Haydn's "London" and "Paris" Symphonies Recommendations
Patrick Amory
In article <303up7$5...@tamsun.tamu.edu> aks...@tamsun.tamu.edu (Arun K.
Subramanya) writes:
>Does the Davis/Concertgebow 4-CD box set contain all the 12 "London"
>symphonies? A catalog I have indicates the set as consisting of sym94-104,
>meaning that sym 93 is missing. Please clarify this.
Nope, all 12 are there. I listened to 93 this morning!
>I have the Karajan's set on DG. It has been highly acclaimed by
>H.C.Robbins Landon. What are your opinions about this set? How does
>it compare with/differ from the Davis set?
I think the Davis set is better -- lighter and airier, the drama allowed
to flow freely rather than being pounded home. But the best is Beecham, at
least in the last 6 symphonies (EMI, decent sound) -- performed with wit and
beautiful melodic detail, not missing the grandeur of 104.
>How does Bernstein's set of the "Paris" symphonies on 2 royal edition sony CDs
>compare with Karajan's set (again highly acclaimed by Landon)?
Bernstein's Paris symphonies are, for me, the zenith of Haydn symponic
conducting. These performances are fabulous. Exhilarating, buoyant and
richly detailed, with great sound quality (and the remastering is far
better than the other CDs in the ridiculous "Royal Edition"). I can't
recommend these enough. They far outdo every other set I've heard,
including the overpraised Kuikjen, and certainly Karajan.
While we're on Haydn symphonies, let me put in a word for Roy Goodman and
the Hanover Band cycle on Hyperion. These have gotten mixed reviews and
sparked some controversy, and I would certainly want to have
modern-instrument versions as well, particularly of the Paris and London
symphonies (where Goodman is much less competitive). But try his set of
Nos. 70, 71 and 72, extremely delicate (with some flubbed period brass,
unfortunately), particularly the celebratory finale of 71 and the
delightful variation-concerto themes of the finale to 72.
Have fun!
Patrick Amory
ph...@cus.cam.ac.uk
Mario Taboada
The sound is tipical seventies' DG (not the greatest), but the
performances are very nice.
I second the Goodman/Hyperion recommendation (I have several volumes
and not a single performance is weak). Hyperion is expensive, though.
But these are performances that most likely will get a lot of use, so
the cost per listening is very low.
Bohm has a nice recording of #88, 89, 92 on DG.
A Haydn cycle that was very promising but was aborted was that of
L'Estro Armonico on CBS. They play with a lot of passion. I believe some
volumes are still available (not of late symphonies, though).
In my opinion, Colin Davis does not display enough passion, and
Karajan overblows some effects and smooths over others, so that he
distorts the music (despite his great orchestra).
Best regards,
Mario Taboada
Los Angeles
Arun K. Subramanya
Does the Davis/Concertgebow 4-CD box set contain all the 12 "London"
symphonies? A catalog I have indicates the set as consisting of sym94-104,
meaning that sym 93 is missing. Please clarify this.
I have the Karajan's set on DG. It has been highly acclaimed by
H.C.Robbins Landon. What are your opinions about this set? How does
it compare with/differ from the Davis set?
How does Bernstein's set of the "Paris" symphonies on 2 royal edition sony CDs
compare with Karajan's set (again highly acclaimed by Landon)?
Thanx in advance for all the info.
Arun
I. Neill Reid
>
>Does the Davis/Concertgebow 4-CD box set contain all the 12 "London"
>symphonies? A catalog I have indicates the set as consisting of sym94-104,
>meaning that sym 93 is missing. Please clarify this.
The catalogue is wrong - all 12 are in the set.
>
>I have the Karajan's set on DG. It has been highly acclaimed by
>H.C.Robbins Landon. What are your opinions about this set? How does
>it compare with/differ from the Davis set?
I haven't heard the Karajan performances for a long time, so I can't
make a direct comparison, but I do like the Davis set a lot. It's
a modern instruments, `big-band' approach, but they're very lively, witty
performances - the extra forces give a weightier approach without any
feeling of sluggishness.
