because he felt these two had the greatest 'popular appeal'. It is the sort of subtle commercial sense which shows again how Haydn the Entrepreneur wished to make the most from each of his works.

Given this angle, it seems reasonable to see, then, how this symphony in A would be the lead work of the entire set. Before the Cult of Haydn was firmly instituted in the early 1780's, the main source of symphonies in Paris was from the Mannheim school. The leading symphonist in Paris before Haydn was, in fact, Carl Joseph Toeschi, a prominent Mannheimer. We can recall Mozart's description to his father of his Paris Symphony beginning with a premier coup d'archet, i.e. – everyone attacking perfectly the first note, and also his use of a Mannheim crescendo. This symphony begins, if not in that exact tradition, then in one closely related, since it uses an initial tutti, and then we are off and running, Vivace! In many ways it harks back to his earlier symphonies with which the French were not only very familiar, but also very fond. Knowing, as we now do, Haydn and Mozart were very close at the time, it is not outrageous to suggest Mozart may well have told Haydn about how good the French wind players were, thus explaining another feature taken from Haydn's earlier style, solos in the Adagio for the flute and the first oboe, and a section for winds alone which closes the first part. We have seen this before, and it would have been familiar to the French audience, so a nice touch for making friends with the orchestra and audience. This Adagio is typically Haydn in its great beauty, but also typically French in its resemblance to a Sinfonie concertante (hereafter – SC), the most popular genre in Paris at the time. Like an SC, it doesn't propel forward by the making of new melodic material, but rather it repeats much of the same material with different orchestration and decorations. As Harrison tells us, altogether, the cadenzas and decorations make up fully one fifth of the entire movement! The Menuet itself wasn't going to put off anyone in Paris; it is a standard minuet, recognizable anywhere. But the trio is virtually a solo! The oboe's tour de force has some notes at the top of its range, capping a wonderful melody, and steals the show. The finale introduces Haydn the jokester to his new audience, with a false ending which foreshadows the famous #90 when played properly with all repeats taken. Generally considered the weak sister of the sextet, one can only say 'if this is the worst of the lot, what must the rest be like?'!

#2 Hob. I:85

I	Adagio - Vivace	Bb	2/2 - 3/4
II	Romance: Allegretto	Eb	2/2
III	Menuetto: Allegretto – Trio	Bb	3/4
IV	Finale: Presto	Bb	2/4

Instrumentation – 1 Flute, 2 Oboes, 2 Bassoons, 2 Horns (in Bb alto & Eb), 1^st Violins, 2^nd Violins, Violas, Cellos & Basses

And so we go from the least known to the most played: The Queen of France. Recognized then and now as unconventional and touched by genius, while there may be no evidence supporting the claim of it being Marie Antoinette's favorite, there can be another meaning placed on the name also: the premiere symphony in the set! In my own view, it could be lifted wholesale from the Paris stage and dropped into London ten years later, and its quality would allow it to slip in unnoticed among those peaks of Haydn's creation.

There are any number of fine analyses of this work available, it is surely deserving of them. Since this is not one, I will touch on a few impressions I have. The first movement, after the introduction, is a series of contrasts between agitated, highly dynamic sections and much quieter, almost pastoral ones. This alternation continues throughout, the quiet sections usually dominated by solo oboe, sometimes by the horns, once by the flute, but always suddenly broken off by the orchestra coming back with a more excited treatment of the main theme, which is essentially playing scales. The result of this is almost unsettling, since one's expectations are thwarted to some extent. The theme seems to have traveled a great distance without having actually gone anywhere! However it is played, it is always an alternation between the two main parts.

This is Haydn's first Romance. It is called so because it is based on an opéra comique sort of folk tune called Le gentile et jeune Lisette (Dear little Lisette). It is a set of four variations, and Haydn plays it straight in keeping the strophic (verse) song form consistent throughout. The second variation is clearly in the minor mode, and the third features a prominent role for the flute, while the fourth features the bassoon. He provides the variation then, not by changing any part of the song, but rather by changing the orchestration, accompaniment or mode. This is just the sort of gavotte-style Romance: Allegretto which Haydn used in Symphony #100. The minuet is called 'courtly' by some, but I must not be hearing it correctly then. I find it to be rather on the sassy side, with rhythmic slides and Scotch snaps in the strings along with some nice accompaniment for the horns. Here again, if we were connoisseurs or Kenner, we would see Haydn's humor at work, as he uses seventeen measures of the Trio to harmonically prepare just an eight measure phrase at the end! In any case, the Trio is a Ländler, as we have seen Haydn use often before, with yodeling implied.

