Haydn Symphony No. 3 | Kammerorchester Basel | Giovanni Antonini (Haydn2032 live)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 5 лип 2024
- Joseph Haydn (1732-1809): Symphony No. 3 in G-Major
Kammerorchester Basel | Giovanni Antonini, Conductor
Support Haydn2032 on Patreon.com/haydn2032
In the lead-up to the 300th anniversary of Joseph Haydn's birth in 2032, the Joseph Haydn Foundation in Basel is organising, producing and financing the performance and recording of all 107 of the composer's symphonies by Il Giardino Armonico and Basel Chamber Orchestra under the artistic direction of Giovanni Antonini, one of the most highly-respected specialists in baroque, early classical and classical music, with its project Haydn2032.
Tags: Joseph Haydn, Haydn2032, Symphony No. 3, Kammerorchester Basel, Giovanni Antonini
Early symphonies seem fresher, more candid and inventive. This performance cleverly brings all these qualities out.
These symphonies should be played more often.
had to listen to this for an assignment but this was pretty good
We certainly need to hear more Haydn! He showed genius even from his earliest symphonies which are still woefully underperformed. This Haydn 2032 project is just what is needed...and Giovanni Antonini the perfect conductor with his lively, spirited Italian touch. The Toscanini of the early classical and baroque?
Fabulous Haydn 2032. The best music Europe ever composed, the best musicians ever to play it.
A terrific energy and atmosphere marking out even the earliest of Haydn’s symphonies.
What a stunning performance. I've bought 2032 CDs and only just discovered the amazing live videos here - Bravo!
Стиль произведений Гайдна узнаваем, но это не нарушает его привлекательность. В чем- то всегда ощущается новизна звучания. В этом, очевидно, сила его таланта. Трудно представить как рождались его произведения. Оркестр и дирижер на высоте. Привет из Киева.
Genius already on display in his third symphony. Magnificent performance! Total energy, then delicacy!
I agree with every word of your comment, but beware the perils of treating the Hoboken catalogue as chronological.
The latest research by Sonja Gerlach - building on the work of a number of others over the past 75 years or so - suggests that chronologically, Symphony 3 is probably the 17th symphony, and was composed c.1761.
As you say, it is a brilliant performance of an astonishing work, a very fine early symphony written probably for Count Morzin at Lukavec, or just possibly - but less likely - soon after Haydn’s appointment to the Eszterhazy family which was also in 1761 (though Symphonies 6, 7, and 8 are normally considered Haydn’s first Eszterhazy symphonies).
@@elaineblackhurst1509 Thank you. I hadn't heard of any problems with the Hoboken catalog before, but it makes sense. Exact chronology is difficult to achieve until well into the 19th century.
@@riverwildcat1
The problem was not so much Hoboken, but rather a pragmatic and probably sensible editorial decision.
The first complete universal list of Haydn symphonies was compiled by Mandyczewski and published in 1907/08, it is the familiar 1 to 104 and was taken over complete by Hoboken - to avoid confusion.
This unaltered appropriation was in spite of a number of known errors such as - extreme examples - Symphony 37 probably being the second symphony composed, and Symphony 72 (1763) being a trial run a couple of years earlier for the well-known ‘Hornsignal’ Symphony 31 (1765) also with its four solo horn parts.
Conversely, the well-known trilogy of Symphonies 6, 7, and 8 (Le Matin, Le Midi, Le Soir) are clearly numbered far too low and should chronologically be probably about 18, 19, and 20.
Generally speaking, Mandyczewski numbered about a dozen too high and a dozen too low, with a number of adjacent symphonies slightly out of place as explained in the next paragraph.
Even a number of the later symphonies are muddled and incorrect in Mandyczewski/Hoboken: the six ‘Paris’ symphonies 82-87 follow the publisher Artaria’s arbitrary order; he ignored Haydn’s specific instruction - which makes more sense - that they should be:
87, 85, 83, 84, 86, 82.*
Similarly, the first set for London (93-98) should be:
96, 95, 93, 94, 98, 97.
My revised numbering in each of these two cases is chronological.
Mandyczewski’s list was necessary as publishers all over Europe were using there own numbering systems, and given that Haydn scholarship at the time was in the dark ages, mistakes were inevitable.**
The confusion over numbering meant the scene was in fact so congested, that one publisher - Forster of London - actually started using letters of the alphabet for a series of 23 symphonies they issued; in the English speaking world, you still come across Symphony 88 sometimes referred to as ‘Letter V’ (as in my old EMI recording on LP by Previn and the London Symphony Orchestra).