>
>How does Bernstein's set of the "Paris" symphonies on 2 royal edition sony CDs
>compare with Karajan's set (again highly acclaimed by Landon)?
Sorry - can't stand Bernstein in Haydn. Dorati's streets better than
both of them in my opinion.
Neill Reid - i...@dowland.caltech.edu
D E M
His and the Davis are probably the best integral sets of these
marvelous works.
Denis Moore
de...@cup.portal.com
mp4...@albnyvms.bitnet
I am a tremeondous fan of Lenny's The Creation, the same however cannot be said for his
readings of Papa Haydn's symphonc out put, which is over strung, over played
and twacked to death. If Karajan is to your taste in Haydn, then Davis
will probably come across as to weak for you.
On a similar note:
For period instrument people, or anyone who thinks that Haydn is boring
and overly stringy, take a shot at Roy Goodman and the Hanover Band doing
the Haydn Symphonies (alas and alack for us limited budget types
they are at super premium prices, and we have to snatch them from sales
and those foolish to let them fall out of their grasp and into the used CD
bun). Thumping timapni, roarisg strings, sharp tutti and Andente's
a paced at a walk rather than a hobble, with Hogwoods preciousness or Norrington's
over reading (Norrington plays Haydn and Mozart the way an early romantic
would, which is fun, and good music sometimes, but over layered far to often).
Special favorites for me have always been the Bear,the Military, the Farwell
and the Clock. I can say that the Bear and the Clock come off very well.
Too many people hear haydn through recordings which take
Beethoven as their lense to view the classical period, here we see a
composer worthy of the Great Moghul's imitation, and envy. These symphonies
point towards the future, and that future is Beethoven. Starngely enough
B comes off as *more* of a genius, not because he springs
from nowhere, but because he is surpassing in power two composers (Mozart
and Haydn) whose work is muscular and beautiful, varied and yet unified.
>Thanx in advance for all the info.
>Arun
>
Margaret-Mary Petit Internet: MP4...@uacsc1.albany.edu
Rockefeller College Bitnet: MP4...@albnyvms.bitnet
SUNY Albany, NY
----`---,---{@
David M. Cook
88, 89 & 92: Boehm
93-98: Szell
99-104: Beecham
I'll third the recommendation of Bernstein's Paris set.
In fact I would get this before I got the London symphonies,
they are that wonderful. Bernstein really makes this music come alive.
Boehm's 88, 89 & 92 are also wonderful. Viennese richness but with
transparent balances and wonderful playing from the VPO.
Polygram has 90, 91 and the Sinfonia Concertante in their vaults.
Szell only recorded the earlier London symphonies (92-98).
92, 94 & 96 are available on a single budget CD and 93-98 on 2 budget
CDs. Again, transparent balances and razor sharp playing from
the Cleveland SO. (Where are these heavy, lumpy traditional performances
the period instrument fanatics keep talking about?)
Szell does an excellent job of bringing out the humor in these works.
(Szell? Humor? Haydn makes some people very happy.)
So rather than buy a set of the London Symphonies, I would supplement
Szell with Beecham's 99-104, which is available through Tower's
import program with EMI.
Beecham also did 93-98, but the mono sound is a bit dim (OK if you
crank the volume way up.) I find his conducting a little fussy
in the earlier symphonies, though.
For earlier symphonies I like Kiujken (26, 52 & 53) and Orpheus.
Mackerras (31 & 45) is nicely played and conducted, but he takes
too many repeats and I don't like Telarc sound.
I liked the LPs Marriner did of the named symphonies. The Paris
set is on CD.
I've enjoyed some of Pinnock's Sturm & Drang symphonies I've heard
on the radio but don't know how well they'd wear.
Dave Cook
Patrick Amory
>In article <303up7$5...@tamsun.tamu.edu>, aks...@tamsun.tamu.edu (Arun K. Subramanya) writes...
>>
>>compare with Karajan's set (again highly acclaimed by Landon)?
>
> Sorry - can't stand Bernstein in Haydn. Dorati's streets better than
>both of them in my opinion.
