BaL 22.02.14 - Haydn: Symphony no. 44

[Tony Halstead]

Currently, half way through this BAL and getting annoyed. First, he makes a big deal about the precise character of the orchestral writing, then dismisses the whole continuo issue with barely any comment. The continuo has an enormous impact on the sound of the piece, but NK doesn't seem to care whether it is there or not. Moreover, there really doesn't seem to be any justification for it. If Haydn didn't write for one and didn't use one himself, why is it acceptable for performers to add it? Can they add a kazoo, as well, or a moog synthesiser?

After that, NK goes on to say that it is a pity the Orpheus Chamber Orchestra version has disappeared from the catalogue? What catalogue is this? You can get it quite easily on the internet. It has been reissued (as a new physical CD) by archivmusic, among others. In addition, you can get it on spotify and download it from dozens of sites etc. Just what arcane criteria are used to determine "official availablity"? Are the people at Radio 3 even aware that the internet exists?

But I am only half way through........

Let's be clear about this: a 'continuo' is not an instrument as such, it is a 'department' of an orchestra or a chamber ensemble that plays the important bass part of the music, either simply as a cello /several cellos with or without a further ( 'double') bass part an octave lower plus the ( optional) addition of a bassoon ( or two) plus the (optional) addition of a keyboard instrument ( harpsichord, organ or fortepiano) that plays not only the bass part, but also a largely improvised series of harmonies/ chords that either reinforce the harmonies that are already written into the orchestration or - less desirably - imposes those implied harmonies onto sparsely orchestrated music which - for all we know- may have been intended by the composer to 'stand alone' in its stark simplicity.

The great H.C. Robbins Landon's view, with which I totally agree, was that in all of Haydn's symphonies after no 26 ( 'Lamentatione') the harpsichord is unnecessary.
The obvious exception is in Symphony 98, where it has an important 'obbligato' fully written-out part in the Coda of the Finale.

Generally I agree with a previous very perceptive poster who commented by implication that a harpsichord in Haydn is a potential liability in that it is too loud in quiet music and too soft in loud music!

[ardcarp]

NK tried to explode a myth...that Haydn was influenced by the Sturm und Drang movement. And he produced some dates to back up his case. (I'll bet some iconoclastic PhD thesis is behind it!) Anyway, he sort of conceded, with MAGNIFICENT tautology that maybe Haydn was 'influenced by the general zeitgeist of the times'.

[MickyD]

This disc of Rimsky Korsakov and Borodin from Immerseel is also well worth a listen, he gets some great new sounds from these familiar pieces:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Rimsky-Korsakov-Anima-Eterna/dp/B0009GIGE2/ref=sr_1_1?s=music&ie=UTF8&qid=1393139716&sr=1-1&keywords=anima+eterna+rimsky+korsakov

[Sir Velo]

Anyway, he sort of conceded, with MAGNIFICENT tautology that maybe Haydn was 'influenced by the general zeitgeist of the times'.

ardcarp, that's too good to remain buried here. It should be duly celebrated on the Pedants' Paradise thread forthwith!

[amateur51]

Let's be clear about this: a 'continuo' is not an instrument as such, it is a 'department' of an orchestral or a chamber composition that plays the important bass part of the music, either simply as a cello /several cellos with or without a further ( 'double') bass part an octave lower plus the ( optional) addition of a bassoon ( or two) plus the (optional) addition of a keyboard instrument ( harpsichord, organ or fortepiano) that plays not only the bass part, but also a largely improvised series of harmonies/ chords that either reinforce the harmonies that are already written into the orchestration or - less desirably - imposes those implied harmonies onto sparsely orchestrated music which - for all we know- may have been intended by the composer to 'stand alone' in its stark simplicity.

The great H.C. Robbins Landon's view, with which I totally agree, was that in all of Haydn's symphonies after no 26 ( 'Lamentatione') the harpsichord is unnecessary.
The obvious exception is in Symphony 98, where it has an important 'obbligato' fully written-out part in the Coda of the Finale.