Many Haydn symphonies will never be able to be dated exactly; fires Eisenstadt and Eszterhaza, particularly one at Haydn’s house at the former in 1768, and a more general one at the latter in 1779, destroyed many essential original manuscripts.
When the Soviet army arrived at Eszterhaza at the end of WW2, the bonfire of much of the remaining contents at the palace lasted for days.
This bonfire did for some irreplaceable treasures and vital documents still there in 1945, including probably Haydn’s earliest portrait - fortunately previously photographed.
Recent scholarship has established a reasonable best guess list that is not far short of being as good as it can get, largely based on the work of Larsen, Robbins Landon, and most recently Sonja Gerlach; if interested, you can check out the very accessible and essential www.haydn107.com
* Haydn’s correct order makes as much listening sense as Mozart’s 39, 40, 41; the publisher’s order is both arbitrary and ridiculous, and makes no sense artistic or musical whatsoever.
** Mistakes were occurring with Kochel/Mozart too: incredibly, it was also in 1907 that it was realised that Mozart’s Symphony 37 was - apart from the slow introduction, and one or two other alterations - in fact by Michael Haydn.
Mozart’s ‘Symphony 3’ (K18) is by Carl Friedrich Abel - the boy Mozart copied it out in London hence the misattribution.
Also, Symphony 26 (K184) was completed by March 1773, and *before* Symphony 25 (K183) which was October 1773…et cetera.
@@elaineblackhurst1509what an incredible response and insight into Haydn scholarship. Thank you greatly. If you still read this, do you have any tips for introductory books on Haydn scholarship to get to know a bit more?
@@deox2868
Two essential books I would recommend without reservation are:
*i) Oxford Composer Companions: Haydn (2002)*
Edited by David Wyn Jones.
An authoritative A-Z guide to Haydn’s life, music, and legacy.
It’s set out like a dictionary, so you don’t read it from Page 1 to Page 515 but simply search Eszterhaza, string quartet, CPE Bach, sturm und drang, London, Polzelli family, or whatever.
Each article is written by one of 42 different contributors, all of whom are experts in the field.
Appendix 1 is a complete Hoboken catalogue, which is useful.
*ii) The Faber Pocket Guide Series: Haydn (2009)*
Richard Wigmore
Again, not a book to read through, but it discusses almost every single work Haydn composed beginning with the symphonies, then going through concertos, dances and marches, other orchestral works, chamber music, solo keyboard music, sacred music, cantatas and oratorios, operas, other vocal music.
There are also useful additional items including a short biography, a further reading list, Haydn on cd, a suggested ‘Top 20’, friends, colleagues and patrons, contemporary composers, and what people said about Haydn.
Great symphony! Wonderful played! Bravo to all! I especially enjoy Haydn’s writing for the winds in this one.
Oh my word what an amazing work performed stunningly.
Brilliant presentation and performance.
Beautiful energy!
These recordings of the symphonies are excellent. Forward to the Haydn commemoration year
Another very fine performance of an early (c.1761-1763), and most interesting and original symphony.
Perfectly judged tempi and an orchestra of an appropriate size to allow the varied contrapuntal activity found throughout this work to be heard clearly; splitting the violins so that 1st’s and 2nd’s are opposite each other contributes to this enormously and is authentic performance practice, as is the use of a bassoon as part of the bass.
I enjoyed all four movements and the symphony will bear repeated hearings; Haydn is playing around with counterpoint within sonata form movements, for example in the double fugue finale, the second subject is a new counterpoint to the first, it’s all very clever - but satisfying and effective.
The minor key strings only andante moderato provides a real contrast and is followed by a canonic minuet with a lovely trio featuring the oboes, bassoon and horns.
Both conductor and orchestra are clearly relishing playing this high quality music and the project as a whole is moving from strength to strength; it’s all very, very impressive - thank you.
As I find this a wonderful realization of Haydn, may I ask if a modern orchestra, as opposed to period, would please you? Further have you insight regarding Haydn's performance instructions? 'All very clever' Bravo! Can you hold our attention a bit, by what we can listen for, from Antonini's interpretations? All ears...Thanks
bruce anderson
The short answer to your question is that there is room for both original instrument ‘authentic’ performances by specialist orchestras, and ‘modern’ performances by regular orchestras.
