Haydn Symphony No. 6 "Le Matin" | Il Giardino Armonico | Giovanni Antonini (Haydn2032, Vol. 10)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 1 жов 2024
- Joseph Haydn (1732-1809): Symphony No. 6 in D major "Le Matin", Hob. I:6 (1761)
Il Giardino Armonico | Giovanni Antonini, Conductor
Support Haydn2032 on Patreon.com/haydn2032
A big Thank You to our Patreon Florian Suter who generously supported this video!
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. 6, Il Giardino Armonico, Giovanni Antonini, Les heures du jour
I'll bet that Maestro Haydn is so elated that the public is still raving over his music. He is definitely a top star among the Age of Enlightenment arts and sciences masters!
Slowly the morning creeps in and explodes in glory! Twittering, sonorous, and fully luminous! Such genius, and ingeniously performed by Il Giardino with Antonini at the helm. Brava and bravo (Haydn was only about 30 years old when he wrote this).
Bravi indeed; the sunrise is very well executed, and beautifully played.
Een meesterlijke symfonie in een meesterlijke uitvoering!!!!!! Ik heb zijn geboortehuis in Rohrau en zijn graftombe in Eisenstadt bezocht. Dat waren voor mij onvergetelijke momenten. Haydn staat voor mij nog altijd op de voorste plaats.
Muy cierto. Haydn es como un amigo que te habla en lenguaje sencillo de cosas muy profundas. Un maestro único al que siempre le descubrimos maravillas nuevas.
This is another wonderful performance of a very fine symphony that once again demonstrates all the characteristic strengths of Antonini’s powerful, intense, passionate, coherent and consistent interpretations that are making this series such a notable success.
Tempi are well-judged, but a notch quicker generally than most other recordings, most notably in the Minuet movement where Antonini’s one-in-a-bar certainly has a more obvious sense of forward momentum than most, including the Freiburger Barockorchester’s more stately three in a bar recording of 2008 which has been my favourite since it first appeared.
I now have two favourites, and would not be without either (the Freiburgers use a discrete harpsichord for those for whom this is an issue).
Without wishing to fall into national stereotypes, I feel the Freiburgers performance to be more Germanic, whilst Il Giardino Armonico’s more Italianate.
(Both I think preferable to the rather English-style reserve of Hogwood and The Academy of Ancient Music).
Antonini manages the opening of ‘Le Matin’ extremely well, and poco a poco the sunrise grows out of the almost total silence of the dawn in a perfectly shaped crescendo building the soft dissonances one on top of another.
Like everything in this performance, the contrast between the tutti and the solos for violin, cello, violone (double bass), flute, bassoon are striking, effective, and very natural.
The tastefully decorated solo sections - and dialogues - are played with passionate beauty; bravo Stefano Barneschi (Luigi Tomasini), and all the other players.
The horns and oboes too have important contributions to the whole, the solo horn’s sounding the flute’s opening theme as a sort of fausse reprise at the start of the first movement recapitulation is often mentioned in relation to Beethoven doing similar in the ‘Eroica’ over forty years later.
Once again, as with almost all other recordings in this series, we are hearing Haydn’s music delivered with real *impact,* and we are carried along by the passionate intensity, interpretive coherence, and beauty of the performance; one could ask no more.
One small point - the camera direction appeared to be in perhaps different hands; it was surprising that neither the violone nor bassoon were highlighted during the Trio of the Minuet, and the horns striking contribution in one or two places the Finale was also missed.
Apart from that very minor nit-picking, another wonderful contribution to the series; many thanks to everyone involved.
Concerning the minuet: one-in-a-bar versus three-in-a-bar, once more. While comparing various recordings of the minuet I recorded their different tempos with the metronome. With Antonini's recording I first tried one-in-a-bar, but to me it didn't work. I still feel the movement as three-in-a-bar, although a fast one: 150-152 to the quaver (= 150-152 quavers per minute). To me there are far to many notes per bar for it to be one-in-a-bar. Additionally, to me the "striding" violin accompaniment in bars 9-13 is a typical three-in-a-bar figure. Among the traditional recordings which I checked Dorati is the slowest with 108 to the quaver, whereas Leslie Jones is the fastest at 120 to the quaver: the difference with Antonini's tempo anyway is huge. Interestingly, however, Antonini actually conducts the minuet as one-in-a-bar, except in some passages of the trio. I back out... For further thoughts about this minuet please refer to the conversation with Henry Stratmann.
@@robertspruijtenburg3625
I will come back to this, but at the moment am trying to get my head around a new idea relating to the differences between a one-in-a-bar Minuet (as in Haydn 94), and a one-in-a-bar Scherzo (Beethoven 1).
As we’ve discussed previously, I think Haydn wrote Minuets that he intended to be played at quite widely differing tempi, more so than Mozart intended; I wonder if as the Haydn 2032 series unfolds, Antonini might not be taking too uniform an approach to the Minuets at the expense of their individual character, movements which were actually written over an extended period of almost forty years.
We are not helped either in this by uncertainties over exactly what composers meant by terms like ‘Allegro’ even when amended by …molto e vivace as in Beethoven’s absurdly labelled Menuetto movement in his Symphony 1.
In a slightly earlier age, it is clear to me that - as part of a three-year Scarlatti exploration - that composer’s Allegro (often more an indication of mood rather than a tempo indication) ranges pretty much from Andante to Presto depending entirely on the character of the piece.
Scarlatti K99 marked Allegro I play at what can only be described as Andante, not even Allegretto, whereas the similarly marked Allegro of K460 I am practically at a one-in-a-bar Presto; I’m not sure the degree to which this flexible approach had changed later in the century.
