Haydn symphonies - Adam Fischer

[Parry1912]

I'm listening to all the 'named' symphonies first. Simply because I've only got the Brilliant Classics box containing just the named symphonies (11CD).

I'm up to no. 55 'The Schoolmaster'. Very enjoyable so far.

[mikealdren]

When I visited the Esterhazy palace in Hungary, they were set up to play samples from the set in the hall where many of them were first performed and they sounded excellent. Partly as a result, I bought the set as soon as they appeared so cheaply and have never regretted it.

An orchestra I play in from time to time usually includes an early/middle period Haydn symphony in the programme and it's useful to listen in advance too, there are endless treasures here.

Mike

[Lion-of-Vienna]

Beware that the numerical order is not necessarily the chronological order, even with the London sets.

Very true. We don't even know if No.1 actually is the first that he wrote despite the fact that Haydn, in his old age, said that it was - his memory wasn't always reliable.

If I was setting out to listen to the symphonies in approximate chronological order I would do it in this way:

(1) Start with the pre-Esterhazy symphonies: 1-5, 10, 15, 18-20, 27, 32, 33, 37, A and B.

(2) Go back to No.6 and work through the rest to 81 in numerical order with the following changes:
No.40 belongs with No.13,
No.72 was probably written at the same time as No.31,
Nos.49, 58 and 59 come immediately after No.35.

(3) The Paris symphonies were probably written in the order: 87, 85, 83, 84, 86, 82 followed by 88 - 92 in order.

(4) The London symphonies were probably written in the order: 96, 95, 93, 94, 98, 97, 99, 101, 100, 102 -104.

I don't know if anyone out there is still awake or in the slightest bit interested but I feel much better after that.

[Karafan]

Hah! I appreciate it - thanks Lion.

Karafan

[Roehre]

Very true. We don't even know if No.1 actually is the first that he wrote despite the fact that Haydn, in his old age, said that it was - his memory wasn't always reliable.

If I was setting out to listen to the symphonies in approximate chronological order I would do it in this way:

(1) Start with the pre-Esterhazy symphonies: 1-5, 10, 15, 18-20, 27, 32, 33, 37, A and B.

(2) Go back to No.6 and work through the rest to 81 in numerical order with the following changes:
No.40 belongs with No.13,
No.72 was probably written at the same time as No.31,
Nos.49, 58 and 59 come immediately after No.35.

(3) The Paris symphonies were probably written in the order: 87, 85, 83, 84, 86, 82 followed by 88 - 92 in order.

(4) The London symphonies were probably written in the order: 96, 95, 93, 94, 98, 97, 99, 101, 100, 102 -104.

I don't know if anyone out there is still awake or in the slightest bit interested but I feel much better after that.

On which material have you based this chronological order L-o-V, is this Robins Landons' chronology (as I am unable to check the latter at this moment)?

[Lion-of-Vienna]

On which material have you based this chronological order L-o-V, is this Robins Landons' chronology (as I am unable to check the latter at this moment)?

It is based on the dates in New Grove. I did say that it was approximate and it is my own personal way of doing it, correcting the more obvious errors in the numerical list. There are, of course, some symphonies whose date we will probably never know exactly, especially the early ones. Also I did not want to make the listing too complicated so you could probably refine it further, particularly in the middle symphonies. If you follow my list you will not get the exact numerical order but neither will you go far wrong and that was my intention.

[Roehre]

Thanks L-o-V