Early Haydn is so super underrated it's insane. Some of my favorite symphonies are his first few. So glad they're getting some much deserved love here! What a treat!
@@dermax1254 You’re right that Haydn’s not underrated, but the nonsense relating to the paternity of the symphony is only sustainable if you suspend entirely the meaning of the word father, and then ignore every known fact about the origins of the form. If interested, I’ve added a more detailed explanation elsewhere in this thread.
@@elaineblackhurst1509 I said early Haydn. Can you find anywhere near the number of videos for his London Symphonies as compared to videos of his early or even Sturm und Drang symphonies? And live performances? For the first few, they are rare in comparison to the availability of performances of later works. And I happen to find his early stuff, while clearly not as complex and fully developed as his more mature works, absolutely wonderful!
@@dermax1254 I didn't say Haydn was underrated. I said "early" Haydn. If not underrated, definitely underperformed and underappreciated as evinced by the lack of live performances offerings. I don't often find new concerts of his early stuff like this one, whereas anyone can find fresh new performances of his London Symphonies frequently enough.
Everything sounds really in balance, perfectly merging the intensity of the harpsichord with the rest of the orchestra. The HRS shows its versatility, sounding like orchestras specialized in the classic period. Particularly noteworthy the colour brought in by the horns and the bassoon.
I heard this 53 days ago and liked the ending, but I didn't like it enough (at the time) to save the video. Today, I thought of the ending and wanted to hear it again, but I didn't know the name of the video, so I had to scroll through my history.
Lebhafte und wunderschöne Aufführung dieser kompakten und fein komponierten Sinfonie mit gut harmonisierten und perfekt entsprechenden Tönen aller Instrumente. Der zweite Satz klingt besonders schön und echt elegant. Im Kontrast klingt der dritte Satz echt lebhaft und auch begeisternd. Der intelligente und geniale Cembalist/Dirigent leitet das ausgewählte Orchester im relativ schnellen Tempo und mit möglichst effektiver Dynamik. Einfach wunderbar!
AS a creator of the genre, the symphony, Hydn demonstrate to be a genius from the very beginning. Wonderful symphony, great conductor and great chamber orchestra as it should be interpreted . The surprise is that it is devised in three movements , and the final is a kind of scherzo.
Haydn had nothing to do with the creation of the symphony, but everything to do with its development and evolution in the 18th century. If interested in the origins of the early symphony from c.1740 (Haydn’s first symphony was composed in 1757), check out: Milan - Sammartini, Brioschi Mannheim - Johann Stamitz,* Richter, Holzbauer, Fils Vienna - Wagenseil, Monn These composers - and others - were the real creators of the genre which emerged out of the Italian sinfonia avanti l’opera to become independent pieces, not Haydn who at the time was an 8 year-old choirboy in St Stephen’s Cathedral in Vienna. * Johann Stamitz died in 1757 - the year of Haydn’s Symphony 1 - having composed about 60 modern early-Classical symphonies, a simple single fact that explodes the ‘father’ myth in relation to Haydn at a stroke.
I love hearing early and middle period Haydn performed by larger ensembles and employing at least six, even as many as ten first and second violins. I think the music can accommodate the more expansive sonority, especially in larger halls. And I love the commitment and joy the Frankfurters bring to this vivacious little symphony ... even the employment of continuo. As I understand this there are two camps: "Continu-NO" where it's claimed that Haydn did NOT lead the Esterhazy ensemble from the keyboard and that continuo is superfluous and unnecessary as Haydn clearly wrote a separate line for the viola(s) to fill out the sound. Others -- the "Continuo-OH!" camp -- claim that Haydn indeed led from the keyboard. What else would he be doing during the performance of the symphony as Luigi Tomasini was the gifted concertmaster? As additional evidence there is that famous painting of Haydn leading the Esterhazy orchestra from the cembalo "in the pit" of an opera performance. Then there's the third camp: "I don't mind the continuo -- as long as I can't hear it." Let me offer a fourth option: I like continuo in places when it has something interesting to add to the performance especially through improvisation, as in this example at the end of the beginning Presto. While it may be argued this improvisation was a little "over the top" I confess I enjoyed it. It adds an air of uncertainty and anticipation to a performance -- "what's he going to do next?" that makes for a fresh, lively, and memorable Haydn experience. Indeed I love in more recent Haydn performance practice passages allowing for any of the instruments to have an improvised solo riff, from the flute down to the double bass! And Haydn's music can accommodate this, for sure. Could you imagine improvisation in a Beethoven or Brahms symphony? I don't think so. Again, thanks to Frankfurt Radio Symphony for this post. PS: I hope Elaine Blackhurst sees this post, and corrects any mistakes I may have in Haydn history and offers her opinion, which invariably is informative and enlightening.
