ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 16 ก.พ. 2020
- Joseph Haydn (1732-1809): Symphony No. 43 in E-flat major, Hob. I:43 (1770/71)
Il Giardino Armonico | Giovanni Antonini, Conductor
Support Haydn2032 on Patreon.com/haydn2032
A big Thank You to our Patreon Florian Suter who generously supported this video!
In the lead-up to the 300th anniversary of Joseph Haydn's birth in 2032, the Joseph Haydn Foundation in Basel is organising, producing and financing the performance and recording of all 107 of the composer's symphonies by Il Giardino Armonico and Basel Chamber Orchestra under the artistic direction of Giovanni Antonini, one of the most highly-respected specialists in baroque, early classical and classical music, with its project Haydn2032.
Tags: Joseph Haydn, Haydn2032, Symphony No. 43, Il Giardino Armonico, Giovanni Antonini - เพลง
The best part about this recording is the accuracy - using authentic instruments in an historically informed performance. The speed is brilliant.
One of top three Haydn symphonies of all time! the second movement is utterly unworldly
Haydn’s “Mercury” has long been a favorite of mine, and this performance of it is positively addictive. Bravo!
Este concierto me llegó al alma. Gracias
Honestly, it is hard to imagine what classical music would have been without Joseph Haydn's utterly brilliant, surreal, celestial, and magnificent compositions. Without a doubt, Haydn was an intellectual giant in the field of classical music.
I had the good fortune to delve into this work with a young theory student. We used this performance for our entry into this amazing music. We're both fascinated with the attention, focus and sheer love of the music shown by this group (she's a wonderful and sensitive violin and viola player). Along with the tonal, rhythmic, and formal aspects of the music, we were able to investigate the amazing detail of the orchestration. I'm not sure if many other performances could have made that possible.
Como ferviente admiradora de Il Giardino y el Maestro Antonini desde sus comienzos, me entusiasma este proyecto. Muchas gracias!
The second movement is a treasure.
Played with precision and feeling. *Perfection* .
Il progetto Haydn 2032 è stato un grande merito del maestro Antonini. Grazie
One of Haydn's best, and a great performance. The intensity on the faces of the performers!
A golden example of the delights of Viennese classicism.
What a joy to have discovered this in my subscription inbox ... a new performance of the outstanding Haydn2032 project! Performed with fire, vigor and dedication in service of one of the greatest composers of all: Haydn. A thousand bravos to Maestro Antonini and the orchestra is razor sharp. I hope to visit and listen to a live performance well before 2032!
chaque nouvelle ecoute de ces synphonies est un ravissement . Le jeu de Giovani et de son orchestre sont d'un ciselé magnifique.
何という活気、爽やかさ、緻密さ。
An overwhelming performance of a magnificent symphony.
Since Robbins Landon first described this work as a ‘...chamber symphony par excellence’, it is a useful way in which understand the composer’s intentions when the work is compared for example, to the powerful ‘sturm und drang’ intensity of Symphony 44 or the more ceremonial Symphony 48, both written around the same time.
The variety to be found in the symphonies, even those written very close to each other, is as astounding as it is remarkable.
This symphony of c.1770/71 was composed during an extraordinary period of about two or three years when Haydn produced not only symphonies of the standard of 42, 44, 45, 46, 47, and 48, but the string quartets Opus 20, and the piano sonata in c minor HobXVI: 20, amongst other works.
It should be stated clearly here that the sustained and inspirational quality of Haydn’s compositions at this time, is one of the most astonishing of all phenomena in the history of western classical music.
Charles Rosen in his essential text on music of the period ‘The Classic Style’ (1971) wrote that Haydn was at this time, writing music ‘...on a level that no other composer of Haydn’s time could equal or even approach’.
This symphony, and its performance here by Antonini and Il Giardino Armonico, illustrate exactly why Rosen’s comment has never been seriously challenged.
Antonini here is as a man possessed and his commitment and passion transmits itself to the orchestra and thus to the listener; in short, this performance is special.
I cannot stress sufficiently the supreme high quality of the music, it is music for the connoisseur.
For myself, some highlights of the symphony and its performance here, which has yet again in this series become a top recommendation, would include:
- the exquisite and intricate detail;
- the highest degree of compositional skill and facility;
- the originality and invention - almost every single eighteenth century commonplace figure is distorted or diverted away from, and out of its expected form or shape, sequence or pattern as Haydn defies every expectation in highly imaginative and interesting ways.
- note the 5 bar phrases and silences in the finale too;
- the delicate highly skilled orchestration and textures;
- the unpredictable shape of the melody and harmonic and tonal progressions (beginning of the first movement development for example);
- the intensive development of material in both exposition and recapitulation as well as in the expected development section proper;
- an interesting example of a ‘false recapitulation’;
- a fascinating monothematic first movement based on an unusually soft and lyrical first theme, almost more reminiscent of a composer like Vanhal (Robbins Landon);
- the management of the da capo (repeat) sections by Antonini was inspired;
- the adagio succeeded in being both slow but maintaining a degree of forward momentum - a movement of quintessential Haydnesque beauty, so totally different from the more sensuous, shapely cantabile beauty of Mozart;
- the substantial 41 bar coda in the finale with an interesting further development of previous ideas;
- some scholars have argued that Haydn ‘through composed’ some of his works; are the lyrical aspect of the themes of the first and fourth movements related? Is there a link between a three note ‘knocking’ figure in the first three movements?
I am going to raise one slightly dissenting note relating to the Menuetto movement, of which I would be interested to know the views of others.
Antonini in this series has routinely conducted these movements at a measured one in a bar; was this the symphony to to actually take it at three in a bar?
