This is extremely good✅; a very fine symphony✅ beautifully played✅ and interpreted✅ by a very fine conductor✅ who really understands the composer✅. Excellent tempi across all four movements✅. I was really pleased to see the first and second violins split left and right either side of the conductor✅; this is what Haydn - Mozart and Beethoven too - expected and enhances the aural effect considerably✅. This symphony does not need a harpsichord continuo✅, so another plus, as is the proper observation of the da capo (repeat) markings✅. I enjoyed this very much✅. In total ✅ x12. Thank you.
What do you think about the trio? It sounds like an accompaniment without a tune and I have seen suggestions that a harpsichordist or the leader should improvise a melody.
@@edwardhoward5525 The Trio section of the Minuet movement of Symphony 29 is a musical enigma to which there is no known correct answer, nor ever will be. That does not however prevent endless speculation and numerous different theories being put forward, and that means of course that if there is one correct explanation, then all others must be incorrect. I will outline my views on the various theories current today with a grading out of 5 as to likelihood: 1/5 = Very unlikely, 5/5 = Very likely. i) Haydn wrote it deliberately as an accompaniment without a tune, and it is for once a genuine example of witty playfulness by the composer *5/5.* It is worth comparing the Trio of Symphony 46 and that of the String Quartet Opus 71 No 2 where something similar is going on. ii) Haydn played an extempore harpsichord melody on top of the accompaniment *1/5.* In my view, James Webster in his study ‘On the Absence of Keyboard Continuo in Haydn’s Symphonies’ has established beyond doubt that Haydn played the violin during performances of his symphonies at Eszterhaza; this is an essential and very interesting read and discusses all the evidence and reasons why a harpsichord continuo was not used at Eszterhaza. Ergo, it cannot be the solution to the riddle. iii) If not the harpsichord, perhaps another solo instrument *2/5.* My first though was Luigi Tomasini as lead violin, but on reflection I think not; Tomasini was a minor composer in his own right - he wrote some baryton trios as did Haydn for Prince Nicholas to play - so would have been more than capable of providing an extempore or pre-prepared tune, but him doing so would have unbalanced the tiny string section of the regular 14 piece orchestra at the time (3 3 1 1 1 plus 2 oboes, 2 horns, 1 bassoon). If there was a solo instrument supposed to supply a melody, I think it most likely it would have been the oboe, or less likely, perhaps the bassoon. iv) The music does not need a melody *5/5.* The slightly odd harmonies ((Balkan ?) and basic rhythm are in terms of what is a very melodic, typically E major-type symphony, a deliberate contrast. These exotic excursions in Haydn are well-known and appear throughout his career - parts of the operas Lo speziale and L’incontro improvviso, slow movement of Symphony 103, the finales of the D major piano concerto Hob. XVIII:2 and piano trio Hob. XV:25, Minuet of the string quartet Opus 20 No 4, to name just a few of the most obvious ones. As such, this slightly odd -sounding Trio is really not out of the ordinary, but typical of the originality of the composer. These are personal views, I might be as right or wrong as anyone else, but they are considered, even if written off the top of my head in response to your interesting question; in short, it’s i) and iv), and I do not believe anyone was supposed to improvise a melody.
Delightful performance! One of my favorite Haydn pre Sturm und Drang symphonies. The first movement has real depth of expression, a sense of expansiveness. Indeed all the movements abound with wit and humor and are of high quality. My only wish: this symphony really needs the continuo. It provides more force in the sudden fortissimos in the second movement and makes the effect more startling. In this movement, it's almost like an 18th Century beauty out on her afternoon constitutional in the gardens, and a gentleman friend sneaks from behind and give her a sudden pinch in her derriere! Temporary flustered, she gathers herself and marches on. The Menuetto is spritely, with some unexpected twists; and the noted trio is absent its solo theme, perhaps improvised by one of the instruments, even the continuo? The last movement is the weakest, but still bustle and energy enough to provide a satisfying conclusion. Again, one my faves among the early Haydn symphonies. And again, a wonderful performance.
This is a very fine performance of this splendid E major symphony, of which the autograph score (in Budapest) is dated 1765; assignment of the G minor Symphony No. 39 to this year by Sonja Gerlach (Haydn-Studien VII, 1996) positions these two symphonies as close chronological companions. The remarkable trio section is an example of what Mark Ferraguto has described as Haydn's 'minimalist' trios of the 1760s and 1770s (Studia Musicologica 51, 2010). The presumed influence of this symphony is evident in the last movement of the C minor Symphony c2 by Johann Baptist Vanhal, in which similar fast rising scales occur late in the expositions and recapitulations of both works. Altogether, the tightly constructed and 'driven' fourth movement of No. 29 is an impressive finale to this outstanding work.
Just to clarify - the presumed influence on the last movement of the Vanhal symphony is from the corresponding movement of Haydn 29. This may not have been entirely clear from my previous comment.
Una gradevole sinfonia, suonata con piglio ed eleganza. Suzuki che conosco da anni, ottimo violoncellista, è un artista! Bene.
Beautiful sound, beautiful interpretation, and needless to say - beautiful symphony
This is extremely good✅; a very fine symphony✅ beautifully played✅ and interpreted✅ by a very fine conductor✅ who really understands the composer✅.