Just spotted this; a useful survey of opinions that will be of interest to many. I will add a proper reply in a day or two, but in the meantime, if you have not read it yet, I suggest that regarding the continuo debate - which in part I do not think is a debate at all but a settled matter - you must check out the definitive study on the subject: *James Webster* *’On the Absence of Keyboard Continuo in Haydn’s Symphonies’.* My view in short is that in the 18th century, Haydn did *not* use a harpsichord continuo in the performance of his symphonies* at either Eisenstadt or Eszterhaza as the players in his orchestra were outstanding** (some of virtuoso standard), however elsewhere across Europe, I think one was used in symphonies by Haydn and by other composers (often where it was specifically notated) where either the number of strings was very small, or the orchestra was not of the standard found in places like Eszterhaza and Mannheim. Again Kraus gives us a good example of a symphony *with* a keyboard continuo with his Symphony in c# minor (VB 140) written in 1782 where Kraus actually wrote one out for himself to play. Kraus the following year revised this symphony significantly, and in its new form it is almost certainly the one he took to Eszterhaza and presented to Haydn; the changes included transposing it down to c minor, and removing both the Minuet, *and the continuo part.* It was the performance of the c minor version of the symphony (VB 142) along with meeting the Kraus that led Haydn later to remark that Kraus was the first genius he ever met, and to lament his early death in the same sentence when referring to Mozart’s almost exact same fate. * As you rightly point out, there is a painting showing Haydn and a continuo group at an opera performance, but this is clearly essential for the recitativo secco sections. ** The composer Kraus as part of a four year musical tour of Europe visited Haydn at Eszterhaza in 1783 and noted on 18 October that: ‘The orchestra is what you would expect under the direction of a Haydn - therefore one of the best. It is in fact not larger than 24 men, but makes an outstanding impression.’ More to follow anon…
Best to count the Haydn symphony total as *107.* Symphonies 1-104 *(Hob. I:1-104)* The sinfonia to Le pescatrici *(Hob. I:106)* Symphony ‘A’ *(Hob. I:107)* Symphony ‘B’ *(Hob. I:108)* (The missing Hob. I:105 is the Sinfonia concertante).
Haydn wrote his first symphony in 1757; this made him 25 years old. The first symphony is actually Symphony 1 (as was categorically stated by Haydn), but I stress the point as the second one is Symphony 37. The list of the 104 symphonies by Haydn (actually 107) was complied by Eusebius Mandyczewski in 1907; it was a product of the dark ages of Haydn scholarship and is consequently full of errors. Mandyczewski’s catalogue was adopted unchanged - to avoid worldwide confusion - in the now universally used Hoboken (Hob.) catalogue of the entire works of the composer. Haydn’s first symphonies were as follows: Symphony 1 - 1757 Symphony 37 - 1757/58 Symphony 18 - 1757-59 Symphony 2 - 1757-59 Symphony 4 - 1757-60 Symphony 27 - 1757-60
@@Alix777. You might find my reply (above) of some interest; the erroneous dating of Symphony 1 as being 1759 - which would make Haydn 27 - is now totally discredited.