This is the first time in this series that I have felt the Minuet slightly rushed; I am not convinced that Haydn expected every Minuet to be taken at the same pace and the correct speed is often to be determined by the tempo of the adjacent movements and the overall balance of the symphony.
A final slightly poignant note: Robbins Landon notes that this symphony was performed in 1782 at the French court at Versailles for Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette - perhaps a nostalgic reminder of home for a doomed Queen.
The short review: an electrifying, compelling and overwhelmingly powerful and emotional artistic experience.
Once again, so many thanks to everyone involved in this magnificent and revelatory series that is bringing to life the music with the same impact it must have had when it was first heard, and indeed, a greater impact than I have heard during my lifetime.
Thank you for your detailed and pertinent remarks. Regarding the minuet: of course we'll never know what tempo (range) Haydn had in mind for his minuets. The only (admittedly very thin) testimony we have is a report from the Swedish composer Georg Johann Berwald who visited Haydn in Vienna in 1799. The conversation fell on Haydn's minuets and Berwald hummed one, whereupon Haydn said: "That's much to quick, because the double-basses would not be able to play at such a tempo" (H.C. Robbins Landon, "Chronicle and Works", Vol. 2, p. 300, and Vol. 4, p. 456). The question is, however, to what extend this is a generally valid criterion. Today every double-bass player who auditions for an orchestra position has to play the trio of Beethoven's 5th symphony as a matter of course (and in Beethoven's tempo). Would Haydn have had second thoughts about the tempo of his minuets if he had had the opportunity to hire a "modern" double-bass player? We will ask him when we see him...
An interesting reference regarding the tempo of minuets is the very erudite conductor Max Rudolf (1902-1995), who goes to quite some length about this issue ("Max Rudolf, A Musical Life - Writings and Letters", edited by Michael Stern, Pendragon Press, 2001, p. 411-416). His conclusion is that 54-60 bars per minute fits well in most cases, and I agree. To my taste most of Antonini's minuets are too fast, some of them very much so (but how does one get to one's "taste"? Admittedly a very controversial issue...). A test with the metronome yields the following results (grouped by ranges; symphonies at the left end of the line closer to the lower end of the range, those at the right end of the line closer to the high end of the range):
52-54 bars per minute: symphonies 3, 49, 60
56-58 bars per minute: symphonies 9, 64, 39, 30, 67
60 bars per minute: symphonies 22, 26, 42, 46, 65, 80
63 bars per minute: symphonies 43, 63, 70, 79, 81
66 bars per minute: symphonies 4, 47
72 bars per minute: symphony 28
This, however, admittedly is a rather crude approach, as other criteria like harmonic rhythm and the proportion of short notes also go into the mix with regard to finding the "right" tempo. However, the survey above shows that 60-63 bars per minute seems to be something like Antonini's "standard tempo" for Haydn's minuets (11 out of 22 cases), and the minuet of symphony 43 fits exactly within this range. So I didn't feel this minuet as being particularly rushed, anyway not more so than some of the others. However, IMnotsoHO the minuet of symphony 47 is ridiculously fast (66 bars per minute). This tempo is all the more regrettable because the "trick" of this movement is that the second part of both the minuet and the trio is the retrograde of the first part ("Minuet e Trio al roverso"). In this tempo the uninformed listener has no chance of getting aware, following, let alone appreciating, what is happening. A similar case is the minuet of symphony 28 (72 bars per minute!): I will come back to this case once n°28 will be available on TH-cam (the CD with symphonies 28, 43 and 63 has been issued 6 weeks ago).
What disturbs me in more general terms about Antonini's performance of the minuets is that he almost never plays the repeats of both parts of the minuet after the trio, but he should: all the more so as this series claims to be "the first complete recording of all Haydn's symphonies on period instruments which takes into account the musicological results of the last 30 years". One of those results is the overwhelming evidence that if a composer of the Classical period did NOT want the repeats of the minuet after the trio to be played, he had to write it down explicitly. Consequently, in his string quartets K. 387 and K. 575 Mozart writes at the end of the trio: "Menuetto da capo, ma senza repliche" [without repeats]. Another case is the second minuet in Mozart's string trio K. 563 ("Divertimento") in which he writes at the end of the trio: "Menuetto da capo senza replica"; and he writes the same in the clarinet quintet K. 581 (which also has two minuets) at the end of BOTH trios. Interestingly, the only two cases in which Antonini does play the repeats of both parts of the minuet after the trio are symphonies 47 and 28 (i.e .those in which he takes a break-neck tempo), presumably because otherwise those movements would be too short within the balance of the entire work: even with all the repeats the minuet of n°47 lasts only 2 minutes at this tempo, without them it would last 1'40". And yet, Antonini's decision is truly astonishing, as in H.C. Robbins Landon's edition of Haydn's symphonies n°47 is the only one in which Haydn explicitly does NOT require the repeats of the minuet after the trio.
Robert Spruijtenburg
Once again, thank you for your fascinating comments which will be of interest in particular to a number of people subscribed to the Haydn 2032 project, but also to any casual readers simply looking for a performance of this work.
Like yourself, I checked out Robbins Landon’s thoughts on this symphony beforehand and had Haydn’s words related by Berwald regarding the speed of Minuets in my mind whilst listening to that movement.
To this I would perhaps add the comments of Sigismund Neukomm, a pupil, associate and friend of Haydn during the last ten years of his life who is very critical about the speed at which works were being played in Vienna at the start of the nineteenth century - this is obviously not a new issue!
Neukomm’s views are reported by HCRL in Volume IV (The Years of The Creation) of the Chronicle and Works - I do not have my copy to hand but I think it is p125 from memory.
Without wishing to be pedantic, I do think that there is a subtle difference between ‘being rushed’ and ‘too fast’; my initial feeling was that Antonini was the former, rather than the latter.