Have you heard Bernstein in the Paris symphonies? It's incredible -- a
great set, totally different from his awful recording of the London
symphonies. Sounds like two different conductors!
Patrick Amory
ph...@cus.cam.ac.uk
Patrick Amory
(David M. Cook) writes:
>I've enjoyed some of Pinnock's Sturm & Drang symphonies I've heard
>on the radio but don't know how well they'd wear.
That's just the problem -- they become VERY wearing. Too much jolting and
overemphasis, like listening to circus music for an hour. I do not
recommmend these recordings.
Patrick Amory
ph...@cus.cam.ac.uk
Tom Wood
I usually love the English Concert, but I have to agree -- the Sturm
here gets a little too Drang. And the sound is a bit dry and
abrasive. Pinnock's symphs. 6-8 (Morning, Noon & Night) are better.
Someone said the Kuijken/Orchestra of the Age of Enlightenment "Paris"
symphonies were "overpraised," but I think they're marvelous, as is
their recording of #88, #89 & #92. The Kuijken "Hen" is one of
my favorite Haydn recordings.
I'm a big fan of the Davis "London" symphonies -- very rich and
colorful orchestral sound. My first exposure to the Londons was
the Jochum recording. I thought they were dull and drowsy then, and
still do.
The Szell/Cleveland Londons are indeed superb.
--
tw
Russell DeAnna
>For period instrument people, or anyone who thinks that Haydn is boring
>and overly stringy, take a shot at Roy Goodman and the Hanover Band doing
>the Haydn Symphonies
What label are these symphonies issued under? I have "London" and
"Military" on Nimbus, but someone else said Goodman recorded others
on a different label. And what do you think of Goodman's Schubert
symphony cycle? I recently found Nos. 4, 6, and 9 on a Musical
Heritage Society package. I like these CDs.
--
- Russell DeAnna to...@tolstoy.lerc.nasa.gov
I. Neill Reid
Not all of the Paris set - only 83 and 85, and on the radio while driving,
so I'd have to admit that I haven't really given them a fair shot and am
probably unduly biased by his sprawling, over-romanticised London
concoctions.
I do think that the Dorati performances are much better than are
generally credited - I even hold the heretical view that he's preferable
than Beecham, who has the striking disadvantage of using earlier
versions of the scores of some symphonies. The finale of 98 is
particularly disappointing and anti-climactic when you're used to hearing
the final amazing harpsichord cadenza. I also feel the Beecham approach is
a little too relaxed in its witticisms - better suited to Mozart than to
Haydn (which is not to say that I think these are _bad_ Haydn performances,
just not my favourites). Dorati and the PH don't quite have the weight
for parts of the final symphonies, but they provide sparkling accounts
of the Paris set. As I say, an heretical viewpoint, but my own.
And for period-instrument recordings, I heartily third, fourth or fifth
the Hanover Band recommendations - with a rider that the English Concert/
Pinnock set of the Sturm & Drang are just as exciting and dramatic and
have worn extremely well (to this set of ears at least).
Neill Reid - i...@dowland.caltech.edu
>
>Patrick Amory
>ph...@cus.cam.ac.uk
Patrick Amory
Goodman changed at some point in his career, and the more recent
recordings are on Hyperion. The sound, in my opinion, is much better (and
I'm not a fan of the recording quality of either Nimbus or Hyperion!)
As I said before, I highly recommend Goodman's Nos. 70, 71 and 72.
Patrick Amory
ph...@cus.cam.ac.uk
Margaret Mikulska
>In article <305sqv$3...@rebecca.albany.edu>, <mp4...@albnyvms.bitnet> wrote:
>>For period instrument people, or anyone who thinks that Haydn is boring
>>and overly stringy, take a shot at Roy Goodman and the Hanover Band doing
>>the Haydn Symphonies
>
>What label are these symphonies issued under? I have "London" and
>"Military" on Nimbus, but someone else said Goodman recorded others
>on a different label.
The Haydn cycle is on Hyperion.