Unfortunately, the short answer is too simplistic, so here goes.
Haydn has benefitted particularly from the authentic approach, arguably more so than Mozart, as it has has allowed us to hear more clearly the striking individuality of his works, and as shown in this series, we can feel the impact of the music in the way Haydn’s contemporaries would have heard it.
Poor performance practice - using some terrible, corrupted scores - over the 19th century and first half of the 20th was a key factor in the decline of Haydn’s reputation over the 150 years from his death; the authentic orchestra performances along with Urtext scores and serious scholarship by a number of musicologists has left the composer’s reputation today better than any time since his death.
Part of the impact in this series, it has to be said is down to Antonini and his two orchestras as well as to the type of instruments used - this series is nothing short of revelatory.
It is not alone, a number of others too have allowed us to gain new insights into Haydn, but if I had to summarise this project in just one word, the that word would be *impact.*
The authentic performance practice orchestras have much to offer in later repertoire as well and have offered fascinating new insights into Beethoven, Berlioz and Mendelssohn for example well into the 19th century.
Haydn I think benefits particularly from both approaches, particularly in the post-sturm und drang works; but even amongst the earlier works, there are some wonderful modern performances of for example Symphonies 44 - the slow movement in particular - 45, and 49 which are extremely ‘beautiful’ in a way an authentic orchestra would struggle to replicate; Symphonies 6, 7, and 8, or the Hornsignal Symphony 31 can be very effective performed on modern instruments and there are some very fine recordings.
As hinted above, some have more difficulty listening to Mozart’s piano concertos for example in authentic performances on a 1780’s style Viennese fortepiano, where what is lost is more than what is gained.
Many listeners really struggle with a fortepiano as the solo instrument, even if they can tune their ears to the rest of the orchestra.
In the symphonies, Mozart’s very particular and more dense orchestration means the difference between the two approaches is less stark than with Haydn, but again, having recordings both authentic and modern is essential.
I might just add here that CPE Bach is an example of a composer where the authentic approach is now the only one I find satisfactory, for myself, this is also true of all Baroque music.
Older recordings from the 1970’s on modern instruments for example sound horribly dated and unsatisfactory; importantly, that is only partly due to the instruments being used.
At the risk of over-simplifying, the more sensuous, balanced, cantabile style of composers like JC Bach and Mozart gain more and lose less when played on modern instruments than composers such as CPE Bach and Haydn who gain more and lose less on authentic instruments.
That said, I would not be without Karajan’s 1980’s set of the London symphonies with the Berlin Philharmonic which is magnificent - though I might quibble with one or two details, but that is true of most recordings.
At the risk of becoming very lengthy, I think it should be mentioned that there are other considerations besides the ‘authentic’ versus ‘modern’ debate.
1. The use or not of a harpsichord continuo - discussed elsewhere on the Haydn 2032 project - if interested, look at Symphony 12 and my reply to the question ‘Where is the harpsichord ?
2. It was not until 1968 that HC Robbins Landon completed the publication of all the symphonies in clean, Urtext scores; prior to that, along with a quite cavalier attitude towards the printed score from many conductors - Beecham being one of the prime, but not only offenders - conductors were using some very dubious scores.
Additionally, today’s modern performances have benefitted enormously from a much better understanding of both the composer and period performance practice compared to the older pre-c.1970’s recordings, many of which sound very old-fashioned.
The other point to be made is that almost no symphonies outside a small number of later ones were ever performed so there was hardly any performance tradition, something that unfortunately outside a handful of symphonies is still largely true for the mainstream orchestras found in every major city across the world, though a number of conductors such as Simon Rattle have addressed this in recent years.
3. The size of the orchestra.
Haydn undoubtedly performed many of his early symphonies with about 14 players, the Eszterhaza orchestra grew a little or was sometimes supplemented over the years; the composer Kraus who visited Haydn at Eszterhaza in October 1783 wrote that it was 24 players (he also described it as ‘...one of the best’, and that it ‘...makes an outstanding impression’).
After 1779 and his revised contract allowing him to sell works, Haydn knew that his symphonies were being performed across Europe by larger orchestras.
Between 1781 and 1790, Haydn’s music featured in 191 of the 335 concerts at the Concert spiritual in Paris - Mozart in only about a dozen - and we know for Haydn’s six ‘Paris’ symphonies that this orchestra numbered 60 players; similarly, Salomon’s orchestra in London was about 40 for Haydn’s first season in 1791, rising to over 60 in 1795.