Similarly, I am currently learning Haydn’s Sonata in E flat (Hob. XVI:45) where the first movement is marked Moderato; I am playing it ‘Allegro’ already.
I am also about half way through Schumann’s Waldszenen (Opus 82) but interestingly, I think there is less flexibility with the German tempo indications, though there are issues with the original metronome markings.
(Barenreiter Urtext edition - fingering by Clara Schumann).
Perhaps the lack of clarity surrounding the precise musical meaning of the word Allegro* was increasingly felt in the very late 18th and early 19th centuries - Andante and other tempi directions as well - and that uncertainty was the prompt for the development and need for the metronome (1815).
Impromptu thoughts…much to consider along with the points you’ve raised elsewhere, with which I think I have now caught up.
* The varied non-musical meanings (verb, adverb, and noun) related to (essere) allegra/allegro are similarly broad-ranging and nuanced depending on context: to be cheerful, lively, bright in colour, and so forth.
@@elaineblackhurst1509 I've also wondered if Antonini's approach to Haydn's minuets isn't too uniform. In any case I've noticed that he has a conspicuous preference for 63 to the whole bar in the case of one-in-a-bar minuets.
Re the issue of "Allegro", "Andante", etc being indications of tempo or rather of mood (or character, or "Affekt") one thing is certain: changing the tempo changes the character of the piece or, conversely, an intended character requires a specific tempo (range). Now the problem for us today is (I might have written this already earlier some time) to find out what the character of a given piece from the Baroque or Classical period might well be. After having read all of Harnoncourt's writings my conclusion is that primarily we would have to have an intimate knowledge of the then common rhetorical figures. Harnoncourt mentions that the average listener of the Classical period still was familiar with about 40 rhetorical figures (how did he know?...), whereas we today have lost track of the meaning of most of them. So the study of those historical rhetorical figures, then, would be the starting point.
Of course metronome markings help. Personally I'm surprised to what extent Beethoven's metronome markings are considered to be controversial still today (for me they are not), and Schumann's even more so. However, both were highly intelligent men who knew exactly what they were doing. There is an interesting letter by Brahms to Clara Schumann as she set out to assign metronome markings to her husband's works. He wrote (I paraphrase): "If you set out to assign metronome markings, take your time. One day you will feel in a certain way, the next day otherwise. With time you will sense what the right metronome marking is". That surely also was the reason why Beethoven needed so much time for his metronome markings - they depended on his mood. This matter of "tempo and character" (see Rudolf Kolisch) is a fascinating issue without the prospect of definitive answers. Walter Levin had the opinion that within a tempo range of 15% slower or faster (based on metronome numbers) the character of a piece wouldn't fundamentally change. I must say that, personally, my sensitivity to differences in tempo is much narrower: I detect differences of one notch on the metronome and, accordingly, for me the change of character with tempo is a continuum.
@@robertspruijtenburg3625
I discovered this fascinating dialogue a little while ago and now have read through it many times. With each of those reads I was able to understand the key concepts and process the details being discussed a little better every time.
This discussion is conducted at a level of scholarship that, with effort, I can grasp and appreciate, but far too high for me, with my very limited formal musical training/education, to add anything of substance. Instead, I will simply express my thanks to both of you for sharing your thoughts/expertise and helping me better understand these important points, which are highly relevant to both informed performance practice and listening.
@@robertspruijtenburg3625
A huge amount to consider here with some detail that is new to me - thank you as ever.
Regarding rhetoric in music, it is a subject in which I am trying to understand better myself as I think it an important but probably neglected area; neglected probably because it is not straightforward..
We can all learn a language instinctively, but at some point we need to study the grammar properly; in reading the letters of Mozart and Haydn, there is clearly a different rhetorical style being used depending on the recipient.
In Haydn’s case the differences between something addressed in words to the Prince, to Artaria, or to Maria Anna Von Genzinger - to take just three examples - are clearly evident (Haydn has a distinct female rhetoric I think); it is this aspect when transferred to the music that I am keen to understand better, more grammatically if you like, rather than instinctively.
To continue these musings:
Is there a musically ‘male’ rhetoric in the six sonatas dedicated to Prince Nicholas in 1773 (Hob. XVI:21-26), that is different to that of a more ‘female’ rhetoric to be found in those of 1776-79 dedicated to the Auenbrugger sisters (Hob.XVI:35-39), and do these differences - if they exist - match in music those of the written letters ?
Haydn links both the written word, and the musical rhetoric and Affekt explicitly in the E flat sonata intended for Madame Genzinger (Hob. XVI:49):
Is this music ‘…forever meant only for Your Grace’ with its Adagio ‘…full of feeling’ a particular form of musical ‘female’ rhetoric, as opposed to the more ‘male’ rhetoric of the military horn-style fanfares found in the first movement of the Sonata in A major for Prince Nicholas (Hob. XVI:26), and also in the Sonata in A major (Hob. XVI:30) ?
(This idea has been discussed briefly in an article by Tim Beghin to be found in The Cambridge Companion to Haydn (edited by Carly Clark) entitled ‘A composer, his dedicatee, her instrument, and I: thoughts on performing Haydn’s keyboard sonatas’).
I was pleased to be reminded a of the German word ‘Affekt’ with which I was familiar but had forgotten; I think it perhaps better expresses my meaning certainly than the English ‘mood’ and probably ‘character’ as well, both of which lack the more extended musical meaning of the German word.
Besides our previous discussion on the Minuet issue, I also found that I had written a reply to someone else under Symphony 80 as it is a topic of interest to a number of people; you may or may not have seen this reply.
