# Haydn and the Baryton



## Margaret (Mar 16, 2009)

I feel strongly that at least one of the pieces of music I'm trying to identify is either by Haydn or Mozart. 

So I've been listening to Haydn's string quartet samples and then his string concertos from amazon.com. When that didn't turn up anything I started looking at his other string music and that's when I found his baryton trios which I'd never heard before.

I don't know if I've ever heard a baryton in another piece. Certainly I don't recall hearing it featured before as its got a distinctive sound. Can't say I care much for it. I'm not saying I hate the sound; if I thought about it I could come up with an instrument I like less. But, to me, the baryton is to the cello what the harpsichord is to the piano. (Except the baryton co-existed with the cello.) But there's something almost metallic to its sound especially when its plucked.

However, even if I wasn't crazy about the baryton the music Haydn composed for it is quintessentially Haydn and is wonderful. And I found a CD where the pieces aren't played on the baryton but on modern instruments and that I wholly enjoyed.


----------



## nefigah (Aug 23, 2008)

Yeah, the baryton wasn't super common -- for one thing, it looks hard to play! But (as you probably know) Haydn's employer played the baryton, and that's why Haydn wrote for it.

P.S. Why the harpsichord hate


----------



## Margaret (Mar 16, 2009)

nefigah said:


> Yeah, the baryton wasn't super common -- for one thing, it looks hard to play! But (as you probably know) Haydn's employer played the baryton, and that's why Haydn wrote for it.


Yeah, I caught that part about who he composed them for. An excellent reason for writing such beautiful music  and it explains why the baryton is so featured in those pieces.



nefigah said:


> P.S. Why the harpsichord hate


Too tinkling. And I think the notes are too short. They're there and then they're gone. Notes from the piano sound richer and linger. Ironic I know because I love Baroque music without really liking the harpsichord. I'd prefer to hear Baroque music with a piano as the keyboard.

Plus the harpsichord always makes me think of Lurch playing one on "The Addams Family" -- that was the only place I had heard the harpsichord prior to getting into classical music. That was fine for the TV show, but I just don't care for it elsewhere. Not that I _hate_ it, but I'd much rather a piano. And have often wondered what Bach would have composed if the piano had been around in his time.


----------



## Mr Dull (Mar 14, 2009)

I remember hearing a discussion about the baryton on the radio years ago where they said it had strings on the front like a cello but also strings on the back of the neck. I think they were where to increase the volume by resonating with the main strings but players soon started showing off by plucking them as well. It must need good co-ordination to do that.

Margaret I am the opposite of you. I love the sound of the harpsichord because of the tinkling. You can hear the notes clearly. With a piano the notes become joined up and produce a wash of sound. 

I am sure if Bach had written for a piano it would have been different to the harpsichord. He would have been taking advantage of the piano's abilities to produce the best music possible and as noted these abilities are very different from a harpsichord. If you want to try a comparison from another composer Mozart wrote music for both instruments.


----------



## nefigah (Aug 23, 2008)

I guess I'm just confused why people compare the piano and the harpsichord so readily. I guess just because it's hard to get ahold of a harpsichord these days, lots of trained pianists wanted to play pre-piano music on the piano?

In any case, I won't argue that the piano is a more versatile instrument, and I think it does in fact sound "prettier" overall. But it's still different! I imagine that those who wrote for the harpsichord did so knowing what the harpsichord sounds like, and likely would have produced different music if they'd had a piano in front of them, like Mr Dull said.

Oh well, I'm just thankful it's not popular to release albums of organ music played on the piano 

Back on topic: I'd appreciate any reference to a great recording of a Haydn piece featuring the baryton! My Haydn collection can always stand to increase.


----------



## Margaret (Mar 16, 2009)

Mr Dull said:


> Margaret I am the opposite of you. I love the sound of the harpsichord because of the tinkling. You can hear the notes clearly. With a piano the notes become joined up and produce a wash of sound.
> 
> I am sure if Bach had written for a piano it would have been different to the harpsichord. He would have been taking advantage of the piano's abilities to produce the best music possible and as noted these abilities are very different from a harpsichord. If you want to try a comparison from another composer Mozart wrote music for both instruments.


I'm glad you enjoy the harpsichord for its inherent characteristics.

Me either being silly or deeply philosophical. If there is an afterlife I'd love to hear what Bach's written since he died once he discovered the piano. Because I can picture him up there composing away, playing the organ with a heavenly choir singing.

Of course, if there is an afterlife I may just get a chance to hear it for myself.