The Tonkunstler Societat in Vienna was reportedly performing works - including Haydn symphonies - with over 100 players.
There is also an important difference to be noted, particularly evident amongst the modern orchestras where there are performances by large orchestras such as the Berlin Philharmonic (Karajan), Concertgebouw (Davis), and New York Philharmonic (Bernstein) for example, and much smaller chamber orchestras such as the Academy of St Martin-in-the-Fields (Mariner) and the English Chamber Orchestra (Barenboim).
Similarly, there have been some much larger scale authentic performances for example Harnoncourt’s revelatory ‘Paris’ symphonies and the recent set of the ‘London’ symphonies by Les Musiciens du Louvre (Minkowski).
In short; there is no right or wrong answer to the ‘correct’ size of the orchestra to play Haydn’s symphonies; the ‘Paris’ symphonies as mentioned would have been played in that city with 60 players, any performance at Eszterhaza would have had about 24 players, so either is acceptable as historically ‘correct’ whether played by an authentic or modern orchestra - it becomes a matter of personal preference.
4. The debate over the ‘correct’ tempo for individual movements.
Not just a debate over the speed of a Minuet (1-in-a-bar or 3 in a bar), but it affects all movements.
As a generalisation, there are some more spacious tempi in some of the older modern instrument recordings, indeed some movements now seem quite plodding in performances by Karajan or Dorati for example.
The obverse of this particular coin however is that some feel that some of the authentic bands are simply going too fast; Goodman and the Hanover Band represents an example that I can just about take, Norrington’s London symphonies to my ears are horrible.
Hope that helps; overall, I prefer the authentic, original instrument performances if forced to choose, but would not wish to be without the greatest modern versions - in essence, there is no easy answer.
For myself, I can enjoy large and small scale ‘authentic’ performances, and slightly more selectively, large and small scale ‘modern’ performances; more importantly, they have to be good performances, and speak the very particular, and I think unique language of the composer.
@@elaineblackhurst1509 Really...my gratitude. An unexpected treasure...
@@elaineblackhurst1509 Heeheehee - when you said "Here goes," you weren't kidding.
violinhunter2 Hope you found it useful as well. It’s actually even funnier because I only answered one of bruce anderson’s three questions!
Gorgeous!
Gracious, elegant ...
¡Qué bueno que están de regreso en UA-cam: ya los extrañábamos!
Por el cambio tecnológico, cometí el error de no conservar mis cassettes con las grabaciones de Neville Marriner y de Antal Dorati de algunas de las sinfonías de Haydn, las más famosas.
Estos videos se comparan muy favorablemente con el recuerdo que tengo: no solamente la ingeniería de sonido, sino la vitalidad y la energía de obras que yo ya conocía, y del encuentro por primera vez con otras muchas obras, como es el caso de esta sinfonía no. 3.
Btw wonderful performance, as always
There are four sets of the complete Haydn Symphonies with either 104 or 107 works. Those are the famous one by the Philharmonia Hungarica, the one by the Stuttgart Chamber Orchestra, another by the Austro-Hungarian Haydn Orchestra, and one set produced by Naxos using six different orchestras with various conductors. I have no idea if any of them are still available. This one by the Basel Chamber Orchestra promises to be very good indeed.
violinhunter2
You’re right; however, for the Haydn 2032, project, Antonini has shared the performances and recordings between the Kammerorchester Basel and Il Giardino Armonico.
You can check out which is which in the descriptions.
@@elaineblackhurst1509 Thank you!!
In this early symphony I am struck by the resemblance to Flemish composer Pieter Van Maldere's symphonies. I read somewhere they were published and known in Vienna at that time. Not surprising , Flanders was part of the Austrian empire in that period.
Pieter van Maldere (1729 - 1768) is an interesting and talented Flemish composer well worth investigating.
My own feeling is that Maldere’s music is an effective synthesis of fashionable Italian, German (Mannheim), French, and other influences reflecting the fact that he was very widely travelled across most major European musical centres - he even spent some time as far away as Dublin between 1751 and 1753.
van Maldere’s music appears to have been published in London, Paris, Brussels and Dublin, though not in Vienna; it seems however that his music was known in Vienna and therefore probably by Haydn and possibly by Mozart.