Superb and revelatory because, for once, we are treated to and beguiled by the period-appropriate ornamentation provided by the concertmaster and, at times, by the flutist. This performance outclasses all the other recorded versions of this little masterpiece I have ever heard. What a remarkably original triptych these early works of Haydn represent; they bid goodbye to the baroque and introduce Esterhazy's privileged audience to a new musical era. Even the basso continuo is not essential here and is accordingly omitted, although I would have liked to have heard a harpsichord provide some additional texture here and there, especially in the minuets. An earlier, competing recording of this symphony by the Freiburg Baroque Orchestra does, as one commenter notes, employ a harpsichord discreetly, but it's barely audible, and the soloists are less virtuosic and assured. The first violinist does ornament well, but with less-than-perfect intonation. It should be mentioned that the audio on this posted You Tube video is flawed, most conspicuously so at the beginning of the symphony; surely, the engineering is responsible and not the performers!
An excellent performance (with two minimal quibbles--see below) of a symphony that is not only thoroughly delightful but critical to the development of classical music.
This work is important in many ways, but I will highlight four of the most obvious ones. First, this was the masterpiece that (trigger warning for anyone who does not recognize/appreciate tongue-in-cheek humor) proved the Esterházy family business had an excellent Human Resources department. When their then-boss, Prince Paul II Anton, requested they post a job opening online for the position of Vice-Kapellmeister to head his new orchestra, the HR people picked the best possible candidate on the first try. In his nearly 30 subsequent years toiling at that full-time job, the individual selected more than proved himself up to the demands of his occupation, being constantly (except for that one criticism about his unfathomable lack of devotion to writing for the baryton) rated as "Outstanding" in performance reviews from his original employer's younger brother/successor--and changing the course of musical history.
(Contrast this with the corresponding group at Leipzig in 1723 who, when they were hiring for the position of Thomaskantor, needed three tries to achieve success. Their first choice was an extremely good composer who declined it. The second selection was also quite good--though, these days, not nearly as well known or appreciated as he should be. However, he too decided not to take the job. Their third-place candidate did accept when it was offered to him. And, though their future employer-employee relationships were not always smooth, even the powers in charge of the musical establishment in Leipzig must have grudgingly admitted, if only to themselves, that the prolific--in more than one sense of the word--fellow they hired could write a pretty mean cantata, both compose for and play the organ pretty well, and knew a thing or two about counterpoint...)
Now back to the strictly serious. A second important aspect of this Haydn symphony is that, with the slight exception of the tempo-changing (Adagio-Andante-Adagio, in A-B-A' form) second one, it is the first both numerically and chronologically to use the (I. Slow introduction-Fast; 2. Slow; 3. Minuet; 4. Fast) sequence of movements that, with two exceptions, would become the template for all of his symphonies from No. 88 to his last, No. 104.
The third point is an even more obvious. More than all but a handful of other Haydn symphonies, this work uses a defining aspect of the Baroque concerto grosso--frequent and extensive interplay between individual or small groupings of instruments and the orchestra as a whole. In this symphony every instrument has its moment in the spotlight. Some of those moments are flashier than others, especially the virtuosic solo in the finale written for Haydn's new concertmaster, Luigi Tomasini, and only slightly less demanding passages for his cellist, Joseph Weigl. (Both would also eventually become the presumptive first soloists for a C Major concerto each that Haydn would subsequently write). In the Trio of the Symphony No. 6's third movement, even the usually bass line supporting violas, bassoon, and violone (corresponding in use to the modern double bass) get a chance to strut their low-pitched stuff.
But Haydn's use of this concerto grosso principle is different from the strings-only techniques of archetypal works in the genre by Corelli, Vivaldi (e.g. Op. 3, Nos. 10 and 11), or Handel's later Op. 6 (written when Haydn himself was alive, though only a child). This symphony, with its winds-strings combinations, hearkens more to works like Bach's Brandenburg Concerto No. 1, less well known Baroque masterpieces by Christoph Graupner, Johann David Heinichen, and Jan Dismas Zelenka, isolated pieces by Georg Philipp Telemann, and some of the Handel movements cobbled together into his Op. 3. Moreover, unlike those earlier works, Haydn blends these concerto grosso elements into what in his hands would become standard parts of a symphony (e.g. the sonata allegro form of No. 6's first movement, or their use in a symphonic minuet).
Fourth, this work can be considered the very first symphony ever written that has made it into the standard repertoire. By the time Haydn created it there already was a thriving tradition of pieces in this genre at least several decades old, including significant contributions by older composers (I am looking at you, C.P.E. Bach and Johann Stamitz). Haydn himself had already composed around a dozen or so symphonies (the exact number remains unsettled) for his previous patron, Count Morzin. All of the latter are fine and original works in their own different ways. However, except for an occasional programming of Symphony No. 1 primarily for its numerical significance, Symphony No. 6 is the first that has become reasonably popular for live performances, based on its obvious and exceptional musical merits.
As for this particular performance of the work, IMHO it is in the top rank. The slower than usual tempo used for the opening and aural brightening of the closing crescendo are, I think, particularly expressive of the experience of watching an actual sunrise. A few of the many performances, both live and recorded, I have heard of this work take the ensuing Allegro (with its flute theme foreshadowing not only the second movement of Haydn's Symphony No.93 but also the final one of Beethoven's own 6th) at too sluggish a pace. They evoke the disappointing (and anachronistic) image of Haydn hitting the mechanical snooze button on his (to us) old-fashioned alarm clock, or (to him) even more futuristic electronic one on his buzzing iPhone--then diving back under the covers for a little more shuteye.