@@Ukgejap Not sure why you’ve offered thanks as the answer to your question was clearly incorrect; I suggest you read the whole thread. PS: As you used the Italian word ‘sinfonia’ in your initial comment, as it is almost universally mispronounced, the correct pronunciation is ‘seen-fon-*ee*-ah’.
This was a really great performance, but I kinda wish the harpsichord bit between the first two movements was left out. I don't feel like it really added anything. It was still really good though.
@@dameinoferrall2400 That's a fair point. Although I wish that there was a slight gap between when the first movement finished, and when the harpsichord interlude began. It would have been nice to let the first movement sink in.
There is not a single extant Haydn symphony score which has a figured bass to realise a continuo. From his appointment to the Eszterhazy family in 1761 until 1790 (the death of Prince Nicholas), Haydn played the violin in the symphony performances meaning that there was no harpsichord continuo as he was the only keyboard player available. That said, it is possible that a continuo might have been used in the 18 or so symphonies written prior to 1761, or if they were performed by smaller orchestras elsewhere. Conductors today are pretty much split as to whether or not to use one. *No continuo:* Antonini Bruggen Harnoncourt Hogwood Weil *With continuo:* Goodman Kuijken Pinnock Solomons Dorati uses a continuo rather arbitrarily for about the first 40 symphonies numerically (Hob. I:1-40), but then dispenses with it.
![[UA] NAVI проти G2 Esports | Blast Premier Fall Final](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/QWlIm4FGESQ/mqdefault.jpg)
Early Haydn is so super underrated it's insane. Some of my favorite symphonies are his first few. So glad they're getting some much deserved love here! What a treat!
Is he underrated? Is he not called father of the symphony?
@@dermax1254
You’re right that Haydn’s not underrated, but the nonsense relating to the paternity of the symphony is only sustainable if you suspend entirely the meaning of the word father, and then ignore every known fact about the origins of the form.
If interested, I’ve added a more detailed explanation elsewhere in this thread.
@@elaineblackhurst1509 Yes, I always want to learn more
@@elaineblackhurst1509
I said early Haydn. Can you find anywhere near the number of videos for his London Symphonies as compared to videos of his early or even Sturm und Drang symphonies? And live performances? For the first few, they are rare in comparison to the availability of performances of later works. And I happen to find his early stuff, while clearly not as complex and fully developed as his more mature works, absolutely wonderful!
@@dermax1254
I didn't say Haydn was underrated. I said "early" Haydn. If not underrated, definitely underperformed and underappreciated as evinced by the lack of live performances offerings. I don't often find new concerts of his early stuff like this one, whereas anyone can find fresh new performances of his London Symphonies frequently enough.
Everything sounds really in balance, perfectly merging the intensity of the harpsichord with the rest of the orchestra. The HRS shows its versatility, sounding like orchestras specialized in the classic period. Particularly noteworthy the colour brought in by the horns and the bassoon.
So it begins...
Большое спасибо за чудесный концерт!
I heard this 53 days ago and liked the ending, but I didn't like it enough (at the time) to save the video. Today, I thought of the ending and wanted to hear it again, but I didn't know the name of the video, so I had to scroll through my history.
БРАВО!!!!!!!👏👏👏👍👍👍
Lebhafte und wunderschöne Aufführung dieser kompakten und fein komponierten Sinfonie mit gut harmonisierten und perfekt entsprechenden Tönen aller Instrumente. Der zweite Satz klingt besonders schön und echt elegant. Im Kontrast klingt der dritte Satz echt lebhaft und auch begeisternd. Der intelligente und geniale Cembalist/Dirigent leitet das ausgewählte Orchester im relativ schnellen Tempo und mit möglichst effektiver Dynamik. Einfach wunderbar!
Gracias
Great. Thanks
Wspaniały koncert i wykonanie.
AS a creator of the genre, the symphony, Hydn demonstrate to be a genius from the very beginning. Wonderful symphony, great conductor and great chamber orchestra as it should be interpreted . The surprise is that it is devised in three movements , and the final is a kind of scherzo.