Since reading your comments, I have listened to Pinnock, Solomons and Hogwood - and some others - and then to Antonini again; I think I agree with you that generally the Minuets are fast, but that on second - and third - listening, it seemed slightly less rushed.
Antonini here, as you point out, is little different from other Minuets in the series and the information you posted on this matter was read with interest, and much appreciated.
I think it was the specific shape of this Minuet in particular that caused my concern that its treatment should not be quite the same as some others in the series.
The issue of conducting one-in-a-bar has I feel has given these movements a positive forward momentum in most cases.
However, regardless of any conductor, historical view or musicologists’ thoughts, I do feel that in this case, even a casual glance at the score clearly implies a three in a bar pulse; I think this is from where my feeling of the movement being rushed originated.
For myself, the ‘correct’ speed will be determined by the relationship of the Minuet to the rest of the work, in particular the ‘slow’ movement.
In Haydn’s earlier symphonies, the tempo markings are relatively casual as Haydn was aware that he could set his own speed.
In London, the markings are more interesting (those written for Paris are less varied, four of the six being marked Allegretto):
Symphony 93 has a Largo cantabile second movement, followed by an Allegro Minuet, then a Presto ma non troppo finale;
94 has Andante - Allegro molto - Allegro di molto;
100 has Allegretto - Moderato - Presto.
These examples would clearly imply that Haydn expected the movements to be played at quite distinct speeds dependent on the work as a whole.
I think it also certain, that even the fastest of all the Minuet movements - the Allegro molto* in the Surprise symphony, was conceived as a Minuet, not a Scherzo and that Haydn did not really write a genuine one-in-a-bar scherzo until the string quartets Opus 76 following his return to Vienna from his second London visit in August 1795.
These first genuine Haydn scherzi could only have been prompted by his hearing Beethoven’s Opus 1 and Opus 2. Minuets played as Scherzi sound no better than Scherzi played as Minuets.
One or two other commentators have highlighted the issue of the best speed for a Minuet movement and it is a difficult subject on which most people will make a simple personal preference and subjective judgement; those that have commented on this series on this matter tend to feel that these movements are too fast. Debate as to the appropriate tempi of these movements is likely to continue.
I concur entirely with your comments about the repeats; I would only add that for myself, a failure to observe the da capo markings as written, unbalances both an individual movement and usually the work as a whole.
I remain convinced that when Mozart and Haydn - and later Beethoven - wrote the da capo instructions, that it would have been inconceivable to any of them that those instructions would be treated as optional suggestions in a future age; the examples you have listed, neatly show that when these composers did not require the repeats to be played, they made it explicitly clear.
Once again, many thanks for your thoughtful comments and troubling to share your knowledge and expertise; visitors to this site are extremely fortunate to find such erudite and well written comments so kindly shared.
* The Minuet of the much earlier Symphony 28 (1765) is also marked Allegro molto, but I am am not convinced that the same tempo indication means that it should be taken at exactly the same speed as that of the Allegro molto of Symphony 94 (1791).
@@elaineblackhurst1509 Thank you for your extensive response. This is an interesting discussion!
Regarding the issue of "one-in-a-bar" versus "three-in-a-bar" minuets one has to take into account that there where in the Classical period two types of minuet: the "regular" minuet, mostly marked "Allegretto" (if at all, because it was so "regular"), and the "slow" minuet, which Mozart called "Italian". After having encountered the slow minuet for the first time in Bologna, the 14 year old Mozart expressed his surprise in a letter that it had "so many notes" and, therefore, required a slower tempo. The slower type is often marked "Tempo di menuetto". The "Allegretto" type minuets "ought to be felt in 'one'", whereas the slower type has three pulses. I refer here to Max Rudolf's "Grammar of Conducting" (3rd edition, Schirmer, 1995, p. 46, 389, 392). Now, this is not merely an "opinion" (Max Rudolf himself loved to quote Webster's Dictionary: '"opinion' is a judgment not necessarily based on knowledge"). In this sense Rudolf's statements never were just his "opinion", but founded on deep knowledge. It's truly astounding, by the way, how much research he was able to do before the age of the internet, and he never stopped studying and reading till the very end of his life (93!). Jean-Pierre Marty, in his "The Tempo Indications of Mozart", Yale University Press, 1988, p. 192-196, also distinguishes these two types of minuets. In Haydn's and Mozart's music the majority of the minuets are of the "Allegretto" type. In their symphonies no instance of the "slow" type occurs to me. Some of Haydn's piano sonatas, however, have a "Tempo di minuet" as a finale: Hob. XVI:22, Hob. XVI:25, Hob. XVI:29, Hob. XVI:33, Hob. XVI:47bis, Hob XVI:49; Hob. XVI:1, Hob. XVI:2 have a slow minuet as a finale too, without the designation "Tempo di minuet". Several of Haydn's piano trios also have a slow minuet as a finale: Hob. XV:6, Hob. XV:8, Hob. XV:11, Hob. XV:17, Hob. XV:37 and Hob. XV:26 (1795!). Some others have an internal slow minuet. With Mozart the slow type is to be found mainly in his early works, but two examples are the "Tempo di menuetto" in the 3rd movement of his violin concerto K. 219 and the 3rd movement of his piano trio K. 254, also marked "Tempo di menuetto". All these slow minuets are completely different in character compared to the "Allegretto" type minuets.
By the way, do you know Harnoncourt's treatment of the minuets of Haydn's symphonies 68 and 104? It's infuriating! Sometimes he must have been completely out of his right mind!