Conversely, the pace and energy of this performance's first, fast movement conjures a picture of the composer leaping out of his featherbed at the first crow of an outside rooster sighting the rising Sun (the hens will get their titular time to shine some 77 symphonies later), rapidly taking care of typical a.m. hygienic needs, quickly dressing in Esterházy livery, expeditiously plopping his powered wig onto his head, speedily drinking a whole pot of coffee, and ending with the now hyper-caffeinated Haydn racing to his harpsichord to briskly pen another masterpiece before zooming out to perform it with his own, top-notch orchestra.
The rest of this performance maintains that same energy and edge-of-your-seat interest and excitement, even in the comparatively more relaxed but still intense second movement.The only two, tiny quibbles I mentioned at the beginning occur in the third movement. There, I think, the tempo is taken a bit too close to a scherzo than a 1761 symphonic Menuet and Trio. Certainly not bad, but just a mite too bustling for my taste. The other quibble seems to be at least partly a technical one. In the Trio of that movement, what the score says and my ears expect is a duet between the bassoon and double bass roughly equal in the sound coming from both of them. What I hear, however, is the bassoon hogging the limelight and its larger compatriot only faintly audible in the background. I suspect this is an issue at least partly attributable to the sound engineer, but I cannot tell for sure. At least (spoiler alert) in several future symphonies the double bass will, untethered to the bassoon or any other instrument, indeed get to fly truly solo...
But overall, echoing many other commentators, this is yet another outstanding entry in an amazing set of concerts. I look forward to Maestro Antonini's interpretation of the next symphony in this series, although (final tongue-in-cheek warning) the mystery of which one he will choose would surely baffle even Sherlock Holmes...
Read with interest.
I recently came across Performance Practice: A Dictionary-guide for Musicians (2005), by Roland Jackson.
The fascinating section covering a wide range of performance practice issues in Haydn is available on line; the section on Tempo was particularly interesting in relation to the quite widely shared view expressed in your comment, especially as it is an issue that arouses quite strong feelings, or even quibbles.
Recommended research.
@@elaineblackhurst1509
Thank you very much for bringing that reference work to my attention. I look forward to reading it.
I have also read your latest reply to another of my posts. Pressing responsibilities prevent me from answering it at present, but I will do so as soon as possible.
It's maybe a personal quirk of me, but I am annoyed by the continuous stressing of the 1st beat in the bar in the fast movements. Is there any evidence that this was done in H's day?
Thank you very much for this fascinating comment!
One of my favorite Haydn symphonies!
Yo tengo como 104 sinfonías favoritas de Haydn, más los oratorios, conciertos y otros...🤩
As for me, one of the greatest symphonies!🤩
Despertar con esta sinfonía es una maravilla !! ❤
Time flies when you're Haydn fun!!!
Haydn is always on my chopin liszt.
@@malcolmabram2957 Tired. Recycled and repeated too many times.
A masterful interpretation of one of Haydn's most gorgeous symphonies. Thanks again, Il Giardino Armonico!
sinfonia concertante : no longer opposition but harmonic dialogue and juxtaposition between instruments in the performance of talented and brilliant musicians
One of the rare contrabass solos in the symphonic repertoire and the camera show us violins playing pizzicato on 1 and 3. :/
And the bassoon plays his heart out in the trio from 14:30 but the camera doesn't find him until the last few seconds!
Why do we NOT see the bassoonist when the bassoon has a significant solo? Needs better camera work.
... and unfortunately we don't have a clear view of Elena Russo.
@@PopsCoffeethe camera work on UA-cam is almost always dreadful. Your complains are totally correct, and universally ignored.
Spellbinding and magical music and performance from first note to last. Wow. The great thing about Haydn is that (unlike Mozart) you can never tell what he's going to do next.
Your comment may apply to the majority of Mozart’s symphonies, but the late symphonies are not that predictable. Symphony 40 moves deftly from G minor to F# minor in next to no time. Not many tonal composers, not even post Tristan und Isolde, would dare to be that outrageous. The journey back is astounding as the musical material gets shorter. The journey is seat of the pants stuff which is not matched historically until the final movement of Mahler’s fifth symphony.
What I would say about Haydn is he has an abundance of musical ideas and his expansion of musical forms is without equal. Having heard the late composer and pianist John McCabe on the piano sonatas, I’ve come to believe they should be taken as seriously as the symphonies. Maybe one day, though not in my lifetime I fear, his operas might also be performed as often as Mozart’s.
I can find plenty of examples in Mozart that are sudden and surprising. After all he learned from Haydn and the Bachs
Thanks!Very serios and truly.@@Gwailo54
At first I liked these performances very much but am becoming tired of the brutal contrasts and the heavy accenting of every 1st beat of the bar.
True. Dorati still the best for me.
13:03, Third Movement.
Too fast in my sense
I just love the audacity of Haydn, that he combined a symphony with concerto elements- an early concerto grosso? I’ll let the real experts comment. The bassoon solo is particularly astonishing in my view. Thank you for a wonderful performance.
You’re quite right that this is a wonderful performance and it will take its part in the 2032 series which will become reference recordings for a very long time to come when completed by the assigned date.
The sleeve notes on cds and a number of other sources often reference the old concerto grosso when describing these works, I think this is both inaccurate and misleading; this triptych of works is three modern Classical symphonies with a common theme - Google the images of the ceiling of the Haydnsaal at the Eszterhazy palace in Eisenstadt where the works were first performed in 1761.
The concerto grosso was a popular form during the early 18th century but was a Baroque form, *not* a Classical form: Corelli’s Opus 6 published in 1714 was *the* seminal set, and it spawned Handel’s Opus 6 (1739) and many others such as those by Geminiani, Locatelli, and others, these all being good examples of string concerti grossi.