Mr Dull said:


> If you want to try a comparison from another composer Mozart wrote music for both instruments.





nefigah said:


> In any case, I won't argue that the piano is a more versatile instrument, and I think it does in fact sound "prettier" overall. But it's still different! I imagine that those who wrote for the harpsichord did so knowing what the harpsichord sounds like, and likely would have produced different music if they'd had a piano in front of them, like Mr Dull said.
> 
> Oh well, I'm just thankful it's not popular to release albums of organ music played on the piano


Not being an explorer of harpsichord music I posed a question on Yahoo! Answers. My impression was that once the piano was wide spread that composers -- for the most part -- stopped writing for the harpsichord. The answers I got basically confirmed my impression. Yes, there were some pieces and some pieces still occasionally get written for the harpsichord, but basically it's the piano.

I find that telling. I also find it telling that, in general, you don't find harpsichords in peoples homes. I've been in plenty of houses that had an organ or a piano, but not a one that had a harpsichord. I'd say that history has made a judgment.



nefigah said:


> I guess I'm just confused why people compare the piano and the harpsichord so readily. I guess just because it's hard to get ahold of a harpsichord these days, lots of trained pianists wanted to play pre-piano music on the piano?


To me the harpsichord was the precursor of the piano. I think of the piano as the child of the harpsichord, so to me it seems a natural comparison to make.



nefigah said:


> Back on topic: I'd appreciate any reference to a great recording of a Haydn piece featuring the baryton! My Haydn collection can always stand to increase.


You might enjoy this CD as it used the baryton. It sounded like a good recording to me.
http://www.amazon.com/Haydn-Diverti...=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1239942080&sr=1-6

The new price is enough to choke on for one CD. But there are some used ones.


----------



## nefigah (Aug 23, 2008)

Margaret said:


> I also find it telling that, in general, you don't find harpsichords in peoples homes. I've been in plenty of houses that had an organ or a piano, but not a one that had a harpsichord. I'd say that history has made a judgment.


Oh, it's not really super surprising. My point wasn't so much that the harpsichord was "better" than the piano (I actually feel the opposite, as I said before) but that there seems to be a feeling that the harpsichord should no longer exist--that is, the piano is here, so let's take what was composed for the harpsichord and just play it on that, because the keyboards are laid out the same. _That's_ really what I don't understand. Sure, people stopped composing for it, but I think there are some pretty fine pieces that were composed for it, and they have every right to be played on it, because the composers knew what a harpsichord sounded like and composed accordingly. That's all 
As a side note, I doubt the harpsichord's decline was a sudden thing, as if people were like "hey, this piano thing is about the same size, but sounds better." Musical taste shifted, the omnipresent Baroque "continuo" fell out of favor (for which the harpsichord is quite well-suited, not being as demanding of attention as a piano), and virtuosos were on the rise--the piano being more suited to their particular desires to impress audiences (e.g. with sudden dynamics), while still being a relatively inexpensive and portable instrument. Such things tend to domino, as clearly the more pragmatic choice of instrument to invest your life in became (and is now) the piano -- which lead to more demand for pianos, which made it harder to even get harpsichords... etc.


Margaret said:


> You might enjoy this CD as it used the baryton. It sounded like a good recording to me.
> http://www.amazon.com/Haydn-Diverti...=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1239942080&sr=1-6
> 
> The new price is enough to choke on for one CD. But there are some used ones.


Excellent! The mp3 download price is quite reasonable, so I'll put it in my queue. Thanks!


----------



## Margaret (Mar 16, 2009)

nefigah said:


> Oh, it's not really super surprising. My point wasn't so much that the harpsichord was "better" than the piano (I actually feel the opposite, as I said before) but that there seems to be a feeling that the harpsichord should no longer exist--that is, the piano is here, so let's take what was composed for the harpsichord and just play it on that, because the keyboards are laid out the same. _That's_ really what I don't understand.
> 
> Sure, people stopped composing for it, but I think there are some pretty fine pieces that were composed for it, and they have every right to be played on it, because the composers knew what a harpsichord sounded like and composed accordingly. That's all


I figured it's because the piano wasn't invented yet. But if it had been I figured most of those harpsichord pieces would have been written for the piano instead. I mean why drive a Model T with a manual crank engine when better cars have been invented?

Plus, in general, people tend to like the piano better. History's proven that. If you want to please your audience then that's got to be taken into consideration. If we want to hear the piano then we'll buy the piano versions. Those people who want to hear the harpsichord can buy those versions. Personally, I would never buy the Bach violin sonatas with the harpsichord. The harpsichord as part of a much larger group where it blends is okay, but something where the harpsichord is that prominent -- no way.