That's an interesting remark, that "the ‘correct’ speed of the minuet will be determined by the relationship of the Minuet to the rest of the work, in particular the ‘slow’ movement". I had never thought of that, but I'm sure you are right. But the question of balance goes even further, i.e. it affects even the relative positions of the slow movement and the minuet: in quite a number of string quartets of Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven the minuet or scherzo is in 2nd position and the slow movement in 3rd position: in all of Haydn's opus 9 and opus 17 quartets, in three of the opus 20 quartets, four of the opus 33 quartets, in opus 64 n°1 and n°4 (as late as 1790), and even in his last completed quartet, opus 77 n°2 (1799) - often, but not always, these works have a 1st movement marked "Moderato"; in Mozart's quartets K. 387, K. 458, K. 464 and K. 499 the minuet is in 2nd position too. Also in Haydn's symphonies (chronologically) 37, 32, 15, "B", 44 and 68, but in none of Mozart's symphonies. And in Beethoven's string quartets opus 18 n°5, 59 n°1, 132 and 135, and of course in his 9th symphony, and also in Debussy's and Ravel's string quartets. Mahler, in his 6th symphony, has never resolved the question about the relative position of the 2nd and 3rd movement.
Regarding repeats a special issue are the slow movements in binary form, for which Haydn and Mozart require the repeat of BOTH parts. The average modern listener will not have the patience with such movements as audiences of the past obviously did. Just a few examples taken from Hogwood's recordings of Haydn's symphonies: the slow movement (with both repeats) of symphony 45 ("Farewell") lasts 13 minutes, the one of symphony 48 ("Marie-Thérèse") lasts 12'07", the one of n°56 14'17", the one of n°68 14 minutes, and the one of n°54, the slowest and longest of all, 17'51"!! The same with the binary slow movements of Mozart's symphonies: in Gardiner's recording (with both repeats) the slow movement of the "Linz" symphony lasts 14'19", the one of the g-Minor symphony K. 550 lasts 13'50" (these are the two longest among the five last symphonies). And who ever plays the slow movement of Mozart's string quartets K. 428 and K. 590 with both repeats? Their duration would be 12-13 minutes and more than 10 minutes, respectively.
In this series of Haydn symphonies Antonini complies to the taste of modern audiences and does NOT play the 2nd repeat in the binary slow movements of symphonies 3, 22, 28, 39, 42, 43, 49, 60, 65 and 80 (which all have four movements), but only in symphonies 1, 9, 12, 19, 26, 30 (all with three movements) and 46 (the 2nd movement of n°4, also in three movements, is through-composed, i.e. there are no repeat signs at all). If there would not be the case of symphony 46 (4 movements), one could conclude that Antononi chooses to play the 2nd repeat in binary slow movements only in symphonies with three movements. I don't know why n°46 is the exception (once more: we will ask him when we see him...).
@@robertspruijtenburg3625 Thank you Both profusely! Along with 2032, these essays help me realize that others recognize how Haydn is very much neglected, as often he overwhelms me with lyrical flourishings.
@@robertspruijtenburg3625 I ask both respectfully whether an exact performance of any of the Galants, as existing in the composer's thoughts, can be realized? I am writing a short story, futuristic, stating that performance is grounded in conductor/performer experience. In turn, I root this in de gustibus non est disputandum. You, RS, acknowledge 'taste', therefore I am comfortable with my performance 'heuristic' being relevant to discussion .However, the issue, e.g. 'what did Beethoven hear, when he heard it?' et alia, is critical to practice, particularly when habituating new generations of audience /performers...as always, my sincerest thanks!
What a superb symphony, like all his other symphonies!
Ordinary is extraordinary here
It's exciting not because of the period instruments but that they play as though it were the period. To some Haydn wrote like a dictionary and to others high fantasy. Bravo H2032!
I've watched this so many times
Uma apresentação maravilhosa! 👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾
Greetings from 2032 from Egypt 🇪🇬
Just amazing. Thank you so much!
Absolutely splendid interpretation of one of my favorite symphonies. Thank you
Avanzando hacia la conmemoración de los 300 años del nacimiento del genio austriaco, con Il Giardino Armonico . Maravilla !!
Haydn, the most neglected titan of music. Fantastic performance and undertaking.10 more years of recording.
Yes!!! Haydn: a titan... But neglected...
shnimmuc
I suspect that the degree of ‘neglect’ mentioned occasionally by commentators varies markedly depending on the writer’s location around the world.
This project itself, along with my own experiences across Europe would suggest that Haydn is not ‘...the most neglected’ across this continent, and that his music in almost all genres is performed reasonably regularly.
There is of course a particular problem of Haydn’s own making regarding this so-called neglect; as the composer of 107 symphonies - of which the very early Symphony ‘A’ (Hob. I:107 of 1759) is the only one I would not recommend - there are simply so many to choose from that it is inevitable that scores of them will only be heard live very occasionally.
(A similar problem affects Mozart where certainly eight - possibly ten* - simply overwhelm the remainder, though the eight (ten) are more obviously greater than the remainder, whereas with Haydn, there is - generally speaking - more of interest in the less well-known symphonies).
I do however think that outside a small but growing number of admirers, Haydn is still one of the most misunderstood of the great composers, and one where only a small percentage of his enormous output can be truthfully said to be well known.
* 25, (28, 29), 31, 35, 36, 38, 39, 40, 41.
@@elaineblackhurst1509 Believe me of not, the awful movie Amadeus did damage to many composers. particularly Haydn, whose name is never mentioned in the insipid film.
I will also mention that here in the states. there is evidence of Mozart fatigue among veteran music lovers. Most of my friends rarely CHOOSE to listen to Mozart because of the saturated programming of his music on the radio and concerts.
shnimmuc
We could write a very long list of grumbles about Amadeus, not least its misrepresentation of just about every composer and historical character who has a part in the play or the film.