Excellent tempi across all four movements✅.
I was really pleased to see the first and second violins split left and right either side of the conductor✅; this is what Haydn - Mozart and Beethoven too - expected and enhances the aural effect considerably✅.
This symphony does not need a harpsichord continuo✅, so another plus, as is the proper observation of the da capo (repeat) markings✅.
I enjoyed this very much✅.
In total ✅ x12.
Thank you.
What do you think about the trio? It sounds like an accompaniment without a tune and I have seen suggestions that a harpsichordist or the leader should improvise a melody.
@@edwardhoward5525
The Trio section of the Minuet movement of Symphony 29 is a musical enigma to which there is no known correct answer, nor ever will be.
That does not however prevent endless speculation and numerous different theories being put forward, and that means of course that if there is one correct explanation, then all others must be incorrect.
I will outline my views on the various theories current today with a grading out of 5 as to likelihood:
1/5 = Very unlikely,
5/5 = Very likely.
i) Haydn wrote it deliberately as an accompaniment without a tune, and it is for once a genuine example of witty playfulness by the composer *5/5.*
It is worth comparing the Trio of Symphony 46 and that of the String Quartet Opus 71 No 2 where something similar is going on.
ii) Haydn played an extempore harpsichord melody on top of the accompaniment *1/5.*
In my view, James Webster in his study ‘On the Absence of Keyboard Continuo in Haydn’s Symphonies’ has established beyond doubt that Haydn played the violin during performances of his symphonies at Eszterhaza; this is an essential and very interesting read and discusses all the evidence and reasons why a harpsichord continuo was not used at Eszterhaza.
Ergo, it cannot be the solution to the riddle.
iii) If not the harpsichord, perhaps another solo instrument *2/5.*
My first though was Luigi Tomasini as lead violin, but on reflection I think not; Tomasini was a minor composer in his own right - he wrote some baryton trios as did Haydn for Prince Nicholas to play - so would have been more than capable of providing an extempore or pre-prepared tune, but him doing so would have unbalanced the tiny string section of the regular 14 piece orchestra at the time (3 3 1 1 1 plus 2 oboes, 2 horns, 1 bassoon).
If there was a solo instrument supposed to supply a melody, I think it most likely it would have been the oboe, or less likely, perhaps the bassoon.
iv) The music does not need a melody *5/5.*
The slightly odd harmonies ((Balkan ?) and basic rhythm are in terms of what is a very melodic, typically E major-type symphony, a deliberate contrast.
These exotic excursions in Haydn are well-known and appear throughout his career - parts of the operas Lo speziale and L’incontro improvviso, slow movement of Symphony 103, the finales of the D major piano concerto Hob. XVIII:2 and piano trio Hob. XV:25, Minuet of the string quartet Opus 20 No 4, to name just a few of the most obvious ones.
As such, this slightly odd -sounding Trio is really not out of the ordinary, but typical of the originality of the composer.
These are personal views, I might be as right or wrong as anyone else, but they are considered, even if written off the top of my head in response to your interesting question; in short, it’s i) and iv), and I do not believe anyone was supposed to improvise a melody.
Delightful performance! One of my favorite Haydn pre Sturm und Drang symphonies. The first movement has real depth of expression, a sense of expansiveness. Indeed all the movements abound with wit and humor and are of high quality. My only wish: this symphony really needs the continuo. It provides more force in the sudden fortissimos in the second movement and makes the effect more startling. In this movement, it's almost like an 18th Century beauty out on her afternoon constitutional in the gardens, and a gentleman friend sneaks from behind and give her a sudden pinch in her derriere! Temporary flustered, she gathers herself and marches on. The Menuetto is spritely, with some unexpected twists; and the noted trio is absent its solo theme, perhaps improvised by one of the instruments, even the continuo? The last movement is the weakest, but still bustle and energy enough to provide a satisfying conclusion. Again, one my faves among the early Haydn symphonies. And again, a wonderful performance.
This is a very fine performance of this splendid E major symphony, of which the autograph score (in Budapest) is dated 1765; assignment of the G minor Symphony No. 39 to this year by Sonja Gerlach (Haydn-Studien VII, 1996) positions these two symphonies as close chronological companions. The remarkable trio section is an example of what Mark Ferraguto has described as Haydn's 'minimalist' trios of the 1760s and 1770s (Studia Musicologica 51, 2010). The presumed influence of this symphony is evident in the last movement of the C minor Symphony c2 by Johann Baptist Vanhal, in which similar fast rising scales occur late in the expositions and recapitulations of both works. Altogether, the tightly constructed and 'driven' fourth movement of No. 29 is an impressive finale to this outstanding work.
Just to clarify - the presumed influence on the last movement of the Vanhal symphony is from the corresponding movement of Haydn 29. This may not have been entirely clear from my previous comment.
Fix the video title: haydN, rather than haydM. Otherwise, bravo! These earlier symphonies deserve more attention.
Thanks! Didn’t notice it.
Love the " Godzilla " massive 5 string double bass.
Un Haydn veramente piacevole.
European culture is in good hands in Asia.
Jeez! Let the sound end before clapping...
A little vibrato won't hurt.
Vibrato was a technique for soloists
Vibrato definitely hurts. Nobody should play Haydn with vibrato in a group.