I think from the symphonies I know, I can hear more of JC Bach rather than Haydn, along with the other influences mentioned above - JC was another very successful synthesiser of fashionable trends.
Haydn on the other hand was almost impervious to ‘influences’ - apart from CPE Bach - and I doubt very much if he took anything from Maldere.
Haydn simply did not assimilate ‘influences’ in the manner of Mozart.
Much of Haydn’s growth and development came from within, whilst Mozart responded to and assimilated external stimuli to an extraordinary degree; in this respect, the two composers were polar opposites.
This Haydn symphony to my ears is already quintessentially Haydn, very original, and typically, owing almost nothing to anyone else.
I would be interested to know exactly what is the resemblance you hear to Haydn, as apart from the shared early Classical language, I can hear very little.
That said, van Maldere will be a new name to many readers, some of whom with your prompt, may go on to discover a worthwhile, but relatively unknown composer.
I can't say which version I like beter: Hogwoods or this one... they are both amazing!
I agree -- both the Hogwood/AAM version and this one are excellent.
I was just wondering -- I always assumed that Kammerorchester Basel was a modern-instrument ensemble, though playing historically-informed performances. But in this video at least, the woodwinds and brass and violone appear to be period instruments, don't they? Are the rest of the strings period instruments too?
@@LeoCloma They look authentic to me, but they might also be modern reproductions of old instruments.
Jean-Baptiste Des Prez
The good thing is that you don’t have to say which you like the best, there are no poor performances of this symphony currently available.
Besides Antonini and Hogwood, it is worth trying Roy Goodman with The Hanover Band so you can hear what the symphony sounds like with a harpsichord continuo or try a modern instruments version like Dorati with the Philharmonia Hungarica, or the more recent Adam Fischer version with the Austro-Hungarian Haydn Orchestra.
They all have something to offer and you are likely to hear and appreciate different things in each.
If I had to choose, then Antonini would be my first choice, but I would not be without the others.
@@LeoCloma Bows look modern to me, I could not tell about the strings.
David Buchuk
The instruments being used for this entire series are period instruments and/or modern reproductions in all sections of the orchestra as explained by Jean-Baptiste Des Prez above; the sound of a modern instrument orchestra would be significantly different.
It is possible to track down the exact provenance of each instrument elsewhere, for example in the CD notes.
Playing these works with a modern orchestra would negate the whole purpose of this project; the modern instruments approach has already been done in complete cycles by Antal Dorati in his pioneering recordings with the Philharmonia Hungarica in the 1970’s, and the more recently completed cycle by the Austro-Hungarian Haydn Orchestra with Adam Fischer, for example.
These however, are clearly, authentic instrument performances.
Anyone here from fallout 3 vault 92. Beautiful music
un petit bijou
If I am not mistaken, Haydn was 35 when he wrote his 1st symphony. Therefore, these "early" works are not early.
Haydn’s first symphony was Symphony 1 (Hob. I:1) and modern scholarship has pretty much established that it was written in 1757 for Count Morzin at Lukavec where he was employed from c.1757 - 1761; this would make Haydn 25 years old.
5:36, the Second Movement.
13:07, the Fourth Movement.
Haydn s early works are more interesting than those of his old/mature age. In his later work routine and stereotype sets in.
Christian Wouters
Could I gently suggest that you might like to reconsider a large part of your comment.
Haydn’s works from all periods of his life are interesting; one of the characteristics that separates Haydn, and Mozart as well, from almost all their contemporaries is the continuous growth and astonishing development throughout their lives and careers.
Mozart and Haydn stand almost alone in this respect amongst their contemporaries such as Boccherini, Dittersdorf, Vanhal or Michael Haydn for example where it is quite difficult to identify accurately an early, middle, or late work as these composers’ music developed so little relative to that of Mozart and Haydn.
Additionally, as part of his growth as a composer, there is in Haydn almost *no* sense of routine and stereotype, and nothing is less than competent and highly professional.
Importantly, Haydn rarely repeats himself.
Arguably, some of Haydn’s less inspired work appears either post-‘sturm und drang’ when he was searching for a new voice, or during the 1780’s when he was essentially employed at Eszterhaza as a massively over-worked full-time operatic Kapellmeister, rather than post-1790 when he was in effect a freelance composer.
Almost all the music of Haydn and Mozart is beyond the capabilities of their contemporaries, even when they were more ‘routine’.