There were other Baroque composers who wrote what might loosely be described as concerti grossi, most obviously some of JS Bach’s six Brandenburg concertos.
So in answer to your question, none of these three Haydn symphonies could be ‘…an early concerto grosso ?’, it would have to be a very late one, but as we shall see, in fact it was nothing of the sort.
By the Classical period, the concerto grosso had been superseded by the solo concerto, and the sinfonia concertante, though Baroque composers like Vivaldi had already moved to the solo or multiple solo concerto in the earlier period.
The concerto grosso enjoyed something of a revival in the 20th century with a number of composers using the form like Stravinsky, Martinu,
Schnitkke, and Philip Glass for example.
Haydn’s Symphonies 6, 7, and 8 are Classical symphonies; they use a Classical orchestra, modern sonata form - not Baroque ritornello or binary forms (nor any other other than the modernised Minuet), and they bear little resemblance to the concerti grossi outlined above - I really cannot understand why this point is made so frequently that in these very modern symphonies, Haydn is somehow looking back into the past.
The reason is clear however that it is the widespread use of instrumental solos emerging out of the ripieno as it were, rather like the old concertino did in the concerto grosso; but the suggestions that Haydn’s solo parts have anything to do with the concerto grosso is mistaken.
i) These works were Haydn’s debut symphonies - they were designed to showcase both himself and his players; as such they were modern, not old-fashioned works.
ii) Rather than the Corelli concerto grosso model, it is known that at Eisenstadt it was the Vivaldi solo concerto model that was preferred (Le quattro stagione were well known there).
iii) ‘Le matin’, ‘Le midi’, and ‘Le soir’ were in no way unusual in Haydn using the Eszterhazy orchestra members as soloists, it is something he did throughout his career right up to the last symphonies written in London - and they too owe nothing to the concerto grosso.
Examples of Haydn writing symphonies with solo instrumental parts* include:
13, 72 and 31, 24, 38, 51, 93,** 95, 98, amongst others.
There may be some with contrary views, and as you have already noted, the alleged perceived link between these works and the concerto grosso is to be found in almost every cd liner note; I disagree, but at least you now have an alternative explanation to consider.
* These solos are very rare in Mozart.
** A real concertino as the Largo cantabile second movement begins with a solo string quartet.
@@elaineblackhurst1509 Thankyou for your comprehensive and erudite reply. I have recently bought vol. 10 which includes symphonies 6,7 and 8 so I can enjoy them even more!
@@davidwhaley2494
Just incidental to our chat here, in an area where Haydn is very well served by a over thirty available recordings last time I checked, along with Antonini and one or two others, my long-standing favourite performance of these works is by the Freiburger Barockorchester directed by Petra Mullejans (2002).
I have become increasingly convinced over the years that Haydn needs a variety of approaches in almost all his works and a single performance is never enough.*
Therefore, even with these three early symphonies (1761), it’s well worth checking out:
- modern and period performances
- with harpsichord continuo and without
- larger and smaller-scale performances
- Et cetera.
* The same is true of Beethoven, though for many, it’s a step too far with Mozart where period performances of the piano concertos for example are not widely appreciated.
@@elaineblackhurst1509 Thank you again. You certainly know your stuff.
Excelente interpretación
BTW the violin soloist has a magnificent violin. Can anyone tell me what it is?
で、通奏低音は？後ろにオルガンあるっぽいよね。
I return to this frequently. My favorite early Haydn.
An early masterpiece by maestro Haydn
Love everything here. When did they do this performance? Thank you!!
The concert took place on 24th january 2019 in the Martinskirche Basel. It was part of the project No. 10 "Les heures du jour" of Haydn2032 and is available as CD Vol. 10 "Les heures du jour".
@@Haydn2032 I've been listening again and again to your versions of Haydn symphonies: you're reviving his music! More coming?
8/5/22
I just ate breakfast
Oat meal
Thanks
It never gonna come back
8/5/22 morning
Breakfast
Forever ♾️
Passed
Next meal
Lunch
I eagerly
Waiting
Eden back
14:30 Panic! The bassoonist has disappeared!
Qué belleza ❤❤❤!👏👏👏
Wow.
No me canso de escuchar❤❤❤
21 минута?
Beautiful slow movement, bravi. Haydn knew how to showcase his band!
Estupendo aperitivo musical para despertar.
Awesome performance.
so weird to hear this without harpsichord in the 3rd movement, fantastic performance anyways
Где клавесин?
Не надо
Bravo!!!👏👏👏👏👏
" 666 # in Bible ?
It's Computer"
lovely! many thanks!💗💗
Magnifico.
vraiment magnifique
The best!!!
It's marvelous!!!
Bravo ❤❤❤
After a whole life of preoccupation with Haydn Antonini's performance of this minuet is something like a revelation to me. Up till now I thought that the minuet of Haydn's symphony n°6 was a prime example of a stately, courtly minuet, but this might well prove to be totally wrong. Dorati takes the piece at a leisurely 108 to the quarter note (quaver), Adam Fischer at 112, Lopez-Cobos and Harnoncourt at 116, Lesley Jones at 120. Antonini's tempo is a swift 150-152 to the quarter note which, to my big surprise, fits the piece extremely well, giving it an entirely convincing swinging character. IMHO one hint that all the others get the tempo completely wrong is the accompaniment of the violins in bars 9-13 (during the flute solo) which, at the mentioned slower tempos, sounds unduly sedative, and this cannot be Haydn's intention. In Antonini's tempo this accompaniment figure sounds light-weighted, which probably it should (the notes have a staccato dot and therefore are short and light). To quote my beloved “musical father” Walter Levin (1st violin to the LaSalle String Quartet): “Majorities too can err” (“Auch Mehrheiten können sich irren”; sarcastically, he was thinking of 1933).
