# My Confession (Haydn's Last Seven Words of Christ)



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

Even though I guess it's supposed to be a Masterpiece, I just find Haydn's Last Seven Words of Christ to be insufferably dull and boring—the choral version, the version for string quartet, the version for piano. Dull. Dull. Dull. One wishes Christ would just die. And I love most of Haydn's music. But... Anyway. Tell me how many Hail Mozart's to say, and I'll try to get on with my life.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

The Haydn Industrial Complex requires your head on a silver platter.


(I don't really like his choral music, it's all about the symphonies and the quartets for me)


----------



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

I used to be indifferent to his piano trios, but now I've really come to love them.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

vtpoet said:


> Even though I guess it's supposed to be a Masterpiece, I just find Haydn's Last Seven Words of Christ to be insufferably dull and boring-the choral version, the version for string quartet, the version for piano. Dull. Dull. Dull. One wishes Christ would just die.


Your wish was granted.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

You seem to have ignored the original version for full orchestra. I doubt that it will completely change your impression, though. 

I think it is a tour de force and very impressive and unique in its way but I admittedly am also a bit puzzled that it apparently has been very popular since Haydn's day (otherwise there would not have been three more versions).


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

You have to understand why it was written and for what: to be played on Good Friday. It is a meditative, inward looking work. Good Friday is the most solemn day in the Catholic liturgy; what do want? A happy song and dance? It's not something I listen to a lot, but on Good Fridays once in a while. The Muti recording is quite beautiful. Back in the times he wrote it, long before TV, cds and the internet, when there was little else to do and people were by and large much more religious, spending a long time at church especially during Holy Week was expected. The music could only add to the importance of the occasion.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

I like the string quartet version but agree it is a bit depressing. Some nice choons in there, tho.


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

vtpoet said:


> Even though I guess it's supposed to be a Masterpiece, I just find Haydn's Last Seven Words of Christ to be insufferably dull and boring-the choral version, the version for string quartet, the version for piano. Dull. Dull. Dull. *One wishes Christ would just die*. And I love most of Haydn's music. But... Anyway. Tell me how many Hail Mozart's to say, and I'll try to get on with my life.


He's evidently two centuries ahead of you.

But, as the stories go, he didn't stay that way.

Psych.

So . . . did he, or did he not die for "our sins"? Or was it dying for just three days worth of them? :devil:


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

Merl said:


> I like the string quartet version but agree it is a bit depressing. Some nice choons in there, tho.


LOL.

"Choons".


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

mbhaub said:


> You have to understand why it was written and for what: to be played on Good Friday. It is a meditative, inward looking work. Good Friday is the most solemn day in the Catholic liturgy; what do want? A happy song and dance? It's not something I listen to a lot, but on Good Fridays once in a while. The Muti recording is quite beautiful. Back in the times he wrote it, long before TV, cds and the internet, when there was little else to do and people were by and large much more religious, spending a long time at church especially during Holy Week was expected.


That is all true. For the original use the priest would apparently also recite the actual "word" and give a short homily/sermon before/between the pieces. We have a fairly precise description how that particular service in the Cadiz Cathedral was usually going.

(Supposedly there are a recordings that recite the "words" and I think there was even one project with longer "meditiations"/sermons.) But I think that at least the string quartet and the piano version were not used as church music but for personal/private entertainment or contemplation.

The closest Good Friday "perfomance piece" I am aware of is probably Liszt's Via Crucis which is also rather strange. 
There is obviously a distortion in our reception in that we usually experience Bach Passions or Lecons tenebres or Lamentations in concerts or more frequently on recordings whereas they would historically almost all been part of some kind of service.


----------



## premont (May 7, 2015)

Bulldog said:


> Your wish was granted.


Only for a short time. as you know he arose within a few days.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

Well, I agree with everything that's been said, but it's not a work I have the patience for, requirement for meditation notwithstanding.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Its certainly different from other works by Haydn. As others have pointed out it was originally composed for liturgical use, but Haydn thought it to be durable as concert music and made other arrangements. It was the work Haydn chose to conduct at his last public performance in 1803.

