Part of the reason many conductors don't let the trumpets rip in the finale of 97 must be that the pre-Landon editions "corrected" the trumpet fortes to piano to match the strings. They did this with the horns in 88's third movement trio as well.
I have Fischers recordings of Haydn Symphonies 1-87, which I found to be reasonably good, but Eugen Jochum and George Szell are my preferred choices for the later symphonies. I think the period instrument folks could learn a lot from studying the Szell method of conducting.
What palaver from the podium. You can’t add embellishments like a bunch of col legno and still pretend your performance is somehow faithful to what was originally composed, or more faithful than mid-century “big band” Haydn.
"Just play it the way the man wrote it." EXACTLY! Why is this simple concept so difficult for so many of today's conductors (and musicians in general)?
Jochum and Davis are two of the best, though the winds and percussion on the Jochum are a little too recessed for my taste. The previous recommendations for Harnoncourt and Bernstein are good modern instrument performances. If you want to add a HIP set, I'd recommend Brüggen. Among older sets: Beecham has a lot of energy and joyful music making, but the sonics are merely adequate (half of them are in mono) and the editions are considered corrupt by most Haydn scholars. Scherchen, like Harnoncourt, is idiosyncratic in some movements and the sonics are poor, but his won't be mistaken for anyone else's. Some partial sets that I can recommend include Szell (nos. 93-99) and Wöldike (99-104).
Talking about reviews, I heard a marvelous new album called Venezuela! by Domingo Hindoyan, RLPO. It has the best ever Castellanos Santa Cruz de Pacairigua with great percussion, I kid you not! Now if only the same forces could do some Salgado symphonies🙂
@@LyleFrancisDelp I've not heard it used in that context; what you're describing is normally called a phrase elision (as can be found in the first movement exposition-right after the first statement of the main theme-of pretty much every one of Haydn's London symphonies.) A "feminine cadence" (a pretty deprecated term these days!) is one in which the final chord is somehow weak, normally because it falls on a weak beat. The "feminine ending" in question here would presumably (not having heard the recordings myself) be from the HIP-ish habit of playing the final note of a phrase quietly.
It's the 'Impress teacher' generation. I listened to the first movement of 96 next to Beecham, who kept me going in the 90s. As soon as ten bars in, I thought, 'he's playing this like it's Beethoven, all ponderous and self-aware. As you say, signposting the gag is not good.
I have seen poor reports of this Naxos series.The Fischer Nimbus series took ten years to complete and he was'nt pleased with (some) of the London cycle so his was allowed to make another attempt,it did not work
Not sure why Fischer feels the need to do this. He made a full set and yes, his London Syms are the weakest. But then....there is just so much competition. Did he really think he could eclipse the likes of Jochum, Davis, Bernstein, Dorati, and Marriner? And how many other luminaries who recorded these works?
I’m confused about your frequent references to the period instrument movement. Wasn’t most of the sound coming from a Haydn symphony produced by the strings? I thought those have been unchanged for centuries.
That is far too complicated to go into here, but the way they are played is very different, as are things such as the material strings are made of, the length of the bow, etc.
The instruments aren’t different, but the way they play them is. I listened to Savall leading Beethoven’s 7th and the violinists sounded like they forgot to rosin their bows. The strings sounded a lot stranger than the period winds, brass, and timpani.
Try the English Baroque Soloists with Malcolm Bilson playing any of the Mozart Piano Concertos and compare with a performance by better known artists on modern instruments. The difference is unmistakable. I quite like those recordings (made in the 80s on DG's Archiv label) but I've no idea what Mr Hurwitz thinks of them.
I love the sound the catgut strings produces! Modern symphony orchestras don't use them, but today there are lots of 'period instrument orchestras' mostly European. The movement began in baroque music, but now classical composers are played with instruments from that period and Schubert's from his time and so on. I have had much pleasure and fun exploring this! (Adam Fischer's orchestra is not a period instrument orchestra, but Fischer is partly influenced or inspired by them and of course not all experiments are equally successful ...)
Hey Dave, can you recommend a recording of 98 that uses a fortepiano instead of a harpsichord? Thanks!
Bruggen.
Part of the reason many conductors don't let the trumpets rip in the finale of 97 must be that the pre-Landon editions "corrected" the trumpet fortes to piano to match the strings. They did this with the horns in 88's third movement trio as well.
I laughed loudly at the mention of Stokowski.
I have Fischers recordings of Haydn Symphonies 1-87, which I found to be reasonably good, but Eugen Jochum and George Szell are my preferred choices for the later symphonies. I think the period instrument folks could learn a lot from studying the Szell method of conducting.
I know it’s presto, but I don’t like 98 finales that go so fast they lose any vocal or rhetorical quality that the themes seem to obviously have.
What palaver from the podium. You can’t add embellishments like a bunch of col legno and still pretend your performance is somehow faithful to what was originally composed, or more faithful than mid-century “big band” Haydn.