Generally I agree with a previous very perceptive poster who commented by implication that a harpsichord in Haydn is a potential liability in that it is too loud in quiet music and too soft in loud music!

very interesting - many thanks Tony

[waldo]

Let's be clear about this: a 'continuo' is not an instrument as such, it is a 'department' of an orchestral or a chamber composition that plays the important bass part of the music, either simply as a cello /several cellos with or without a further ( 'double') bass part an octave lower plus the ( optional) addition of a bassoon ( or two) plus the (optional) addition of a keyboard instrument ( harpsichord, organ or fortepiano) that plays not only the bass part, but also a largely improvised series of harmonies/ chords that either reinforce the harmonies that are already written into the orchestration or - less desirably - imposes those implied harmonies onto sparsely orchestrated music which - for all we know- may have been intended by the composer to 'stand alone' in its stark simplicity.

The great H.C. Robbins Landon's view, with which I totally agree, was that in all of Haydn's symphonies after no 26 ( 'Lamentatione') the harpsichord is unnecessary.
The obvious exception is in Symphony 98, where it has an important 'obbligato' fully written-out part in the Coda of the Finale.

Generally I agree with a previous very perceptive poster who commented by implication that a harpsichord in Haydn is a potential liability in that it is too loud in quiet music and too soft in loud music!

You're right, of course. The issue concerns not just the harpsichord, which Haydn almost certainly didn't use or write for, but the more general use of continuo, which may or may not involve a keyboard instrument. Hogwood, among others, takes the view that Haydn didn't use ANY continuo whatsoever: not even a bassoon.

As for the "improvised" nature of continuo, that is precisely what gets my goat. If we agree with Nicholas Kenyon about the precisely characterised layers of orchestral detail, then it does seem a bit odd to chuck in an improvisation on an instrument that Haydn didn't use himself. Or write for. (Haydn DID write for continuo in other genres - there are many examples of that.) So on the one hand, we have the notes of the master composer, and then we have Pinnock (centre stage, right in front of the microphone) plinkety-plonking as and when he sees fit. It just seems a little odd.

[aeolium]

I thought the Pinnock sounded a good choice (though the one extract from Immerseel also sounded fine), but it was slightly disappointing that NK did not also indicate a modern-instrument choice for those who might prefer that(I think this ought to be done for classical-period works onwards). From the extracts played I thought Fey and Scherchen sounded the worst. I wasn't convinced by NK's comments about the Trauer - and other works composed around the same period - not being in a "Sturm und Drang' style simply because the literature in that style had not yet appeared. The minor key works especially - nos 39, 44, 45, 49, 52 - have a quite different character from the symphonies Haydn was writing a few years earlier and have an unusual restlessless. And I can't understand NK's criteria for inclusion: both the ASMF recordings (that with Marriner and that with Iona Brown conducting) are available AFAICS, as is the Orpheus Chamber Orchestra's version.

[MickyD]

I'd very much like to hear a sample of the first movement of Immerseel's 44 - I can't seem to find an extract for the moment on YouTube or on Amazon. I'd like to hear if it has the edgy, nervousness that I think is required. Can anyone help me find an extract?

[LeMartinPecheur]

I thought the Pinnock sounded a good choice (though the one extract from Immerseel also sounded fine), but it was slightly disappointing that NK did not also indicate a modern-instrument choice for those who might prefer that(I think this ought to be done for classical-period works onwards).

I've recently had brought home to me another very good reason for an automatic modern-instrument recommendation: those listeners with acute perfect pitch!

We have recently discovered that our 12-yr old daughter is blessed/ cursed with this. She's not very keen on classical music anyway but nothing gets her out of the room faster than a HIPP performance that's between the "A=440" notes

[ardcarp]

We have recently discovered that our 12-yr old daughter is blessed/ cursed with this. She's not very keen on classical music anyway

That's fascinating LeM-P. How did she develop it? Learning the violin or piano?
I've no idea what pitch Pinnock was using, but most EM groups use A415 which is exactly a semitone down. So it's not 'in the cracks' exactly. Perhaps your daughter also has a subliminal dislike of unequal temperaments, which I'm sure Pinnock does use!