Its unique in Haydn's output. It entirely consists of slow movements and the textures are heavier than usual. I've got the string quartet version. Its challenging to figure out because the differences are subtle, but I think that there is a good deal of variety in it. Haydn doesn't always go for obvious illustration of the text, and other than the removal of mutes before the last earthquake movement there are no big contrasts.

Its touching how for Christ's final words "I thirst," Haydn uses pizzicato to give an impression of rain. I remember reading Sabina Wurmbrand's autobiography, who mentions thinking about this while being a political prisoner in Romania. Water was scarce:

_"I remembered the pizzicato at the start of 'I thirst' in Haydn's oratorio, The Seven Last Words on the Cross. He wished to convey an illusion of the crucified Christ, who seemed to feel on His lips drops of falling rain. I was envious, not having even the illusion."_

I think that many composers would balk if asked to fulfill a commission with such severe restrictions, but Haydn welcomed the challenge. The nearest equivalent I can think of is Shostakovich's final string quartet, which also entirely consists of slow movements.

Appreciating _Seven Last Words_ hasn't been straightforward, but its much less challenging than say Merulo's organ masses. I used to have one of them which stretched over two discs, the organ part interspersed with Gregorian chant. Of course its no deficiency on Merulo's part, its just that some music is more strongly tied to its original context and is harder listen to as pure music.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

vtpoet said:


> Dull. Dull. Dull. And I love most of Haydn's music.


It's an extension of the style of his string quartet slow movements (at least the ones written up to that point), which I talked about in <Haydns: Joseph vs Michael>. Would you have an easier time spending hours and hours going through his 100+ symphonies, 70+ string quartets, OR just an hour listening to this work? I would find the latter easier.



mbhaub said:


> You have to understand why it was written and for what: to be played on Good Friday. It is a meditative, inward looking work. Good Friday is the most solemn day in the Catholic liturgy; what do want? A happy song and dance? It's not something I listen to a lot, but on Good Fridays once in a while.


Not all Catholic music written for Good Friday is like this. If you ask me, I would blame more on the composer's sense and skill to be imaginative (in terms of harmony and counterpoint). 



 <-- I can sense that he's trying to express "angst" here.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Maybe this is the problem with Joseph Haydn and his larger works- he was good at the things he specialized in; the London symphonies, and Op.76. His "pompous" style of dynamics, timbre, rhythm is effective in those works and their context, but not so much in the larger, more serious works;








imv, Beethoven does these things in a more dramatically convincing manner, making Joseph Haydn look somewhat "obsolete".


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

Sid James said:


> Its certainly different from other works by Haydn. As others have pointed out it was originally composed for liturgical use, but Haydn thought it to be durable as concert music and made other arrangements. It was the work Haydn chose to conduct at his last public performance in 1803.


I just read a bit up on the piece. Despite being a commission from Cadiz for that very specific use, the work had actually been performed even before in Vienna (in March 1787), supposedly at princely residences (Prince Auersperg and later Count Walsegg, the guy who later commissioned Mozart's Requiem) and also in Bonn. Within a short time, both the string quartet and the piano version (unknown by whom but sanctioned by Haydn) were published by Artaria (as I understand all within 1787 which is quite fast). Later on, Haydn made the choral version that was published 1801. So overall this was apparently a surprisingly popular piece that transcended its narrow liturgical use from the first performance (because this took place in Vienna before Cadiz). This immense success seems to be also a data point against audiences of the 1780s-90s mostly delighting in "shallow rococo", silly jokes, and virtuoso singers or whatnot. (Although it seems that the original version was basically supplanted by the chamber and the choral versions.)



> I think that many composers would balk if asked to fulfill a commission with such severe restrictions, but Haydn welcomed the challenge. The nearest equivalent I can think of is Shostakovich's final string quartet, which also entirely consists of slow movements.


yes, I also found this the closest comparison.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

It's true it is not what you are expecting when you first listen to it. But I found it growing on me a lot. This disc seems to treat it more extrovertly:


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Kreisler jr said:


> Later on, Haydn made the choral version that was published 1801. So overall this was apparently a surprisingly popular piece that transcended its narrow liturgical use from the first performance (because this took place in Vienna before Cadiz). This immense success seems to be also a data point against audiences of the 1780s-90s mostly delighting in "shallow rococo", silly jokes, and virtuoso singers or whatnot. (Although it seems that the original version was basically supplanted by the chamber and the choral versions.)