-Margaret
Peter Herweijer
> Too many people hear haydn through recordings which take
>Beethoven as their lense to view the classical period, here we see a
>composer worthy of the Great Moghul's imitation, and envy. These symphonies
>point towards the future, and that future is Beethoven.
Haydn's symphonies point towards nothing but themselves, and certainly
not towards Beethoven. At least not in the sense that Haydn is somehow
contained in Beethoven. (I don't really understand what you're trying
to say... are you criticizing these recordings for making Haydn't music
merely sound like embryonic Beethoven? If so, I agree).
>Starngely enough B comes off as *more* of a genius [...]
Opinions differ.
>[...] because he is surpassing in power two composers (Mozart and Haydn)
>[...]
Some would say that he is merely surpassing them in pomposity ;^) I'm
not sure I fully agree... anyway, Haydn is (IMEHO) not surpassed by
anyone; he was a supreme master of his own terrain. Other composers
simply did different things with different goals in mind. This certainly
applies to Beethoven.
- Peter Herweijer
pie...@sci.kun.nl
mp4...@albnyvms.bitnet
>mp4...@albnyvms.bitnet writes:
>
> > Too many people hear haydn through recordings which take
> >Beethoven as their lense to view the classical period, here we see a
> >composer worthy of the Great Moghul's imitation, and envy. These symphonies
> >point towards the future, and that future is Beethoven.
>
>Haydn's symphonies point towards nothing but themselves, and certainly
>not towards Beethoven. At least not in the sense that Haydn is somehow
>contained in Beethoven. (I don't really understand what you're trying
>to say... are you criticizing these recordings for making Haydn't music
>merely sound like embryonic Beethoven? If so, I agree).
If you cannot here the huge terrains of music which Haydn
implies but does nto explore, you have missed an essential feature of
Haydn... he always sounds creative and original (even after listening
to all of the Paris and all of the London consecutively, each time
finding new things to say in the forms at hand) because he never
wears out the welcome of a particualr device (as say Mahler often does).
Haydn's music screams to any conisseur that there is so much more
to be done with these techniques, that there is so much ground left to
cover, a friend of mine once remarked that Haydn could have lived until he
was 130 and still have found new things to do.
Yes, Haydn's symphonies do point toward things to do. If
you think that they are self referential excerises, than you have
been reading too many flippant Stravinski lectures and not enough
Haydn scores.
Beethoven did not surpass Haydn at being Haydn, but what
he did do it put more dramatic *power*. Power is not all there is
to music, but Haydn has no shortage of it, and it would (to an
audience in 1795) have been hard to imagine packing more
of it into a symphonic form. Yet Beethoven does.
> >Starngely enough B comes off as *more* of a genius [...]
(What I meant heare is that Beethoven's stature does not suffer from
being associated with a clearer perception of Haydn, but instead grows
still further. After all, if Haydn is "an old uncle... with nothing
much to say..." who was merely the affectation of a certain time period,
ti does nto take much to excel him. If on the other hand, he is a
vibrant creative, resourceful,imaginative and forceful composer, than
to push the boundaries that he set is an act of daring and imperteninace
(for which he paid in scalding reviews, and for which
he was rewarded with reaching the artistic ideals that he set, and
having scorn become admiration.)
>Opinions differ.
>
> >[...] because he is surpassing in power two composers (Mozart and Haydn)
> >[...]
>Some would say that he is merely surpassing them in pomposity ;^) I'm
>not sure I fully agree... anyway, Haydn is (IMEHO) not surpassed by
>anyone; he was a supreme master of his own terrain. Other composers
>simply did different things with different goals in mind. This certainly
>applies to Beethoven.
Beethoven did not "simply do things differently", he was often respondign
to challenges impliciti in Haydn, a set of six string quartets, the
symphony #1, the symphony #6, the early piano trios all bear witness
to this, each time he masters a thing that Haydn created, and then turns
to exploding it further still. Beethoven wresteled with Haydn, not
truly laying the obsession to rest until the Symphony #8.
> - Peter Herweijer
> pie...@sci.kun.nl
gggg...@gmail.com
Haydn - Symphony n°104 - Vienna / Karajan 1959