In Haydn’s case, he was under tremendous pressure to deliver spectacular successes in both Paris and London with his final twenty or so symphonies; that he was successful in this is something which both contemporary and modern opinion have neither questioned nor doubted - your observation is therefore somewhat unusual.
The evidence of the music itself simply defies your comment, and when you add to that details such as Beethoven copying out parts of Symphony 99 for study purposes - a ‘later work’ - then you have to question the validity of the point you have made - Beethoven was hardly likely to waste his time on ‘routine and stereotype’ (there are other examples I could quote).
In short: the final sentence of your comment is as mistaken as to opinion - though you are free to make it - as it is erroneous as to fact (with which you need to be more careful).
@@elaineblackhurst1509 I studied many scores of Haydn-am a big Haydn fan!- and it still strikes me that his earlier works are more "irregular and assymetric" than the later ones. And therefore for me more interesting. Let s say that the element of surprise is less(not totally lacking of course) in the Seasons than in the Stabat Mater.
What Van Beethoven was thinking when studying symphony 99 we can't know. Maybe he just didn't have access to the scores in the Esterhazy archives?
Christian Wouters
My original reply was prompted by your ‘...routine and stereotype’ comment being presented as a matter of fact - which is highly debatable and open to challenge - rather than an opinion, to which you are obviously entitled.
You have made one or two points, or claims which simply cannot be substantiated as explained below.
If your original comment been re-phrased positively as ‘the early works are more varied in structure’ or something like that, it might have been better than introducing the extremely negative connotations of ‘routine and stereotype’ to the later works.
Your negative description, would have been recognised by none of Haydn’s contemporaries whether CPE Bach, Mozart or Beethoven, Dr Burney, audiences in Paris, London or Vienna, or the particularly voluminous newspaper reports and reviews from London - it simply defies the evidence to label Haydn’s later works in this way.
There were occasional criticisms of Haydn, but none of them relate to your point: some North German critics objected to what they heard an improper mix of the comic and the serious; the Quantzed-out Frederick the Great described Haydn’s symphonies as ‘a din to flay the ears’; and another criticism elsewhere was, ‘too scientific’.
These criticisms however were rare, they were the exception not the norm; ‘routine and stereotyped’ appears absolutely nowhere.
Some of those newspaper reviews incidentally, were extremely critical of some of Haydn’s rivals - one such review about a Gyrowetz quartet quoted in HC Robbins Landon’s biography of Haydn (Volume 3) is brutal. This review shows that these same newspapers, when they disliked a work, could damn it as vociferously as they could praise another one.
The newspaper reports of Haydn’s concerts in London are some of the biggest rave reviews in the whole of music; similarly, the French accounts of his symphonies being performed in Paris are also enthusiastic and effusive.
Those from the London papers probably unparalleled in the entire history of music, with the amazed writers struggling to find new superlatives after each new work.
Additionally, Haydn maintained these phenomenal reviews over two long and exhausting eighteen month tours and four Salomon seasons between 1791 and 1795.
In one respect I think you are correct; there is a huge variety within the earlier works, the symphony became more standardised over the 1770’s so we find fewer works like:
- the early trilogy - Symphonies 6, 7, and 8;
- sonata da chiesa or variant works - 11, 21, 22, 26, 30 and 49;
- four solo horn works - 72 and 31;
- ceremonial works - often in C major with trumpets and drums - for example 48;
- theatrical compilations - for example 60;
- works with significant solo parts - 13 (cello) or 24 (flute), 38 (oboe);
- three movement sinfonia avanti l’opera type works, including many of the earliest symphonies but as an example 9;
- and so forth.
Regarding Beethoven; we probably know more than you suspect; he was interested in how Haydn developed themes and motifs, including contrapuntally. Beethoven was more interested to learn how to apply these things to modern sonata type music, rather than to complete pedantic Fux-ian text book counterpoint exercises whether with Haydn, Albrechtsberger, or anyone else - hence writing out the development section of the first movement of Symphony 99.
Beethoven did not need access to Eszterhaza archives; a large amount of Haydn’s work had been published so Beethoven could pick and choose what he studied - he also copied out the whole of the string quartet Opus 20 No 1 from 1772 for example - and we know that similarly, he studied some Mozart works - he copied out the quartet K464 as well.
In short: I absolutely agree that Haydn’s early works are very interesting; the later works are also very interesting, but in a different way!