In that respect, Haydn, and his brother Michael as well, are perhaps well out of it...but I get your point!
That said, Amadeus has added some much needed sparkle, glitter and glamour to the ‘classical music’ considered dull by so many.
One of my main concerns about the programming of Mozart’s music - everywhere - is that it is very heavily focused on a relatively small percentage of his output, though I accept that this is true to some degree of most composers. Beethoven symphony programming for example is heavily biased towards Symphonies 3, 5, 6, 7, and 9; the other four are actually under-played.
In Mozart’s case, there are virtually no operas performed before Idomeneo (1781) and that fine work is performed only very occasionally compared to the later works.
There is an absolute international saturation of works like Le Nozze di Figaro, Don Giovanni and Die Zauberflote; only 8 (perhaps 10) of the 41 symphonies are played with any regularity - 25, (28, 29), 31, 35, 36, 38, 39, 40, and 41; and similarly a restricted number of the piano concerti and almost every other genre - it’s easy to make your own lists.
Haydn is actually considerably better represented by performances of a wider range of his works from his much longer career - symphonies, quartets, sonatas, masses et cetera.
Whilst this lack of imagination concerning Mozart is to a degree understandable given the quality of his greatest works - almost entirely post-dating his move to Vienna - there is much of worthwhile interest elsewhere too, and of course amongst the works of other contemporary ‘neglected’ and/or ‘forgotten’ composers.
I do believe that the mature opera composer JC Bach’s Lucio Silla written for Mannheim in 1774 is a better work than the sixteen year old Mozart’s Lucio Silla written for Milan in 1772; JC had a better orchestra, a better balance of vocal parts, and rather more experience.
The chances of hearing Mozart’s version are slim, JC’s version unfortunately, are considerably less.
And, I do think that Figaro might occasionally be successfully replaced by Cimarosa’s Il Matrimonio Segreto, or Paisiello’s Nina, or Il Barbiere di Siviglia, or something by Soler, et al, et cetera, to everyone’s advantage...including Mozarts.
That said, I do understand the financial perils of any opera house dropping Mozart’s Figaro for Piccini’s La Buona Figliola!
The main benefit of exploring beyond the most popular works and composers, is that it puts Mozart - and Haydn - into a proper musical context and improves everyone’s enjoyment and understanding of music from this period.
It’s an issue in which I know you are interested, and is well worth discussing and airing for wider consideration.
@@elaineblackhurst1509 I agree with you completely.
On another subject,
I think the composer represented by the smallest percent of his output is undoubtedly Handel. Having written over 40 operas and 30 oratorios with only a few regularly performed is a travesty. In a new article, the San Fransisco Opera named over 100 cantatas that there is no known performance of in modern times.
Fantastic.
아~ 좋구나
One of my favorite symphonies! Thanks for a great performance.
Music from Heaven!
Such a delight. Thank you for sharing.
清涼感抜群のハイドンです。これから何かが始まるような第1楽章が好きです。
Haydn was a composer who never did anything according to music traditionalism!
The 2032 project is notable because it is well played and celebrates a true genius in classical composition. Giovanni Antonini is a true gem and his performances cannot be missed. I am thrilled to hear that more performances will appear within the next twelve years.
BRAVO BRAVO
Top prestige !!! Ne cherchez pas les meilleurs sont là. Regards from Krakow🤩
Maravillosa interpretación
Marvellous!
No surprises here. An amazing historical performance. "The Mercury"
I'm very sorry that I have to object, but as far as I know there is no evidence whatsoever for symphony n°43 having its origins in incidental music - I just checked with H.C. Robbins Landon's "Haydn - Chronicle and Works". However, symphonies n°28 and n°63 which were on the same program, do have connections with the theatre. They will surely appear on TH-cam soon too.
No surprises? For me, when I discovered Haydn's symphonies as a youth in the 1960-ies, every "new" symphony was a complete surprise because it was so totally different from the ones I already knew. For instance, chronologically, direct "neighbors" of n°43 are n°44 ("Mourning"), n°52 and n°42: they all coudn't be more different from one another.
Thanks.
Super !!! *:D*
Una delle mie sinfonie preferite di Haydn , eseguita nel periodo fiorente degli Esterhazy. Esecuzione , direi perfetta al punto tale che se la sentiva di persona Joseph Haydn si sarebbe congratulato col direttore e con tutti i componenti dell'orchestra!
Wow!
Jesus wept what music!!!!
Beautiful! I agree with the commentary by @elaineblackhurst1509. The problem is the sheer volume of Haydn's work, which makes it inaccessible to a busy population. Life takes over! I have Adam Fischer's complete recording of the symphonies, as well as many other performances of some of them. I have listened to many of these, but as you say, the range of Haydn's work makes listening to it an unending if wonderful experience. Right now I am wondering if a new generation of performers is traversing the complete set, and whether I should invest in that set. Recommendations are welcome!
Regarding complete sets, you should invest in this Haydn 2032 project which will be completed by the target date of the 300th anniversary of the composer’s birth in 2032.
There are other complete sets available, most notably Dorati which many hold in high regard, but also sets by Fischer, Fey/Spillner, Marzendorfer, and possibly some others, along with the Naxos box which uses about half a dozen different conductors and orchestras.
There are incomplete sets begun but never completed by Goodman and Hogwood, though the latter was later made up to the full set by four new recordings (Dantone) and some older ones (Bruggen); additionally, they were significant numbers recorded that were never intended to be complete sets - Derek Solomons for example.
I have come to believe two things:
Firstly, that whilst you can have a base reference set (or two in my case - Hogwood+ on period, and Dorati on modern instruments), you actually need a number of different types of performance as each reveals different things.