Haydn had nothing to do with the creation of the symphony, but everything to do with its development and evolution in the 18th century.
If interested in the origins of the early symphony from c.1740 (Haydn’s first symphony was composed in 1757), check out:
Milan - Sammartini, Brioschi
Mannheim - Johann Stamitz,* Richter, Holzbauer, Fils
Vienna - Wagenseil, Monn
These composers - and others - were the real creators of the genre which emerged out of the Italian sinfonia avanti l’opera to become independent pieces, not Haydn who at the time was an 8 year-old choirboy in St Stephen’s Cathedral in Vienna.
* Johann Stamitz died in 1757 - the year of Haydn’s Symphony 1 - having composed about 60 modern early-Classical symphonies, a simple single fact that explodes the ‘father’ myth in relation to Haydn at a stroke.
I love hearing early and middle period Haydn performed by larger ensembles and employing at least six, even as many as ten first and second violins. I think the music can accommodate the more expansive sonority, especially in larger halls. And I love the commitment and joy the Frankfurters bring to this vivacious little symphony ... even the employment of continuo. As I understand this there are two camps: "Continu-NO" where it's claimed that Haydn did NOT lead the Esterhazy ensemble from the keyboard and that continuo is superfluous and unnecessary as Haydn clearly wrote a separate line for the viola(s) to fill out the sound. Others -- the "Continuo-OH!" camp -- claim that Haydn indeed led from the keyboard. What else would he be doing during the performance of the symphony as Luigi Tomasini was the gifted concertmaster? As additional evidence there is that famous painting of Haydn leading the Esterhazy orchestra from the cembalo "in the pit" of an opera performance. Then there's the third camp: "I don't mind the continuo -- as long as I can't hear it." Let me offer a fourth option: I like continuo in places when it has something interesting to add to the performance especially through improvisation, as in this example at the end of the beginning Presto. While it may be argued this improvisation was a little "over the top" I confess I enjoyed it. It adds an air of uncertainty and anticipation to a performance -- "what's he going to do next?" that makes for a fresh, lively, and memorable Haydn experience. Indeed I love in more recent Haydn performance practice passages allowing for any of the instruments to have an improvised solo riff, from the flute down to the double bass! And Haydn's music can accommodate this, for sure. Could you imagine improvisation in a Beethoven or Brahms symphony? I don't think so. Again, thanks to Frankfurt Radio Symphony for this post. PS: I hope Elaine Blackhurst sees this post, and corrects any mistakes I may have in Haydn history and offers her opinion, which invariably is informative and enlightening.
Thank you for that!
Just spotted this; a useful survey of opinions that will be of interest to many.
I will add a proper reply in a day or two, but in the meantime, if you have not read it yet, I suggest that regarding the continuo debate - which in part I do not think is a debate at all but a settled matter - you must check out the definitive study on the subject:
*James Webster*
*’On the Absence of Keyboard Continuo in Haydn’s Symphonies’.*
My view in short is that in the 18th century, Haydn did *not* use a harpsichord continuo in the performance of his symphonies* at either Eisenstadt or Eszterhaza as the players in his orchestra were outstanding** (some of virtuoso standard), however elsewhere across Europe, I think one was used in symphonies by Haydn and by other composers (often where it was specifically notated) where either the number of strings was very small, or the orchestra was not of the standard found in places like Eszterhaza and Mannheim.
Again Kraus gives us a good example of a symphony *with* a keyboard continuo with his Symphony in c# minor (VB 140) written in 1782 where Kraus actually wrote one out for himself to play.
Kraus the following year revised this symphony significantly, and in its new form it is almost certainly the one he took to Eszterhaza and presented to Haydn; the changes included transposing it down to c minor, and removing both the Minuet, *and the continuo part.*
It was the performance of the c minor version of the symphony (VB 142) along with meeting the Kraus that led Haydn later to remark that Kraus was the first genius he ever met, and to lament his early death in the same sentence when referring to Mozart’s almost exact same fate.