Why do you keep harping on that the piece was popular? Other than the fact Joseph Haydn made different versions, you have no valid evidence to support your claim that the particular work was really publicly "successful" either. Is this a part of your agenda to make it seem like Joseph Haydn did something important even when he didn't?



Kreisler jr said:


> I think it is a tour de force and very impressive and unique in its way but I admittedly am also a bit puzzled that it apparently has been very popular since Haydn's day (otherwise there would not have been three more versions).


Bach's St. Matthew's passion has been "popular" since Bach's day. I'm not so sure about the J. Haydn work. "The Passion was performed under the Cantor of St. Thomas until about 1800." (wikipedia). I think you'll say; the Bach _never "transcended" its narrow liturgical use_ (cause you have a low opinion of Bach; set up "criteria" that will favor Joseph Haydn but not Bach). But why would that matter.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Kreisler jr said:


> I just read a bit up on the piece. Despite being a commission from Cadiz for that very specific use, the work had actually been performed even before in Vienna (in March 1787), supposedly at princely residences (Prince Auersperg and later Count Walsegg, the guy who later commissioned Mozart's Requiem) and also in Bonn. Within a short time, both the string quartet and the piano version (unknown by whom but sanctioned by Haydn) were published by Artaria (as I understand all within 1787 which is quite fast). Later on, Haydn made the choral version that was published 1801. So overall this was apparently a surprisingly popular piece that transcended its narrow liturgical use from the first performance (because this took place in Vienna before Cadiz). This immense success seems to be also a data point against audiences of the 1780s-90s mostly delighting in "shallow rococo", silly jokes, and virtuoso singers or whatnot. (Although it seems that the original version was basically supplanted by the chamber and the choral versions.)


Cadiz commissioned it in 1785 but Haydn finished it late. The Vienna and Bonn performances happened a month before Cadiz first heard it during Holy Week of 1787. The recording I have played by the Kodaly Quartet has notes by Keith Anderson, in which he states:

_The work had wide currency throughout Europe and was instrumental in establishing Haydn's international reputation. In 1796 he devised a choral version, having overheard a similar arrangement which he did not find entirely satisfactory. Haydn made the version for string quartet three days after completing the fuller orchestral version in February 1787._



> yes, I also found this the closest comparison.


Even Shostakovich's rather droll directions to the musicians premiering the work makes sense in the context of this thread. He asked them to play it in a way "so that flies drop dead in mid-air, and the audience start leaving the hall from sheer boredom." Its obvious that he wasn't intent on making any concessions to the audience in this piece!


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

We all dislike something famous.

I love Beethoven and feel the same as you about Haydn's 7 Last Words about the Ninth Symphony -- I wish the incessant pounding and overwrought singing would just end. 

For a half century I have loved and adored J.S. Bach's music ... but in that same time I have always found his B minor mass, Goldberg variations, Well Tempered Clavier and solo cello suites so boring I cannot listen to them.

I never knew Haydn's 7 Last Words until I sang it with my choral society. I drew more appreciation for it after that. It's a lament and there is no anger until the final movement when God makes the earthquake occur.

I guess someone could call that boring.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Sid James said:


> _The work had wide currency throughout Europe and was instrumental in establishing Haydn's international reputation. In 1796 he devised a choral version, having overheard a similar arrangement which he did not find entirely satisfactory. Haydn made the version for string quartet three days after completing the fuller orchestral version in February 1787._


Aren't we always told that what made J. Haydn really "famous" was his late symphonies (and Die Schopfung)? The author should have been more specific on *how* "the work was *instrumental* in establishing Haydn's international reputation". And we know all sorts of composers were "popular" at the time; J. Haydn was just good at "making himself known" and "marketing" his work (via printing) at the time.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

^ Haydn seems least like of all to join the composers who might inspire passionate dislike among some, but you prove that wrong.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Enthusiast said:


> ^ Haydn seems least like of all to join the composers who might inspire passionate dislike among some, but you prove that wrong.