Therefore, for many symphonies you need to consider:
Period performance v modern*
Small-scale v large-scale*
Harpsichord continuo or no continuo
Scholarly and artistic interpretations
Old school** or modern school
Tempi - very loosely, older recordings are slower (Minuets in particular, Karajan’s heavy three beats in a bar for example c.1980), modern ones quicker (Antonini - current - is always one-in-a-bar).
Et cetera
In short, you need several recordings of each symphony.
Secondly, that it is wise also to invest in smaller groups of works targeting specific themes such as Morzin symphonies, sturm und drang, Paris, London first and second trip.
To highlight some brilliant examples:
Pinnock’s set of 19 sturm und drang symphonies
Harnoncourt’s set of the ‘Paris’ symphonies
Mariner’s set of 12 ‘Name’ symphonies.
Solomons set of early pre-Eszterhazy symphonies for Count Morzin
To highlight the huge differences in approach, Symphony 104 in the hands of Karajan and the BPO (modern) is a very different beast from the same symphony in the hands of Minkowski (period) and Les musicians du Louvre - both big-scale; different again is Klemperer, Jochum, and Colin Davies all well regarded modern performances from the recent past but very different.
Into this mix, you then add the period performance groups who give a very different perspective on the music.
In short: be selective, most complete sets have some performances that are better than others and there are almost no poor performances,^ though personally, I do not like Roy Goldman’s fussy and very intrusive harpsichord continuo in his recordings, though others may enjoy it.
Hope that’s of some help, though I hope others will contribute to fill any gaps I have left as this is not one of my areas of strength.
* Beware: not all period performances are small-scale,and not all modern performances large-scale; Minkowski above illustrates this, as does Antonini in the Haydn 2032 project where the two orchestras used in the series are combined for the ‘London’ symphonies recorded so far.
Similarly, there are fine modern performances using a chamber-sized orchestra as in the Marriner listed above.
** By old school I am referring loosely to conductors like Klemperer (whose Haydn recordings I rate in contrast to most from this era), Szell, Beecham and the like who essentially pre-date the Haydn renaissance, or put another way, conductors who pre-date Dorati’s complete set from the 1970’s.
These older recordings also use old corrupted scores - often inadmissible today - that pre-date Robbins Landon’s critical edition of the 107 symphonies completed in 1968.
^ With complete sets, there are invariably better performances of individual symphonies to be found elsewhere.
Thanks for the advice. I have Fischer (complete) as well as MacKerras, Hogwood, Goodman, Colin Davis,Kuijken, Szell, etc. This lineup is quite the turnaround from my early days when only Toscanini and a few others bothered to record works by Haydn. @@elaineblackhurst1509
One of many under-rated Haydn Symphonies with a great finale, like No. 58 & 67
One of Haydn’s many achievements with the development of the symphony was to find a way to better balance the weight of the four movement symphony as a whole.
Many earlier symphonies in the 1750’s and 1760’s - by most composers - had lightweight finales in 2/4, or short 3/8 or 6/8 gigue-type frolics; such movements were often an anticlimax and were unsatisfactory, particularly as the symphony grew not only in length, but in musical, emotional, and dramatic content.
A typical early Classical four movement symphony would consist of a first movement Allegro which contained most of the musical substance; a lightweight Andante, often with strings only; the Minuet; then the short - often Presto - coda type movement.
From very early in his career, Haydn found this unsatisfactory and searched for ways of putting more substance in all four movements and better balancing the weight of the symphony as a whole.
After various experiments including sets of variations, fugues and so forth, Haydn post-sturm und drang (c.1773), after a few false starts, eventually found better ways of ending his symphonies with more substantial finales that better balanced the first movement, and thus the work as a whole.
Such improved finales often incorporated sonata elements into rondo movements, and more extensive - often contrapuntal - development of material for example.
The ‘finale problem’ in Haydn’s later symphonies - and those of Mozart - was solved very effectively, and was a key part of the development of the symphony as a whole.
By the time Haydn got to London, the finale was still exercising Haydn’s mind: he was dissatisfied with his first attempt of the last movement he provided for Symphony 93.
Haydn wrote:
‘...I intend to alter the last movement of it, and to improve it, since it is too weak compared to the first. I was convinced of this myself, and so was the public, when it was played for the first time last Friday’.
As the published finale today of Symphony 93 does not really have any weaknesses, perhaps Haydn simply discarded the original, and what we hear today is a modified and revised finale, or a completely new movement.
In contrast however, in Symphony 103, he actually felt he had gone too far and unfortunately scratched out and cut a passage he thought was too complex for the audiences, not in fact the first time he had done this.
The difference in Mozart’s symphonies, particularly after he moved to Vienna, shows that he too was aware of this problem of balance; likewise, his finales are unrecognisable from most of his earlier attempts.
Once he had come up with different ideas to increase the weight of the finale, Haydn wrote a string of interesting, satisfying and highly original final movements.
These finales sound like finales - not first movements - and they achieved successfully his aim of balancing the symphony as a whole, and making it a more rounded musical and artistic experience.
@@elaineblackhurst1509 The only thing that would take more time than writing that is FINDING WHO ASKED
@@haydnenthusiast
Not sure of your point, but the comment to which I replied referred to ‘...great finale[s]’.
My reply was basically to explain that Haydn - Mozart too - had to work hard to come up with a formula to write these effective finales that acted as a counter-weight not only the front-loaded content of most contemporary works, but better balanced the symphony as a whole.
Many people are interested in this series, and it helped to explain where these great finales came from, especially as many early Classical symphonies definitely did *not* have great finales, but little more than lightweight frolics - often in 3/8, 6/8, or 2/4 - that did not end effectively works which were increasingly becoming more substantial and profound.