* As you rightly point out, there is a painting showing Haydn and a continuo group at an opera performance, but this is clearly essential for the recitativo secco sections.
** The composer Kraus as part of a four year musical tour of Europe visited Haydn at Eszterhaza in 1783 and noted on 18 October that:
‘The orchestra is what you would expect under the direction of a Haydn - therefore one of the best. It is in fact not larger than 24 men, but makes an outstanding impression.’
More to follow anon…
Gràcies per penjar-la sola.
💯💯💯
Nice! 105 to go...
Best to count the Haydn symphony total as *107.*
Symphonies 1-104
*(Hob. I:1-104)*
The sinfonia to Le pescatrici
*(Hob. I:106)*
Symphony ‘A’
*(Hob. I:107)*
Symphony ‘B’
*(Hob. I:108)*
(The missing Hob. I:105 is the Sinfonia concertante).
How old was Haydn when he composed this sinfonia? It’s amazing❤
He was 27 already...
Haydn wrote his first symphony in 1757; this made him 25 years old.
The first symphony is actually Symphony 1 (as was categorically stated by Haydn), but I stress the point as the second one is Symphony 37.
The list of the 104 symphonies by Haydn (actually 107) was complied by Eusebius Mandyczewski in 1907; it was a product of the dark ages of Haydn scholarship and is consequently full of errors.
Mandyczewski’s catalogue was adopted unchanged - to avoid worldwide confusion - in the now universally used Hoboken (Hob.) catalogue of the entire works of the composer.
Haydn’s first symphonies were as follows:
Symphony 1 - 1757
Symphony 37 - 1757/58
Symphony 18 - 1757-59
Symphony 2 - 1757-59
Symphony 4 - 1757-60
Symphony 27 - 1757-60
@@Alix777.
You might find my reply (above) of some interest; the erroneous dating of Symphony 1 as being 1759 - which would make Haydn 27 - is now totally discredited.
@@Alix777.thanks))
@@Ukgejap
Not sure why you’ve offered thanks as the answer to your question was clearly incorrect; I suggest you read the whole thread.
PS: As you used the Italian word ‘sinfonia’ in your initial comment, as it is almost universally mispronounced, the correct pronunciation is ‘seen-fon-*ee*-ah’.
This was a really great performance, but I kinda wish the harpsichord bit between the first two movements was left out. I don't feel like it really added anything. It was still really good though.
Agree. Totally inappropriate deflection.
It's how they were written and performed during Haydn's time. I don't mind it, but agree that usually, though not always, I prefer its omittance.
@@dameinoferrall2400 That's a fair point. Although I wish that there was a slight gap between when the first movement finished, and when the harpsichord interlude began. It would have been nice to let the first movement sink in.
@@Hamish_Wright
A fair point as well.
Haydn early symphonies had basso continuo.
There is not a single extant Haydn symphony score which has a figured bass to realise a continuo.
From his appointment to the Eszterhazy family in 1761 until 1790 (the death of Prince Nicholas), Haydn played the violin in the symphony performances meaning that there was no harpsichord continuo as he was the only keyboard player available.
That said, it is possible that a continuo might have been used in the 18 or so symphonies written prior to 1761, or if they were performed by smaller orchestras elsewhere.
Conductors today are pretty much split as to whether or not to use one.
*No continuo:*
Antonini
Bruggen
Harnoncourt
Hogwood
Weil
*With continuo:*
Goodman
Kuijken
Pinnock
Solomons
Dorati uses a continuo rather arbitrarily for about the first 40 symphonies numerically (Hob. I:1-40), but then dispenses with it.
sounds somewhat like the style of J. M. Haydn
Absolutely not; the two brothers’ musical styles are entirely different; if anything, Salzburg Michael Haydn has more in common with Salzburg Mozart.