I don't particularly dislike Joseph Haydn. It's just the "dubious, unsubstantiated claims" about him (such as this, for example) that I find questionable.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

hammeredklavier said:


> Aren't we always told that what made J. Haydn really "famous" was his late symphonies (and Die Schopfung)? The author should have been more specific on *how* "the work was *instrumental* in establishing Haydn's international reputation". And we know all sorts of composers were "popular" at the time; J. Haydn was just good at "making himself known" and "marketing" his work (via printing) at the time.


I think that its obvious that Haydn was responding to demand for his music. Getting music published, sourcing commissions and going on tour were bread and butter for musicians then as they are now. Haydn's reputation developed gradually, and it happened to a large part due to Prince Nicolaus Esterhazy and Johann Peter Salomon.

Haydn had already made an impact before his later works, his music began to be printed in the 1770's in London and Amsterdam. Haydn's contract with the Esterhazys was modified to allow him to do this. He also made annual visits to Vienna before retiring from service to the Esterhazys. There, he made important contacts and received invitations to travel abroad, but declined because of his sense of duty to Prince Nicolaus.

It wasn't until after the prince's death in 1790 that London impresario and musician Salomon persuaded Haydn to make the first of two visits there. Long distance travel before the age of rail was arduous, travelers where thrown around in a coach. Its true that the 1790's saw Haydn at his peak, but he was exhausted by the two tours.


----------



## david johnson (Jun 25, 2007)

fbjim said:


> The Haydn Industrial Complex requires your head on a silver platter.
> 
> (I don't really like his choral music, it's all about the symphonies and the quartets for me)


No need to waste the silver, just use some old newspapers for wrapping...


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

hammeredklavier said:


> Why do you keep harping on that the piece was popular? Other than the fact Joseph Haydn made different versions, you have no valid evidence to support your claim that the particular work was really publicly "successful" either. Is this a part of your agenda to make it seem like Joseph Haydn did something important even when he didn't?


You are really an insolent person and the only one with a silly Anti-Haydn agenda. I am not harping on anything. I just read up on the piece in several booklets. Do you think anyone would go to the trouble to make and publish three alternative versions if there was no money to be made with them? It does not seem to be a great piece as a vanity project and both Haydn and Artaria wanted to make money.
Please suggest an alternative explanation for these alternative versions. Do you think they wanted to push a strange unpopular piece down people's throats? Why? They were better businessmen than doing such nonsense.



> Bach's St. Matthew's passion has been "popular" since Bach's day. I'm not so sure about the J. Haydn work. "The Passion was performed under the Cantor of St. Thomas until about 1800." (wikipedia). I think you'll say; the Bach _never "transcended" its narrow liturgical use_ (cause you have a low opinion of Bach; set up "criteria" that will favor Joseph Haydn but not Bach). But why would that matter.


How many arrangements for other instruments of the St. Matthew were published in the late 18th century by major publishers like Artaria? Either you have no clue what you are writing about or you are deliberately spreading confusion by throwing things together that are very different. The St. Matthew is not the topic here.

And please stop your silly lies, I do not have a low opinion of Bach, neither of Mozart. This is utter nonsense and it is cheeky insolence of you to claim this about me.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

hammeredklavier said:


> Aren't we always told that what made J. Haydn really "famous" was his late symphonies (and Die Schopfung)? The author should have been more specific on *how* "the work was *instrumental* in establishing Haydn's international reputation". And we know all sorts of composers were "popular" at the time; J. Haydn was just good at "making himself known" and "marketing" his work (via printing) at the time.


Obviously, Haydn must have had a strong international reputation in the early 1780s otherwise he would not have received the international commissions (7 last words, symphonies 76-78 for a planned London trip that was cancelled, Paris symphonies, eventually the two trips to London in the 1790s). Obviously, there is no contradiction that this reputation grew even stronger by pieces like the late symphonies and eventually the late oratorios.
And do you really think Artaria or Haydn himself could "market" his music with modern day commercials to boost the popularity? If the music was not selling well, there was little to be done about it. They would certainly not go to the trouble to make alternative versions and print them if there was no market.
We also know that someone else made a choral arrangement in the 1790s before Haydn himself did which in turn motivated Haydn to do his own choral version (to get the money himself). 
How do you explain other people trying to cash in on Haydn's popularity if the latter was just "marketing"?