Все отлично. Каждая нота на своем месте, и поэтому впечатление приятное. Оркестр на высоте. Конечно заслуга дирижера неоспорима. Его движения говорят об этом. Знать бы еще где находится зал. Но эти подробности хотя и второстепенны , все же полезны для общего понимания наблюдаемого. Вообщем этой иеформации не хватает. Привет з Киева.
Похоже больше, что записывают не в Зале а в соборе. И если оркестр называется Basel Chamber Orchestra, то скорее всего это Кафедральный собор Базеля
Не, это не собор, это Церковь Св.Мартина (Мартинскирхе). Чуть ниже в коментах написано
The future of classical music is bleak. This very good performance of an excellent work is again an illustration of this: young performers face an elderly public. This evolution is in place for years now and corona measures will yet hasten it .
You say: "The future of classical music is bleak." I say: the future of humankind, then, is bleak." Indeed, barbarity endangers not just what you call classical music - which is NOT a generic term for concert music of sophistication, and in this case ought to be spelled with capital "C", as it denotes the short period of the history of Western Art Music, the Viennese Classical era (you ought not call "classical", for instant, J.S. Bach or Hector Berlioz or Béla Bartók, as you should use: Baroque, Romantic, and Modern music instead, in those instances) - so, barbarity does endanger ANY culture worth mentioning. We witness a steadily diminishing ability to concentrate, to stay calm, the deterioration of the ability to listen at all, especially listening with distinction, and the ability to connect the emotional and the rational as one. These are the very skills that we spent thousands of yours to develop, in order to distinguish us from animals like rats. Now, what saves us from rats in human shape, I don't know, but I suspect that this stupid trend is going to change, unless total destruction follows. What we see here in these performances is how powerful this music is, and everyone on the planet with ears ought to join in this celebration! Maestro Antonini and this orchestra is great not because they are always perfect, but because they have an authentic presence, invigorating energy, fantastic musicality and exuberant, contagious enthusiasm. This ensures, that Haydn is not something "classical" or "historical" but very much alive. This ability is one that we need most for the survival of our species: co-operation, presence, fortitude and sensitivity to all shades of human expression.
"The future of classical music is bleak." Not so! It is always darkest before the dawn. Popular music has degenerated into such garbage (Nicki Minaj, CardiB, Lizzo, Miley Cyrus) that it will collapse of it's own weight. The emptiness of the new will send people looking to the past. They won't all come to Haydn, but enough will. This music has withstood the test of time for 300 years and always will.
@@daviddouglass I hope you are right. But I think sth else is going to happen. Classical music is comparable to a language. Once less and less people speak and understand it it will disappear. Or at the most live on in museums and a university here and there. Considering that classical music comprises some 3% of the music industry we are already in that stage.
I just saw that the first 10 CDs of this series (Haydn2032 Vol. 1-10) are available for just under 40 €. If you don't get them now, it's your own fault.
Please add information on the venue (location) in which this recording was made; it's a beautiful building! Thank you.
Martinskirche, Basel, Switzerland!
@@yongefy Thank you very much!
SI. Il Giardino è un’altra storia!!!!
Una storia veramente senza parole.
18:00, the Third Movement.
20:34, the Fourth Movement.
15:46 Allons, enfants de la Patrie...
For a little musical surprise, try the original theme of Viotti’s Tema e variazione (in do maggiore/C major) written in 1781 - about ten years earlier than La Marseillaise.
You’ll also hear something slightly reminiscent of Adeste Fideles (O Come all ye Faithful) in the Andante of Symphony 35; there are some others too.
Extraordinary, masterly, breath-taking - fast becoming the 21st century cycle to supercede Dorati and Adam Fischer, fine as their performances were ...
Dennis Russel Davies is pretty solid too. Bruno Weil also has a nice set of Haydn symphonies (not complete, but many of the Sturm und Drang era symphonies were recorded).
I. 0:00 Allegro
II. 9:44 Adagio
III. 18:00 Menuet e Trio
IV. 20:34 Allegro
Thanks for putting up the beginning times of each movement Lyle!
@@McIntyreBible of course!
Well, he certainly wasn’t neglected when in London in the 1790s. He was feted by the English and all the concerts organised by Heidegger/ Salomon and Haydn himself were sold out.
Ich sehe gerade, dass die ersten 10 CDs dieser Reihe (Haydn2032 Vol. 1-10) für knapp 40 € zu haben sind. Wer jetzt nicht sofort zugreift, ist selber schuld.
7;24🎉🎉🎉❤❤❤
I weep that we , in Britain , seem to turning our backs on the ancient culture of Europe ( although I do not include Scotland in this condemnation) . Art , architecture and music is being dumbed down on this side of the channel and , I’m afraid that includes the BBC . How I do still want to be European.
In all truth, Britain has always been deeply ingrained in European culture, the EU has only been around for less than 50 years. Britain has engaged in wars with European countries such as Spain of France, while still remaining "European". I don't see a big problem in that respect, although I understand that you're referring to Brexit.
Miss Carol, I understand completely. I also feel the same. Turning our backs on our art and our music that made us so unique will be our downfall... We must keep our ancient culture in order to keep our identity. I also want to still be European..
It may, or may not be of interest to readers outside the United Kingdom to clarify one or two points in this comment which appears to have conflated a number of different issues.
Britain has left the EU; it has not left Europe.
Britain cannot turn its back on the ancient culture of Europe because it is an integral part of it, as indeed are Switzerland, Iceland, Norway and others who are similarly not part of the EU; Europe and the EU are not synonymous terms.
Scotland is an integral part of the UK (confirmed by referendum as recently as 2014), and as this was a UK wide referendum, it is bound by the result no more or less than anywhere else.
