BaL 17.09.11 - Haydn: Symphony no. 100 "Military"

[MickyD]

How well I remember the excitement of hearing those first Solomons recordings on Saga (before CBS carried on the project). A critic once described the performances "as crisp as a chilled lettuce", which they certainly were compared to some of the stodgier and laden versions available hitherto.

[Tony Halstead]

aeolium,
You say "Also the scores for other S&D symphonies such as the Trauer and no 52 in C minor indicate a continuo".
By 'continuo' you presumably mean a harpsichord?
My question is: does there exist a more recent, more 'authentic' Haydn edition ( printed music not recordings) than the UE or Doblinger, edited by Landon and Schultz?
My UE scores of 44 ( Trauer, ed.Landon) and 52 ( ed. Schultz) in the bass line indicate: "Violoncello, Basso e Fagotto". No mention of Cembalo.
If indeed there had been 'Cembalo' in Haydn's autograph score would either Landon or Schultz have omitted this, in what was purporting to be a scholarly edition, I wonder?

[aeolium]

waldhorn

You have the advantage of me in having copies of the scores, and the information I was using was second-hand. I believe there is an ongoing debate about whether it is right to use continuo in the more mature Haydn symphonies. James Webster was of the view that it was wrong and that there was no evidence to justify it, Robbins Landon initially thought continuo was necessary but later changed his mind. I find it curious though that even period-instrument recordings such as those of Trevor Pinnock and Roy Goodman have included the continuo for symphonies where the score did not explicitly require it (and Goodman was scathing about the James Webster theory). Hogwood on the other hand takes a different view.

I would be interested to learn more about this debate and what is the historically-informed rationale for either using or not using the cembalo continuo in the middle symphonies.

[Tony Halstead]

The two arguments most frequently advanced to justify the use of a harpsichord, where none is stipulated, are flawed.
1) 'To help the bass line to 'cut through' the textures':
Since Haydn's Morzin and Esterhazy court orchestras were very small, surely the cello, bassoon and viola ( not always playing an independent part but often playing either in unison with cello / bassoon or one or two octaves higher than the double-bass) would already be 'projecting' the bass line.

2) 'To 'propel' or 'drive' the rhythm of the bass line':
This is faulty reasoning indeed. If the harpsichord is played with good 'ensemble' and perfectly in time with the bass instruments, it can hardly be 'driving' the orchestra. If it is played slightly earlier in real time than the bass intruments, then the result will be faulty rhythm / poor ensemble. In that case it will certainly not be 'driving' the music forwards but dragging it in tow!:

[MickyD]

It looks like the theories on continuo or not continuo in Haydn symphonies will always be a matter for conjecture. I remember feeling a little dismayed when I heard that Hogwood was going to drop it from his recordings, but having listened to his performances with their clean, sparing textures, I was immediately converted and convinced.

[Tony Halstead]

Here is an extract from James Webster's notes for the AAM / Hogwood recordings:

"Haydn almost certainly used no keyboard instrument in his symphonies, except in London. This view, which differs from earlier ones but is now widely held among scholars, is based on the following criteria:
1) Haydn’s symphony autographs include no figures or indications of a keyboard instrument whatever, whereas those for other orchestral genres
(concerti, vocal music) do so in abundance.
2) The authentic performing materials include absolutely no keyboard parts, figures, or references to keyboard instruments.
3) There is no evidence that the Esterházy court ever employed a separate keyboard or continuo player (other than Haydn himself), and some evidence that Haydn led the ensemble from the violin (by his own testimony, he was a good enough violinist to perform as the soloist in concertos).
4) The finale of the ‘Farewell’ Symphony ( No.45), in which each player has a little solo before departing, includes no keyboard music and ends with two unaccompanied solo violins (presumably Haydn and his concertmaster Luigi Tomasini).
5) Aspects of style which formerly were thought to demand filling-out by a continuo (lean orchestration, two-and three-part writing) are now viewed as characteristic and desirable.
6) Even with respect to the London symphonies – where Haydn indeed ‘presided’ at the keyboard – the continental sources, including those prepared under his direction, include no keyboard part; this confirms the hypothesis that none was used for symphonies there.
These recordings …etc.
I offer a full explanation of the reasoning behind this decision in an article published in the November 1990 issue of ‘Early Music’ (OUP)."

I wonder what would have happened if the series had got as far as Symphony 98 with its little harpsichord (fortepiano?) solo in the 4th movement?

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

The real point is surely a musical one. All the harmonies are complete without unwritten extras, unlike many baroque works which rely on the keyboard realisation of the figured bass.

[aeolium]

This old NY Times article reviews some of these arguments - Webster, Hogwood and latterly HC Robbins Landon anti the continuo, Dearling, Goodman and presumably Pinnock among those in favour.

Personally I think it depends on how it actually sounds in the performance - sometimes it is horribly obtrusive, but sometimes it sounds convincing.

[pilamenon]

There was also a AAM/Hogwood disc of the Military and London symphonies, long before the orchestra got under way with their tragically incomplete cycle.

That was the very first classical LP I bought, and this symphony thus has special resonance for me. I can still picture the handsome cover.

My current favourite recording is the reissued Beecham/RPO. I don't own a HIPP performance, but am sure vinteuil's Bruggen version is a reliable bet. The Royal Concertgebouw played this symphony beautifully at the Proms a couple of years ago under Mariss Jansons.

[Tony Halstead]

"Personally I think it depends on how it actually sounds in the performance - sometimes it is horribly obtrusive, but sometimes it sounds convincing."

Thanks very much for this, Aeolium.
What you say is simply good, pragmatic, musical commonsense.
The solution to the 'harpsichord dilemma' can surely - only - be a contextual one, with the 'yes or no' harpsichord decision being governed by the room's acoustics and the size of the orchestra.

On this note, there seems to be some confusion about the actual size of the performance space at the Esterhazy Palace; I have performed there myself as soloist and conductor in the large hall, a very resonant space capable of seating an audience of perhaps 500 or more, and an orchestra of at least 30 or more. This acoustic can be heard on the 'Nimbus' CDs of the Austro-Hungarian Orchestra / Adam Fischer.

On the other hand, in an article in the New York Times in 1994, Christopher Hogwood says:
"When we played at Esterhazy, we saw how small the music room there is," he said. "A harpsichord would have taken away half the space for the audience. Besides, they didn't have the harpsichord there. It was at the opera house, and they wouldn't have wanted to move it in and out all the time."

[rauschwerk]

On this note, there seems to be some confusion about the actual size of the performance space at the Esterhazy Palace...

There are two palaces: the one at Eisenstadt in which you apparently played, and the one at Esterhaza to which Christopher Hogwood refers.

[MickyD]

Fascinating, waldhorn - thanks very much for all those facts. I still have an old South Bank Show from the late 1980s, which filmed Christopher Hogwood and the AAM in that Esterhazy location, right at the beginning of their Haydn project. The documentary, which featured Hogwood discussing Haydn symphonies, was followed up by their performances of three symphonies (I believe 23, 24 and 29). I will have to look it out and see if CH says anything in it about the continuo question.

[Nick Armstrong]

Great stuff from Waldhorn here!

Very much looking forward to 9.30 - some good robust R3 broadcasting from Robert Philip should take away the taste of some of the musical babyfood R3 have been trying to push down our gullets for the last 5 mornings...

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Five minutes ago I posted a comment on this thread and it hasn't appeared. I'll complain to the Host

I said what a well-balanced BaL this was, and hoped it was a sign of things to come this year.

[BBMmk2]

Unfortunately, my iplayer wasnt working properly!! Poor Andrew's voice sounded rather gurgly!!