An intriguing and thought-provoking observation.
In a previous comment on this minuet, I opined that its tempo seemed a bit too bustling to me. However, inspired by your comment, I just completed an aural comparison of this performance with most of the ones you cited, as well as renditions by other conductors (Max Goberman, Ernst Märzendorfer, Christopher Hogwood, and Neville Marriner).
After contrasting this interpretation with those others, I still think the tempo used by Maestro Antonini might benefit from being scaled back ever so slightly, especially in the Trio. Of course, this is a purely aesthetic judgment, based on personal taste, and not a question that has a definite right or wrong answer.
However, I believe your appraisal of the change in character created by the faster tempo used here compared to those other, typical performances is both valid and revelatory. After listening to all those myriad older recorded versions of this movement over the years, I now realize my ear too had become accustomed to hearing it done as a stately dance for bewigged nobility moving at a deliberate, courtly pace. Now, by directly comparing those various versions of this minuet, the narrow "standard" tempo range used sounds acceptable but somewhat unexciting at best, and languid if not plodding at worst. I agree that the quicker pace used in this performance actually does give the music a certain "swing" and joie de vivre absent from "traditional" interpretations. And, at the risk of sounding slightly flippant, to quote the title of a classic Duke Ellington jazz song, "It Don't Mean a Thing (If It Ain't Got That Swing)"...
More seriously, the takeaway here is that even at this early phase of his compositional career Haydn was not writing a minuet to be danced in his serious instrumental music, or even to be played as if anyone could conceivably dance to it. Instead, minuets written for his symphonies (and all except perhaps the earliest of his string quartets) were instead meant to invoke--echoing Wagner's much later comment on Beethoven's 7th--if not the apotheosis then at least the spirit of the dance, rather than to be an actual dance.
The most glaring examples of such undanceable "minuets" (e.g. the gross disruptions of 3/4 rhythm in those of Symphony No. 65 or the String Quartet Op. 20 No. 4, or the dizzyingly fast whirligig of his penultimate complete quartet, Op. 77 No. 1) could lead to grave bodily injury if anyone tried to impose the formal, ceremonious motions of that dance itself on the music. In others, less immediately obvious impediments such as irregular numbers of measures, syncopations, pauses, etc. would also render those minuets wholly unsuitable for terpsichorean purposes. And, as you know, in his book "The Great Haydn Quartets" Hans Keller hammers this point home repeatedly--even at times using the term "anti-minuet" for such movements.
Thank you for inspiring this reevaluation. It illustrates the life lesson that, no matter how much you think you know about something, there might well be significantly more to learn...
@@henrystratmann807 Something I simply don't know is what actually is the justification of a minuet movement in a symphony or string quartet at all. Haydn derived his four-movement string quartet structure from the five-movement divertimento, as displayed in the “Fürnberg” quartets opus 1 and 2, which had the nice symmetrical structure Fast - Minuet - Slow - Minuet - Fast. Skipping one of the minuets resulted in either the variant Fast - Slow - Minuet - Fast, or, alternatively, Fast - Minuet - Slow - Fast. In Haydn's string quartets one finds both, although not evenly distributed, but in his symphonies the first variant clearly dominates (n°44 and n°68 being notable exceptions). However, with Haydn the development of a four-movement structure in the symphony on one side and in the string quartet on the other was not linked at all, but independent (in a comment concerning symphony n°9 I presented a list with all the symphony structures Haydn tried out before “zooming in” on the “classical” four movement structure).
Mozart's case is entirely different. He follows two “tracks”: the three-movement symphony based on the Mannheim tradition on the one hand, and on the three-part opera overture on the other. And then the four-movement structure with a minuet always placed third. For him obviously both forms are equally valid: many of his symphonies have “only” three movements (K. 162, K.181, K. 182, K. 184, K. 199, K. 297 "Paris", K. 318; K. 319 too originally had only three movements), conspicuously up till the late “Prague” symphony. However, in his string quartets Mozart strictly follows Haydn's four movement model, with the minuet placed second or third depending on the specific needs of overall balance of each particular piece.
For Haydn, additionally, a minuet also represented a valid solution as a finale too, as is shown in many two-movement and three-movement piano sonatas and piano trios, and in three-movement symphonies as well: n°9, n°26 and n°30 are cases in point.
So back to my initial question: why a minuet at all? It could as well have been any other dance movement (a gigue?) or anything else offering a contrast, or nothing. Why a dance movement? However, should Haydn have decided for three-movement symphonies and string quartets we would have been left so much poorer without all those magnificent minuets he composed (even if at the end of his life he said he was waiting for somebody to compose a genuinely new minuet). Any ideas?
@@robertspruijtenburg3625
The issue you raise regarding the role of the minuet in the music of the Classical era is at once both profound and fundamental.
I certainly do not have the musicological knowledge or credentials to give a definitive answer as to why a dance movement, and in particular that specific one, became such an integral part of the music of Haydn and his contemporaries--or even if there actually is a definite answer to this question. However, I can at least raise a few potentially relevant points to consider.
(Also, I know you are entirely cognizant of all the factual/historical information to follow. My goal here is merely to try putting these data together into reasonable speculations).