"Just play it the way the man wrote it." EXACTLY! Why is this simple concept so difficult for so many of today's conductors (and musicians in general)?
I often feel the same about how some operas are mistreated on stage.
I have two sets of the London symphonies, Jochum and Colin Davis, do I need anyone else?
Excepting an odd performance of Symphony 98, Bernstein's set is fantastic across the board.
Yes! The Bernstein recordings with the New York Philharmonic.Three times is a charm.😉
Jochum and Davis are two of the best, though the winds and percussion on the Jochum are a little too recessed for my taste. The previous recommendations for Harnoncourt and Bernstein are good modern instrument performances. If you want to add a HIP set, I'd recommend Brüggen.
Among older sets: Beecham has a lot of energy and joyful music making, but the sonics are merely adequate (half of them are in mono) and the editions are considered corrupt by most Haydn scholars. Scherchen, like Harnoncourt, is idiosyncratic in some movements and the sonics are poor, but his won't be mistaken for anyone else's.
Some partial sets that I can recommend include Szell (nos. 93-99) and Wöldike (99-104).
Bernstein's are quite good. I always will listen to Szell and whatever symphonies Walter did.
I enjoy Szell in the first six, Beecham in the rest. They feel right for the style of each set, and thus compliment each other.
Talking about reviews, I heard a marvelous new album called Venezuela! by Domingo Hindoyan, RLPO. It has the best ever Castellanos Santa Cruz de Pacairigua with great percussion, I kid you not! Now if only the same forces could do some Salgado symphonies🙂
Dave I've never heard the term "feminine endings" when referring to a musical phrase! 😂
It's often called a feminine cadence. It refers to the end of an eight bar phrase that ends on the first bar of the next phrase.
@@LyleFrancisDelp I've not heard it used in that context; what you're describing is normally called a phrase elision (as can be found in the first movement exposition-right after the first statement of the main theme-of pretty much every one of Haydn's London symphonies.) A "feminine cadence" (a pretty deprecated term these days!) is one in which the final chord is somehow weak, normally because it falls on a weak beat. The "feminine ending" in question here would presumably (not having heard the recordings myself) be from the HIP-ish habit of playing the final note of a phrase quietly.
@@lukewaddell67 It's the same thing. I've never heard it called a "feminine ending", but feminine cadences are a real thing.
@@lukewaddell67 Thank You.
@@LyleFrancisDelp Cadence or ending.....yes that clears it up a bit.
It seems that you have perfect listening for Halloween week! Haydn's ghost shall come visit those who play foul with his music. Conductors beware.
It's the 'Impress teacher' generation. I listened to the first movement of 96 next to Beecham, who kept me going in the 90s. As soon as ten bars in, I thought, 'he's playing this like it's Beethoven, all ponderous and self-aware. As you say, signposting the gag is not good.
I have seen poor reports of this Naxos series.The Fischer Nimbus series took ten years to complete and he was'nt pleased with (some) of the London cycle so his was allowed to make another attempt,it did not work
I think it would be a good idea for Adam to take some time off from conducting & just listen/study what his brother has achieved 😮
Not sure why Fischer feels the need to do this. He made a full set and yes, his London Syms are the weakest. But then....there is just so much competition. Did he really think he could eclipse the likes of Jochum, Davis, Bernstein, Dorati, and Marriner? And how many other luminaries who recorded these works?
You agreed recently with his 57th and you have also agreed with his performance on others. So when do you consider he lost it?
I have no idea. I take each recording as it comes.
Dave clearly says in this video that the London Symphonies are his worst of the bunch. 57 was a completely different era of Haydn.
I’m confused about your frequent references to the period instrument movement. Wasn’t most of the sound coming from a Haydn symphony produced by the strings? I thought those have been unchanged for centuries.
That is far too complicated to go into here, but the way they are played is very different, as are things such as the material strings are made of, the length of the bow, etc.
The instruments aren’t different, but the way they play them is.
I listened to Savall leading Beethoven’s 7th and the violinists sounded like they forgot to rosin their bows. The strings sounded a lot stranger than the period winds, brass, and timpani.
@@DavesClassicalGuide So most string players in a classical orchestra no longer use catgut?
Try the English Baroque Soloists with Malcolm Bilson playing any of the Mozart Piano Concertos and compare with a performance by better known artists on modern instruments. The difference is unmistakable.
I quite like those recordings (made in the 80s on DG's Archiv label) but I've no idea what Mr Hurwitz thinks of them.
I love the sound the catgut strings produces! Modern symphony orchestras don't use them, but today there are lots of 'period instrument orchestras' mostly European. The movement began in baroque music, but now classical composers are played with instruments from that period and Schubert's from his time and so on. I have had much pleasure and fun exploring this!
(Adam Fischer's orchestra is not a period instrument orchestra, but Fischer is partly influenced or inspired by them and of course not all experiments are equally successful ...)