Diese Gruppe versteht den Witz in der Musik und in dieser Aufführung bringt ihn herrlich zum Vorschein. Nicht vergessen: Haydn was a jokester par excellence. Toll gespielt!
Fortepiano blends better and fuses the sounds of the instruments together. Harpsichord is sharp-edged and monochromatic, and sticks out like a sore thumb. Positiv-organ also blends beautifully with the old instruments, and fills in the harmony so that it satisfies the ear, rather than just making a percussive crunching sound like harpsichord.
Given that the authority for using any type of keyboard instrument in the early Haydn symphonies is weak at best, the most authentic approach is not to use one at all in these works. The harmonies are complete as they stand, without a keyboard 'continuo' instrument. Likewise, the authority for the rather frequent ornaments, and what appeared to be sul ponticello string playing in the first movement, was unclear and seemed to be at odds with the score in these respects. This is not to say that the playing was at any time less than virtuosic and professional in the attached performance of this marvellous symphony.
The harpsichord continuo - or not - question is endlessly fascinating, but perhaps we are seeking an answer that does not exist, nor ever did. In addition to James Webster’s ‘On the Absence of Keyboard Continuo in Haydn’s Symphonies’, which is pretty much the standard starting place for an investigation, the following occurred to me from your comment. I think a continuo instrument *was* used in some of the earliest works, but not at Eisenstadt or Eszterhaza post-1761 (the year of Haydn’s appointment to the Eszterhazy family). I think that even if Haydn did not use a continuo at Eszterhaza or Eisenstadt, one may have been used if the symphonies were performed elsewhere, whether at minor courts, in Vienna, or in monasteries for example. I suspect an organ continuo may have been used sometimes in performances of works intended for Holy Week or if performed in church - I think this may have been perhaps more common than we suspect, and not just with Haydn’s symphonies such as Symphony 26. I think a harpsichord continuo may have been more commonly used - and until much later - where the strings were only one or two per part. Josef Martin Kraus wrote out a continuo part - for himself - for his fine c# minor chamber symphony as late as 1782. This is the symphony that he revised and expanded into the c minor symphony - *minus* continuo - and dedicated to Haydn when he took it to Eszterhaza when he visited Haydn in 1784 (they played the symphony, Haydn was very impressed, and called Kraus a genius). Regarding Haydn’s own earlier symphonies, I think he sometimes wrote deliberately sparse parts, used intentional two-part writing, and so forth, *not* expecting the harmonies to be filled in. In short, I think around Europe, local conditions and practices prevailed that were not uniform. Therefore, almost anything can be regarded as reasonably authentic period practice; I think you would find local differences regarding the use of continuo or not, the size of orchestra, tempi, the orchestra lay-out, the role of the lead violin/harpsichordist, the role of the composer (cf Quantz at Berlin with Haydn at Eisenstadt or Eszterhaza), et cetera.
Actually not correct. Sources of the time clearly distinguish between Small Adagio vs. Large Adagio, differentiated by different time signatures (C vs. 4/4). This introduction is a Small Adagio, which means it should flow. Check out, for example, Kirnberger's treatise. Unfortunately still not enough conductors/musicians are doing proper research, and are relying too much on "traditions" (that can't be traced back to the composer, or even the period) and recordings.
@@sinfoniettamemphis8023 Additionally of course, there is a tendency to anachronistically backdate metronomic bpm scores from the 19th century when they were first used into the 18th when they were not. Adagio at 55-65 bpm for example works fine post c.1800, but not so well pre-1800 when these ‘tempo’ markings were often related to mood as much as speed, and musicians interpreted the Italian word Adagio literally as ‘ad agio’ meaning loosely ‘at ease’ rather than 55-65 bpm.
Remarkable musicians playing wonderful music on traditional instruments. A voyage back in time.
Merci à ces remarquables musiciens de Genève. Vive Haydn!
Diese Gruppe versteht den Witz in der Musik und in dieser Aufführung bringt ihn herrlich zum Vorschein. Nicht vergessen: Haydn was a jokester par excellence. Toll gespielt!