The finale is another unique Haydnism. It is a rondo, which we have seen Haydn using almost exclusively lately. But instead of the second part of each refrain being a different theme, each of the second parts is a variation of the original theme. The result is an actual monothematic rondo, which is almost an oxymoron! In any case, it is a brilliant ending to a brilliant symphony, the one which would be the progressive member of this threesome.

#3 Hob. I:83

I	Allegro spiritoso	g	4/4
II	Andante	Eb	3/4
III	Menuet: Allegretto – Trio	G	3/4
IV	Finale: Vivace	G	12/8

Instrumentation – 1 Flute, 2 Oboes, 2 Bassoons, 2 Horns (in G & Eb), 1^st Violins, 2^nd Violins, Violas, Cello obbligato, Cellos & Basses

So in this typical Haydn works grouping, we have seen, so far, popular style and progressive style. It should come as no surprise, then, to see the third member of our group is humorous and perhaps slightly fantastic. It is a grouping which Haydn felt would best show the multiple facets of the composer's art. This is a minor mode work, but one which doesn't stay long in, or even return to, the minor, it seems to be there for the express purpose of allowing the work to set a tone, called 'angry' by some, but 'adventurous' by me! It is bold and takes off right from the beginning by repeating the opening theme three times, then relaxing the tension a bit with a brief respite in which the oboe repeats the dotted rhythm opening theme several times while the orchestra prepares to attack the main theme yet again. While this seems like an interruption of the flow, it is actually a device which connects the main material together in a great bit of continuity and allows it to regain its force. Those who fancy it sounds like a hen clucking are welcome to the idea, oboists the world over either love you or hate you for it. 'Mock-heroic' sounds more like it to me, but to each its own. It does serve the purpose of reinforcing the unusual rhythm being played in the strings just then, almost to the point of being a parody of the theme itself. The whole development climaxes with a great buildup of the minor mode theme into a tutti crescendo, and then we leave all of it behind and finish in the major with everyone playing the delightful second theme which has been used as a tension release since the beginning. Stylistically I find it reminiscent in many ways of the d minor first movement of #80, which we saw just last year. Perhaps the second theme is a trifle less outrageous than the country dance used there, similar idea though. As a thought I wouldn't want to impose on you, it seems to me as though Haydn is almost mocking the seriousness which had been attaching to minor mode works since the early 1770's. The very few works he has written all seem to poke fun at both Sturm UND Drang!

The lovely Andante, is totally serene, major mode charm. Almost. A short way along (22 measures to be exact), a blast of tension-filled dissonance erupts from the violins. It only lasts for a moment, but you know it will come around again, and indeed it does, led into this time by a falling scale figure which sort of previews the interrupting dissonance. And each time it reoccurs, these things are expanded, with what can really only be thought of today as a lovely dissonance, but which, at the time, must have brought the audience up short! Finally, and defying expectations, the movement comes to an end in tranquil serenity with no closing bit of dissonance. While the minuet has a surface conventionality, the rhythm is distinctly off-beat so it is asymmetric. Thus the usual strong and weak beats which guide the dancers are not necessarily on the right beat! Never having danced a minuet, I can't be sure, but I think this one would be a challenge. The finale is another dance, a gigue this time, but pushed to its limits. The melody itself is non-existent, but the material is more than adequate to construct a hard-driving yet joyful sounding finale to a symphony which sets new standards for Haydn and symphonies in general.

And this is just the first music of the year. Next time, perhaps a short trip to Spain and England? Why not?

Thanks for reading!

Suggested Reading:

1. Haydn The 'Paris Symphonies' A Cambridge Music Handbook by Bernard Harrison (Cambridge University Press 1998)
2. The Life of Haydn    by David Wyn Jones (Cambridge University Press 2009)
3. Mozart, Haydn and Early Beethoven – 1781 – 1802 Daniel Heartz (W.W. Norton 2009)
4. Joseph Haydn – Chronicle & Works vol. II H.C. Robbins-Landon (Indiana University Press 1978)