Fortunately for both of us we're at a point where you've got the option of whether you want to buy it with the harpsichord or the piano.

I have no problems with transcription in general. One of my favorites is when the Bach solo violin pieces were transcribed for the cello. And his lute music is -- well, I'm not sure I've _ever_ heard it on the lute. I've only heard it on the guitar, heavenly!



nefigah said:


> Excellent! The mp3 download price is quite reasonable, so I'll put it in my queue. Thanks!


You're welcome.


----------



## periodinstrumentfan (Sep 11, 2008)

i quote Rachel Barton Pine who quoted Pinkas Zukerman on matters of instruments and equipment where the latter said "why would you ride a horse when you can drive a car" ...and the former's retort "well what happens if you need to jump a hedge ?" ~ 




Of course there are many types of harpsichords with different sounds.... i like some ... and some i don't ... the French groups often use this green instrument in televised / recorded performances and i just find it "harsh"


----------



## Efraim (Jun 19, 2009)

Margaret said:


> I figured it's because the piano wasn't invented yet. But if it had been I figured most of those harpsichord pieces would have been written for the piano instead.


More than that, my friend, a composer, used to say: "Even though the piano didn't existed yet, Bach had in mind the piano when composing The Well-Tempered Clavier." This sounds irrationally, nevertheless I feel the same thing, and also with respect to Haydn and Beethoven: I mean H. and B. already had in mind the modern piano and not the unbearable fortepiano. At best you can say that the fortepiano compared to the modern piano is like a cute little child compared to a mature person. H. and B. could have grown enthusiastic for the new possibilities of these instruments as opposed to the harpsichord and Co., but they, unconsciously at least, must have foreseen or "foreheard" the real piano. Proof: their sonatas are great when played on a modern piano and pitifully insignificant on fortepiano.

András Schiff made a recording of Beethoven on the composer's own piano (in a museum); significantly he played Bagatelles and not sonatas.

I accidentally bought a few sonatas of Haydn played on fortepiano. I can not see in these interpretations any authenticity. This is simply absurd.

In spite of all that, there exist very enjoyable harpsichord recordings, with a quite ample sound. I guess there is a lot of mechanical manipulation in them, and that in a concert hall the same playing wouldn't be so enjoyable (I never experienced that). Morover I suppose a modern harpsichord is better than those built in old times. Eg the Goldberg Variations or the Fantasy in c I have on LPs are absolutely lofty.



Margaret said:


> Personally, I would never buy the Bach violin sonatas with the harpsichord. .


I am sure if you heard them with Josef Suk and Zuzana Ruzickova (probably available on CD) you would run to buy them. A celestial beauty!


----------



## Ravellian (Aug 17, 2009)

As somebody who's actually played a fortepiano in concert, I can attest to the fact that it has unique advantages. When one plays very rapid notes, the fortepiano has a sparkling quality of sound that is quite beautiful, and superior to the same type of sound made by the piano. Ever wonder why Haydn has so many random rapid scale passages in his fortepiano sonatas? Because they sound really good on the instrument! Anyway I think that Haydn is best played on fortepiano... Beethoven, not so much. He was very dissatisfied with the instrument himself, as we all know, and his form of deep expression is simply much more profound on the modern piano. 

And frankly, I think the modern piano sounds ridiculous trying to play baroque fugues, I absolutely detest the fact that all piano students are forced to learn Bach's WTC masterpieces on an instrument created some 200 years after those works were conceived. The harpsichord is perfect for Bach: the lower left hand sounds are stronger than the piano's, creating the correct balance. Moreover, yes, the harpsichord's notes are short and crisp, as they are supposed to be, and Bach wrote for the harpsichord knowing that. That's why the notes come so quickly in succession in most of the pieces. When I hear pianists trying to create sonorous or sensuous effects using the pedal while playing Bach, I get so annoyed... that was never Bach's intent. He was a musical scientist, not a romantic. 

Okay, my rant is over.


----------



## Rasa (Apr 23, 2009)

The pieces for baryton were written for prince Nikolaus Esterházy (while haydn was in his service), who played the instrument if I'm not mistaken.