Amazingly played ! so much inspiration ! thank you very much !
wonderful
Fresh morning beautiful sound
Un bonheur chaque matin en prenant mon café,
I like it when a fortepiano is used instead of the harpsichord
Fortepiano blends better and fuses the sounds of the instruments together. Harpsichord is sharp-edged and monochromatic, and sticks out like a sore thumb. Positiv-organ also blends beautifully with the old instruments, and fills in the harmony so that it satisfies the ear, rather than just making a percussive crunching sound like harpsichord.
II. 5:26
III. 13:18 14:55
IV. 17:22
Another version worth listening to is Sigiswald Kuijken's.
I like the pianoforte better than the harpsichord!
Συμφωνία το μεσημέρι του χαρτιν
Given that the authority for using any type of keyboard instrument in the early Haydn symphonies is weak at best, the most authentic approach is not to use one at all in these works. The harmonies are complete as they stand, without a keyboard 'continuo' instrument. Likewise, the authority for the rather frequent ornaments, and what appeared to be sul ponticello string playing in the first movement, was unclear and seemed to be at odds with the score in these respects. This is not to say that the playing was at any time less than virtuosic and professional in the attached performance of this marvellous symphony.
The harpsichord continuo - or not - question is endlessly fascinating, but perhaps we are seeking an answer that does not exist, nor ever did.
In addition to James Webster’s ‘On the Absence of Keyboard Continuo in Haydn’s Symphonies’, which is pretty much the standard starting place for an investigation, the following occurred to me from your comment.
I think a continuo instrument *was* used in some of the earliest works, but not at Eisenstadt or Eszterhaza post-1761 (the year of Haydn’s appointment to the Eszterhazy family).
I think that even if Haydn did not use a continuo at Eszterhaza or Eisenstadt, one may have been used if the symphonies were performed elsewhere, whether at minor courts, in Vienna, or in monasteries for example.
I suspect an organ continuo may have been used sometimes in performances of works intended for Holy Week or if performed in church - I think this may have been perhaps more common than we suspect, and not just with Haydn’s symphonies such as Symphony 26.
I think a harpsichord continuo may have been more commonly used - and until much later - where the strings were only one or two per part.
Josef Martin Kraus wrote out a continuo part - for himself - for his fine c# minor chamber symphony as late as 1782.
This is the symphony that he revised and expanded into the c minor symphony - *minus* continuo - and dedicated to Haydn when he took it to Eszterhaza when he visited Haydn in 1784 (they played the symphony, Haydn was very impressed, and called Kraus a genius).
Regarding Haydn’s own earlier symphonies, I think he sometimes wrote deliberately sparse parts, used intentional two-part writing, and so forth, *not* expecting the harmonies to be filled in.
In short, I think around Europe, local conditions and practices prevailed that were not uniform.
Therefore, almost anything can be regarded as reasonably authentic period practice; I think you would find local differences regarding the use of continuo or not, the size of orchestra, tempi, the orchestra lay-out, the role of the lead violin/harpsichordist, the role of the composer (cf Quantz at Berlin with Haydn at Eisenstadt or Eszterhaza), et cetera.
The intro was played too fast. Needs to be slower
Is it you, Joseph?
Titanandenceladus Go away.
Actually not correct. Sources of the time clearly distinguish between Small Adagio vs. Large Adagio, differentiated by different time signatures (C vs. 4/4). This introduction is a Small Adagio, which means it should flow. Check out, for example, Kirnberger's treatise. Unfortunately still not enough conductors/musicians are doing proper research, and are relying too much on "traditions" (that can't be traced back to the composer, or even the period) and recordings.
@@sinfoniettamemphis8023 that is very interesting. I was not aware of that.
@@sinfoniettamemphis8023
Additionally of course, there is a tendency to anachronistically backdate metronomic bpm scores from the 19th century when they were first used into the 18th when they were not.
Adagio at 55-65 bpm for example works fine post c.1800, but not so well pre-1800 when these ‘tempo’ markings were often related to mood as much as speed, and musicians interpreted the Italian word Adagio literally as ‘ad agio’ meaning loosely ‘at ease’ rather than 55-65 bpm.
I selected "dislike" because of the "ugly" and "useless" advert that interrupted the music.