The addition of a dance movement to the symphony, string quartet, etc. may represent a blending of several musical forms commonly used in the late Baroque/pre-Classical era. The three-movement orchestral overture--either the fast-slow-fast "Italian" variety or the slow-fast-slow "French" type--or the four-movement slow-fast-slow-fast sonata da chiesa form (common in Baroque chamber music but also the overwhelmingly predominant scheme for Telemann's concerti), did not typically include a dance movement. On the contrary, a wide variety of dances (far beyond the oversimplified list of allemande, courante, gigue, and sarabande I was taught decades ago in a music appreciation class) were included within Baroque suites for keyboard, chamber music, and orchestra.
Thus, adding a dance movement from the suite to those previously "dance-less" forms could represent just a reasonable process of amalgamation, increasing both contrast and variety compared to individual overtures, suites, etc. However, even if that were true, the next question is, why specifically the minuet rather than another type of dance? For example, looking just at J. S. Bach's four orchestral suites, three include a minuet--but all four contain an entirely different and equally French dance, the bourée. Or, broadening this argument, why not use another common dance of the time, such as the four named in the previous paragraph or others seen in Baroque suites, such as the passepied, gavotte (well, it did work pretty well in Prokofiev's Symphony No. 1...), or the polonaise?
This is pure speculation, but perhaps Haydn's decision to include minuets (and the alternative "tempo di minuetto"), starting with his earliest symphonies, string quartets, divertimenti and other works (including the early string trios and somewhat later baryton trios) might simply reflect a local musical tradition/preference/popularity in Vienna and its environs, where he spent (barring his trips to London decades later) his entire musical career. Though geographically separate from that city, perhaps this (or something similar) is also the reason why Johann Stamitz, in Mannheim, introduced minuets into so many of his own symphonies, all written (presumptively, given that he died in 1757) before Haydn wrote his first.
It is also noteworthy that early string quartets besides Haydn's, such as those by Boccherini, Mozart (Nos. 2, 4, 6 and 7), and F. X. Richter, written between the late 1750s to early 1770s, did not include a minuet. Note too the complete absence of a minuet in any of C.P.E. Bach's symphonies, with contemporary North German critics indeed praising the latter for his "ideal" fast-slow-fast template (albeit with movements commonly running in to each other rather than being entirely discrete), and turning up their noses at Haydn's use of something as frivolous as a minuet in his symphonies. Perhaps the absence of minuets in those works also represents local/personal preferences and ways of doing things.
Finally, I wonder whether Haydn was speaking literally or perhaps at least partly tongue-in-cheek (one can safely say that he did have a bit of a sense of humor...) regarding his wish for a "new" kind of minuet. I suggest that the composer actually wrote new kinds of minuets during his entire musical career. Those include the early quartets-divertimenti from Op. 1 and Op. 2 with contrasting minuets in the same work, one more full in its part-writing and the other using copious bare, two-part writing.
Likewise, there are pompous minuets (e.g. Symphony No. 37), courtly ones that could potentially be danced to (e.g. Symphony No. 21), expansive mini-sonata form ones (e.g. Symphony No. 86), minuets that he calls scherzi (all of Opus 33, including the No. 3 that when played at a reasonably moderate tempo sounds like the saddest, most tragic C Major piece ever written) and scherzi that he calls minuets (e.g. Op. 76 No. 1 and Op. 77 No. 1), those that include two Trio sections (Symphony No. 51), others that forsake 3/4 time (Symphony No. 65 and Op. 20 No. 4), one with none of the traditional repeats in its main or Trio section (Symphony No. 97), another that forgets that it is supposed to be over and pops up again in the next movement (Symphony No. 46), one that ends with a triumphant coda (Symphony No. 70), and yet more that include contrapuntal complexities (Symphony No. 3, No. 44, and the "Quinten" string quartet). And that does not include the many, many particularly creative Trio sections, with an accompaniment without a melody (Symphony No 29), exotic (Balkan?) tunes (Symphony No. 28 and No. 46), "Trios" that are actually duets (Symphony No. 67 and the aforementioned Op. 33 No. 3), etc.
In short, in his minuets Haydn used what one would have expected to be the simplest, most traditional, predictable movement of his symphonies, string quartets, etc. to create and then subvert our expectations--a key component of his art. And the new sounds, techniques, and forms he introduced in these ''dance" movements could be echoed by later composers, whether consciously or not, in their own masterpieces. For example, the third movement of Beethoven's "Eroica" and the second one of his 9th are on a grander and more complex scale than the corresponding ones in Haydn's Op. 77 No. 1 and the "Trauer" symphony--but, at least to my ears, the latter seem definite musical ancestors to the former...
@@henrystratmann807 Thank you for this involved response! Many fascinating additional aspects. At the end of the day we can safely acknowledge that we know that we don't know...
Still wondering that Elaine Blackhurst has not joined this conversation. I've meanwhile added some more responses to her comments.
@@robertspruijtenburg3625
An innately speculative topic such as this would benefit even more than usual from the addition of her broad range of knowledge and unique perspective. I too hope she will be able to join this and other current discussions.
Contrary to what the late Christopher Hogwood averred, this is definitely one Haydn symphony that could benefit from the inclusion of a harpsichord. Masterful interpretation, though! I just wish there was a harpsichord!
Regarding the question of the use of a harpsichord continuo or not, Hogwood I think took his lead from James Webster who collected his thoughts on this issue in his study ‘On the Absence of Keyboard Continuo in Haydn’s Symphonies’ (1990).
The study is worth reading through as it outlines the key points of the debate, and presents all the reasons - in an accessible way - why the harpsichord should not be used.
In general, conductors over the past 30 years or so have been pretty much divided on the point.