@@elaineblackhurst1509 If you did not so clearly defend Haydn against this silly statement,
I would have to done so. Thank you.
shnimmuc No problem, but you’re right, it did need a reply and it did need to be challenged.
anyone here because of Fallout 3?
Yeah ha
Playing right now lol vault 92
Yup! Haha I’m at the terminal as I type this.
The thing about Haydn, who the uninitiated often confuse with Mozart, is that his music is nonthreatening. Oh, there are the Sturm und Drang compositions, but generally, his work is well crafted, pleasing, and approachable. The only things Mozart wrote that are similar are his Divertimenti and Serenades. Mozart and Haydn's lives were very different. The latter very sheltered, the former full of turmoil, struggle, and passion.
An interesting and obviously personal perspective, though one which for what it is worth, I would dispute almost every single word.
The description of Haydn represents but a superficial understanding of Haydn’s art, and the sort of comment prevalent about a century ago; the words could be applied more fairly to perhaps a hundred now forgotten contemporaries.
Finally of course, Haydn’s music as described in your comment would have held no interest whatsoever to CPE Bach, Mozart or Beethoven; the problem being of course that all composers studied Haydn’s works very carefully and - one or two tetchy remarks from Beethoven notwithstanding - learned much from it.
@@elaineblackhurst1509 Madame, my understanding draws from a documentary by Nele Münchmeyer "Joseph Haydn Libertine and His Master's Servant" with comments by Walter Reicher, director of the Haydn Festival Eisenstadt. Also, the BCC documentary "Haydn the Celebrity" with conductor Charles Hazlewood. No, I haven't read any scholarly volumes or dissertations about him, but I often prefer the calming effect of listening to Haydn for the reason I have already stated.
@@hori166
I have watched the video you suggested some time ago and left a comment basically expressing my concerns about much of the content which I felt was simplistic, generalised, and full of lazy cliches; it was not an authoritative study in any serious sense and your original comment here sums up exactly why I felt the video needed a criticism - it led the casual viewer into error.
Walther Reicher’s comments as ever were different class - he is always superb and has real knowledge of the composer and his music - and he was one of the very few speakers who appeared to know what he was talking about.
You may find my comment about the video enlightening, especially as a Brit, I can say that the most silly and pointless contributions came entirely from British contributors - all of whom should have known better,
That said, how you hear Haydn personally is none of my business - it’s good that you enjoy the music of a truly great composer; I suppose really, I am only disputing what is to my ears your public misdiagnosis of the music itself, and others can judge for themselves,
vault 92
00:21
13:10
Same theme of k.183 (in major)?...same tonality...and the theme of the last movement seems dangerously the beginning of Jupiter's 4th movement...
Mozart knew a good tune when he heard it, or perhaps got access to a score.
@@walterbushell7029 nice one!
64carlo
Don’t read too much into the well-known four note motif *do-re-fa-mi* that opens both the finale of *Mozart’s Symphony 41 (K551)* and *Haydn Symphony 3* - it is an old idea and late eighteenth century musical commonplace.
The ‘motto’ (or slight variant) is not difficult to find being used by a number of composers as it offered so many opportunities for motivic and or contrapuntal development.
For example, besides its most famous use in the ‘Jupiter’ symphony, listen to the following:
*Mozart Symphony 1 (K16)* second movement, Andante (even the eight year old boy was using it in London in 1764!);
*Mozart Symphony 33 (K319)* first movement, Allegro assai.
*Haydn Symphony 3* fourth movement, Finale: Alla breve (slight variant);
*Haydn Symphony 13* fourth movement, Finale: Allegro molto;
*Haydn Symphony 11* second movement (variant);
*Haydn Symphony 25* third movement (variant).
You will find the motto appearing elsewhere too, including in church music as the four notes fit the words ‘Credo, credo...’
It was also used yet again here - *Mozart Mass K192.*
As I said, it’s really no big deal, though what a good composer could do with it was often very special.
Walter Bushell You might be interested to check out my reply above.
@@elaineblackhurst1509 dear Elaine, of course, even Henze in his 1st Sonata for guitar still quotes this theme, it is a common good of music, like the requiem-kyrie-fugue one was in mozart's time. I wanted only make a, coincidental, emotional connection with the 1st and last symphony, pushed more by my enthusiasm for this music then by musicological reason. Thanks anyway for your very interesting text!