London, Northern Ireland, and a large number of other towns, cities, and regions across the country also voted ‘Remain’ and the result was close:
52% Leave
48% Remain.
In fact, considerably more people voted ‘Remain’ in London than did so in Scotland; it is therefore not clear why Scotland has been pointedly highlighted and excluded from the ‘condemnation’ in the original comment.
The ‘dumbing down’, and debates about funding of the Arts, are entirely different and unrelated issues, and certainly ones not unique to Britain.
Opera, music, films, theatres, museums, galleries, archeological sites, UNESCO world heritage sites, and all the rest have always needed financial support from governments across Europe to maintain the vast, unique shared heritage of the continent; it is difficult to argue that Britain is noticeably better or worse than anywhere else in this respect.
The comment about the BBC is as unfair as it is misleading to readers around the world.
The organisation promotes a very wide range of musical activities which compare very well with public service broadcasters in any other country; of which the following are just four significant examples.
1. The BBC supports and organises the annual summer Proms concerts, largely at the Royal Albert Hall in London - one of the largest live classical music festivals in the world.
2. The BBC maintains and funds a number of orchestras: the BBC Symphony Orchestra (London), the BBC Philharmonic (Manchester), and the BBC Scottish Symphony Orchestra (Glasgow) for example,
3. The BBC runs the ‘Young Musician of the Year’ competition,
4. The BBC runs a national radio channel devoted solely to classical music - Radio 3.
Both you and I, and the country as a whole remain as European as we have always been; the British Isles are not floating off into the mid-North Atlantic Ocean.
Man spielt historisch informiert und auf entsprechenden Instrumenten. Die ausladenden (und für meinen Geschmack übertriebenen) Gesten des Dirigenten passen nicht dazu. Sollte Haydn so dirigiert haben? Überhaupt ein Kapellmeister im 18. Jahrhundert? Wo Maß und Mitte, Geschmack und Grazie eher das Ideal waren?
Ho
There is a tendency in authentic performance to stress each first beat of the bar in an exaggerated way. Here also. Which is a pity, the orchestra is very fine. That habit gives everything a rushed and restless character , of course mostly in the fast movements.
That's actually the idea. From my point of view, classical music has been idealized to sound in way we see as a standard nowadays. The result is the interpretations all sound the same and lack passion, this delicious aggressiveness and boldness that I personaly love so much in period performances.
Alain A. Pedroso
You make a good point; I think there is a degree of challenge and attack inherent in Haydn’s music that makes it slightly uncomfortable compared to the more poised, elegant and balanced music of Mozart.
As a result of this, Haydn has benefitted probably more than any composer outside the baroque period from the authentic instrument, period performances, especially when they are done as consistently well as here.
The great achievement of Haydn 2032 is that we are hearing these symphonies almost as if they are new, and with the impact that would have been felt by 18th century audiences, an impact Haydn fully intended.
The other side of this is that usually, Haydn’s music suffers from his striking, often quirky originality being smoothed over as you hear in many older recordings, or some played on modern instruments.
Really useful and interesting comment; hope you’ve subscribed to this fantastic project and that you will contribute further to the discussions.
@@alaina.pedroso8868I wonder why the idea " period performance" is never applied to the set up of the orchestra. No way the musicians in the 1770ies would stand up facing a wildly gesticulating conductor. Maybe it wouldn't make acoustically no difference but it is worth trying. I personally appreciate the music more without the visual drama.
were you there in 1770? ... please let the artists have their universe open up
@@christianwouters6764
Con la orchestra di Basilea c’è la stessa differenza che passa tra la bella e la brutta copia!!!
Accordi troppo secchi e suono spesso davvero brutto, specialmente negli archi
Stephan Derrick
Qualcosa di considerare: Antonini ed i suoi due orchestre usano gli strumenti o copie originale/antichi; il suono è molto diverso da un’ orchestra con strumenti moderni.
Il progetto ‘Haydn’s 2032’ è stato fondato con l’intento di applicare prassi esecutive d’epoca che si riferissero alle più aggiornate ricerche musicologiche.
Il suono della musica è come Haydn l’avrebbe sentito lui stesso; non è ‘brutto’, è diverso, e autentico.
単なる慰めではなく、馬鹿貴族相手のこの時期のハイドンの交響曲を演奏する現代的意義がわからない。古楽器趣味が音楽的感興をもたらすわけではない。
The idea here is to close your ideas and imagine this period in history - hundreds of years before the invention of indoor plumbing - and the uplifting manifestation of dedicated musicians to the rich imagination of this great composer.
formidable (mais un peu gâché par la gestuelle de pantin détraqué du chef et ses mimiques effrayantes)....
Il suffit de fermer lesyeux ,n'étant pas au concert , vous ne perdrez rien!!!
I could just about put up with the first two minutes. Far too noisy and cliche's a symphony. Haydn composed a lot of
rubbish, as well as some real works of art.
With the greatest of respect, your comment rather proves the point that an opinion is a judgement not necessarily based on either knowledge or understanding.
Haydn was a highly professional composer under intense pressure for over half a century from patrons (four Eszterhazy Princes), publishers, impresarios, the concert-going public, and everyone else; he almost never let his standards slip and achieved a status in the late 18th century amongst his European-wide contemporaries that surpassed all others, was that was rarely even equalled in future times.
This is a very fine Classical symphony.
wish I could compose the "rubbish" of Haydn!.would you?
OK, MAGABilly.
@@lymanmj unless it's by bach or mozart, its of no real importance
@@nottinghillad OK, MAGABilly.
Одна из самых лучших симфоний Гайдна. Все части одинаково хороши. Тогда как, к примеру, в 35-ой заслуживают уважение лишь первая и с натяжкой четвёртая части.