In summary - you can add any other conductors at will - the following is the situation:
*Without harpsichord continuo*
Antonini
Bruggen
Harnoncourt
Hogwood
Weil
*With harpsichord continuo*
Goodman
Kuijken
Pinnock
Solomons
The very fine recording by the Freiburger Barockorchester of Symphonies 6, 7, and 8 uses a discrete harpsichord continuo, and would be my recommendation for someone such as yourself who prefers its presence; The Hanover Band however in contrast, features Roy Goodman at the harpsichord in a starring role.
That said, I would not be without all the different approaches, though I do disagree that ‘Le Matin’ in particular needs the harpsichord continuo - you pays your money and makes your choice.
@@elaineblackhurst1509 the Webster work is new to me, so many thanks. My agreement lies with the Goodman (et al.) camp, and with the unremembered critic from ages ago (Donald Tovey?) who said that a harpsichord continuo was "the essential underpinning of all Eighteenth Century music". I've even heard the stray recording of string "quartets" and "quintets" which employ it! (Mozart's "Eine Kleine Nachtmusik" and Boccherini's famous "Minuet", inter alia. Of course the former is, properly speaking, not a true "quartet," but rather a string 'serenade'.)
But as you hint, to each his own! I'll happily keep my own preference, though I'll agree that scholarly opinion on the subject is indeed divided.
Thank you for sharing your time and thoughts.
Hieronymus Kapsberger, a hundred or so years earlier, gave us an interesting insight into continuo practice as it was fresh and still developing. ... hinting that the tradition may have been far richer and more robust than we perhaps suspected. ...
@@tjwhite1963
In turn, thank you for your thoughtful reply.
Whilst the Webster study is essentially focussed on Haydn at Eszterhaza, I do think the following caveats apply:
i) We know almost nothing about performance practice at Lukavec whilst Haydn was employed there by Count Morzin between c.1757 and 1761 - ie pre-his appointment to the Eszterhazy family; the use of a harpsichord would likely have been normal practice therefore in the earliest symphonies viz: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 11, 15, 18, 19, 20, 25, 27, 32, 33, 37, and ‘A’ (Hob. I:107).
(Note: one or two of these symphonies such as 3, and 15 might have been very early Eszterhaza works).
ii) Performance practice across Europe would have been very different, indeed in neighbouring towns and cities it would have been different.
Webster has pretty much established the continuo was not used at Eszterhaza (except possibly for some of the very earliest works), but it is clear that orchestras playing Haydn symphonies elsewhere *were* using one.
iii) We know Haydn’s orchestra was very good - on a visit to Haydn at Eszterhaza, the composer Kraus on his four year tour of musical Europe* noted in 1784:
‘ The orchestra is what you would expect under the direction of a Haydn - therefore one of the best’.
And even more tellingly, Kraus continues:
‘It is in fact not larger than 24 men, *but makes an outstanding impression’* [my emphasis].
This ‘outstanding impression’ was made without the assistance of a harpsichord continuo.
I think the better orchestras had less need of the continuo safety-net.
iv) I think it likely that almost to the end of the century, where symphonies were performed by small orchestras - ie with only one or two strings per part - then it is likely a harpsichord *would* have been routinely used.**
In short, I think the problem is thus: essentially trying to seek a ‘right’ answer to a question that has no right answer.
Haydn himself post-1761 chose not to use a harpsichord, but to play the violin in the performances of his symphonies with his own orchestra, but it would have been quite normal for them to have been played with one elsewhere.
Regarding the use of a harpsichord continuo in string quartets, when I sold my LP collection many years ago, I held on to six very attractive quartets by Sacchini which included a harpsichord continuo - not an independent part - they were very beautiful, though the harpsichord changed the character of the works somewhat, but in truth, I think they actually enhanced these lovely, but ultimately undemanding works.
The Boccherini piano quintets - very late works - are also very interesting, though they have independent keyboard parts.
Much of Tovey’s startling, new and insightful analyses of later Haydn were ground-breaking coming as they did from the dark ages of Haydn scholarship; his knowledge of earlier 18th century performance practice was not on the same level.
Your final Kapsberger point was new to me, but I find that it is both valid and interesting.
What immediately came to mind was CPE Bach employed for nearly 30 years as court harpsichordist to Frederick the Great; I simply cannot imagine him routinely filling in chords in an unimaginative way for that length of time going through the endless cycle of hundreds of Quantz flute concertos.
(That said, I can also imagine the King’s displeasure when CPE did do something out of the ordinary, but I do think CPE would be an example of exactly what Kapsberger was describing).
Personally, I enjoy Haydn symphonies with and without harpsichord; large and small orchestras, period instruments and modern, and any combination of these; some I like better than others, though the essential key to that is normally the performance and interpretation.
* Kraus’ four year tour around Europe meant that he was in a position to make meaningful comparisons, and therefore his rating of Haydn’s orchestra as ‘…one of the best’ carries real weight.
** I wonder if it is possible that in some of the symphonies intended for Holy Week (26, 49 for example), or at some performances in monasteries - where Haydn’s symphonies were widely played - could an organ have been used to provide the continuo in place of the harpsichord ?
@@elaineblackhurst1509thanks again and especially for your very thoughtful, detailed and interesting reply. I think I shall have to quote your extensive remarks on my Facebook page, because I recently had engaged in an identical conversation with a few of my friends there. As to your last question, yes, I think it entirely possible that an organ continuo could have been used in a few instances, as you suggest.
As for this conversation as a whole, bravo, and well done. Thank you.
16:34, the Fourth Movement.
ハイドン大好きです。とても素晴らしい演奏でした。弦楽器のソロパートが魅力的です。ひとつ言いたいことは三楽章のトリオの部分、もう少しファゴットの奏者を映してほしかったです。
Кто тоже 7к1?