I'm a bit puzzled why people upthread are being so categorical about whether there was or was not the practice of continuo playing in the early symphonic repertoire.
I dare say sometimes the 'director' did and sometimes didn't...and if he did, maybe it was a harpsichord or early piano. Things were generally done on a more pragmatic basis. (And the same applies to the addition of a flute.) Conductors waving a baton were not around as far as we know, and it was probably quite a normal thing to direct operations from the keyboard. OTOH, on other days, maybe leading from the 'first violin' position might have filled the bill.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

I'm a bit puzzled why people upthread are being so categorical about whether there was or was not the practice of continuo playing in the early symphonic repertoire.
I dare say sometimes the 'director' did and sometimes didn't...and if he did, maybe it was a harpsichord or early piano. Things were generally done on a more pragmatic basis. (And the same applies to the addition of a flute.) Conductors waving a baton were not around as far as we know, and it was probably quite a normal thing to direct operations from the keyboard. OTOH, on other days, maybe leading from the 'first violin' position might have filled the bill.

This may be true generally, ardy (the "may be" isn't intended to suggest that I doubt you, but that I myself am not sure) but in the specific case of the Haydn Symphonies there is strong evidence (as shown in the link waldo provided upthread) that no keyboard was used in these Symphonies. To add one may be conforming to a general practice, but it is almost certainly not how Haydn wrote.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

I've no idea what pitch Pinnock was using, but most EM groups use A415 which is exactly a semitone down. So it's not 'in the cracks' exactly.

Exactly a semitone down would be 415.305 Hz, which is only very slightly in the cracks.

I'm a bit puzzled why people upthread are being so categorical about whether there was or was not the practice of continuo playing in the early symphonic repertoire.

When people claim to have the moral high ground on an issue, it produces an equally extreme reaction from others. Polarisation occurs and we are drawn into two camps, each apparently determined to prove the other wrong.

[richardfinegold]

Let's be clear about this: a 'continuo' is not an instrument as such, it is a 'department' of an orchestra or a chamber ensemble that plays the important bass part of the music, either simply as a cello /several cellos with or without a further ( 'double') bass part an octave lower plus the ( optional) addition of a bassoon ( or two) plus the (optional) addition of a keyboard instrument ( harpsichord, organ or fortepiano) that plays not only the bass part, but also a largely improvised series of harmonies/ chords that either reinforce the harmonies that are already written into the orchestration or - less desirably - imposes those implied harmonies onto sparsely orchestrated music which - for all we know- may have been intended by the composer to 'stand alone' in its stark simplicity.

The great H.C. Robbins Landon's view, with which I totally agree, was that in all of Haydn's symphonies after no 26 ( 'Lamentatione') the harpsichord is unnecessary.
The obvious exception is in Symphony 98, where it has an important 'obbligato' fully written-out part in the Coda of the Finale.

Generally I agree with a previous very perceptive poster who commented by implication that a harpsichord in Haydn is a potential liability in that it is too loud in quiet music and too soft in loud music!

Thank you for adding a great deal of clarity to this discussion.

[waldo]

When people claim to have the moral high ground on an issue, it produces an equally extreme reaction from others. Polarisation occurs and we are drawn into two camps, each apparently determined to prove the other wrong.

I'm afraid I must be one of the high-grounders. I started this thread attacking the sanctimonious dogmatism of the "HIP Brigade", but on this particular matter I find myself becoming increasingly puritanical. It seems to me that we aren't merely talking about another difference of performance practice, but about something truly fundamental: the addition of an alien instrument where none was intended. The evidence strongly suggests that Haydn did not use, or write for, a harpsichord. The only reason we often hear them performed that way was because early scholars had formed a false picture of the performance practice in this particular historical period. They said there ought to be a harpsichord, so along came the harpsichords. But that, to repeat, was based on a series of factual assumptions which have now been shown to be false.

I am not saying people can't have harpsichords if they really want them, but I do think that NK ought to have said a little more about this matter and ought to have taken it into account when making his final selection. He wouldn't have accepted a version which omitted bars, or which involved a line of music in the violas which Haydn hadn't written, or one which didn't obey the basic tempo, or dynamic, markings. In which case, why is it alright to have an unscored instrument play improvised music when we know Haydn didn't ask for it?

[MickyD]

I agree, waldo. I think I read somewhere in the James Webster notes that amongst the records of the instruments kept in the orchestra at Esterhazy, a harpsichord didn't even figure in the list. That's not to say that there wasn't one somewhere, I guess, but likely not part of the orchestra.