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

In addition, I expressed myself a bit puzzlement about the popularity. I find it quite extraordinary (more in the sense of "uncommon" than "great"), but it is not a great favorite of mine. I never made exaggerated claims like the following, wikipedia quoting a paper by Michael Spitzer. I am just giving some information about the contemporary conditions and history of the versions.

"Haydn uses an extremely wide range of tonalities for a composition of the time. Musicologist Mark [sic!] Spitzer observes of this: "In its tonal freedom [it] anticipates [Haydn's] late Masses, particularly the Harmoniemesse ... The only other Classical 'multi-piece' which spreads itself across the entire tonal gamut with this architectural breadth is Beethoven's String Quartet in C♯ minor, op. 131 ... Why, then, is Beethoven given credit for experimental daring when Haydn, once again, gets there first?"[5]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Seven_Last_Words_of_Christ_(Haydn)#cite_note-5

https://academic.oup.com/em/article-abstract/XXIX/4/660/467880?redirectedFrom=fulltext


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Kreisler jr said:


> I never made exaggerated claims like the following, wikipedia quoting a paper by Michael Spitzer. I am just giving some information about the contemporary conditions and history of the versions.
> "Haydn uses an extremely wide range of tonalities for a composition of the time. Musicologist Mark [sic!] Spitzer observes of this: "In its tonal freedom [it] anticipates [Haydn's] late Masses, particularly the Harmoniemesse ... The only other Classical 'multi-piece' which spreads itself across the entire tonal gamut with this architectural breadth is Beethoven's String Quartet in C♯ minor, op. 131 ... Why, then, is Beethoven given credit for experimental daring when Haydn, once again, gets there first?"[5]


Ok (your points are well-taken), but I've thought that quote by Mark Spitzer exaggerated Joseph Haydn's late accomplishments. To me, the harmoniemesse is another work in Joseph's late period, where his style of "plain loudness" is a bit too much to bear; I don't find Joseph Haydn's other extended works easier to go through than the SLWOC.
In my view, the "dullness" of this work has to do with the composers' harmonic thinking, but the OP hasn't given any clues as to why he thinks it is particularly dull and I'm still curious about that.



Kreisler jr said:


> You are really an insolent person and the only one with a silly Anti-Haydn agenda. ... And please stop your silly lies, I do not have a low opinion of Bach


Your points are well-taken. Sorry about that. Your comparisons of Bach to finger exercises and Czerny in the other threads gave me the impression.



vtpoet said:


> Tell me how many Hail Mozart's to say, and I'll try to get on with my life.


If you ask me, Joseph Haydn pretty much "straight-jacketed" himself into writing a series of slow movements in the SLWOC even though he could have been a bit more "flexible" like Mozart K.243 (Several movements of K.243 are shorter and marked faster tempo markings than the SLWOC, but I think, except the deliberately fast-paced Panis vivus, they feel "slow" in pace), or have a movement of harmonic contrast like K.477 (I think my perception of the SLWOC would certainly have been different if there was at least one movement like that).


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

hammeredklavier said:


> .
> 
> .... If you ask me, Joseph Haydn pretty much "straight-jacketed" himself into writing a series of slow movements in the SLWOC even though he could have been a bit more "flexible" like Mozart K.243 (Several movements of K.243 are shorter and marked faster tempo markings than the SLWOC, but I think, except the deliberately fast-paced Panis vivus, they feel "slow" in pace), or have a movement of harmonic contrast like K.477 (I think my perception of the SLWOC would certainly have been different if there was at least one movement like that).


I agree, HK. Just because of the subject matter there was no need to have so many slow sonata movements. Tempo doesn't have to indicate mood.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

My confession is I don't have the stamina to get through any of the 7 Last Words, The Creation, or the Seasons.


----------