----------



## Efraim (Jun 19, 2009)

Ravellian said:


> As somebody who's actually played a fortepiano in concert, I can attest to the fact that it has unique advantages. When one plays very rapid notes, the fortepiano has a sparkling quality of sound that is


I didn't notice that I got such an important reply! Only now. I am sorry. - Not being a trained musician, let alone a pianist, I cannot contest your contention but only accept it. Moreover I never heard a fortepiano on concert, only on records or CDs: Haydn's sonatas in b, c and G (Hob. 40) , the Apassionnata and Haydn's piano trios and I like them incomparably more on the modern piano. For example the fantastic trio in the 2d movement of Haydn's s. in b minor is played (on fortepiano) with a lot of pedal and it becomes a confused lump of sounds. The high and the low registers seem to come from two different instruments and their contrast is not exciting at all. It must be that there are different kinds of fortepianos with a large range of quality. Nevertheless some pianists playing Haydn add breathtaking things which I guess could not be realized on fortepiano, but which don't seem at all to be at variance with the spirit of the work. Anyway Haydn can be played in very different ways without being "killed", far more than Beethoven, Schumann or Brahms. Do you agree with me on this last point?

Concerning Bach played on harpsichord vs. piano, what you say is entirely logical and must be true in a professional sense. I have a few recordings on harpsichord (by Zuzana Ruzickova): Goldberg Variations, Fantasy in C, 4 duets, Partitas, French and English suites and more; some of them are properly lofty and monumental, even though the harpsichord sounds like a toy for children… Nevertheless I can't help being fond of Sv. Richter's playing the Well Tempered clavier, of Charles Rosen's Goldberg Variations, Andras Schiff's Overture in French Style in b… I cannot hear in them anything ridiculous.

As for rapid scale passages, you can find them everywhere, first of all in Chopin, Liszt…

Do you know well all of Haydn's sonatas? If not, which ones do you know and in whose interpretation? I have four, five, eight, up to 12 performances of some of them. If we both have some of them we could discuss them, even though I am not a professional.

Reed you again


----------



## Ravellian (Aug 17, 2009)

Efraim said:


> I didn't notice that I got such an important reply! Only now. I am sorry. - Not being a trained musician, let alone a pianist, I cannot contest your contention but only accept it. Moreover I never heard a fortepiano on concert, only on records or CDs: Haydn's sonatas in b, c and G (Hob. 40) , the Apassionnata and Haydn's piano trios and I like them incomparably more on the modern piano. For example the fantastic trio in the 2d movement of Haydn's s. in b minor is played (on fortepiano) with a lot of pedal and it becomes a confused lump of sounds. The high and the low registers seem to come from two different instruments and their contrast is not exciting at all. It must be that there are different kinds of fortepianos with a large range of quality. Nevertheless some pianists playing Haydn add breathtaking things which I guess could not be realized on fortepiano, but which don't seem at all to be at variance with the spirit of the work. Anyway Haydn can be played in very different ways without being "killed", far more than Beethoven, Schumann or Brahms. Do you agree with me on this last point?
> 
> Concerning Bach played on harpsichord vs. piano, what you say is entirely logical and must be true in a professional sense. I have a few recordings on harpsichord (by Zuzana Ruzickova): Goldberg Variations, Fantasy in C, 4 duets, Partitas, French and English suites and more; some of them are properly lofty and monumental, even though the harpsichord sounds like a toy for children… Nevertheless I can't help being fond of Sv. Richter's playing the Well Tempered clavier, of Charles Rosen's Goldberg Variations, Andras Schiff's Overture in French Style in b… I cannot hear in them anything ridiculous.
> 
> ...


I'm sorry for responding so late, I don't visit here often any more!

Can Haydn be interpreted in a number of different ways without being 'killed'? I would argue not. Above all the music of Haydn is humorous, and a sense of tongue-in-cheek playfulness and agility must be present when performing his sonatas.. they are not serious concert pieces after all, they were written for students, and for students to have fun playing them in private settings. As an example, are you familiar with Beethoven's Symphony No. 8 in F, and the 'wrong cadence' that appears in the transition between the A and B sections of the exposition? That sort of humor is present all throughout Haydn. 
And that's partially why I feel that Haydn's music fits quite well on the fortepiano.. it's a lighter, less profound instrument than the modern piano. Playing Haydn on the piano to me makes him sound to me like bad Beethoven. 
Unfortunately I am not familiar with all of the Haydn sonatas (there are so many) but as I said, I have played several in competition and concert and studied many of them.

I've grown more accustomed to the 'Bach' sound on the piano more recently. It really creates a completely different style.. at the least, in the hands of a skilled pianist it can make the entrances of fugal subjects or certain interesting countersubjects more obvious by the use of dynamics. Some people may argue that this 'trivializes' Bach and makes him too simple.. I don't think so, but it is certainly different.

That's all I have to say. I probably won't be visiting this site any more, so I hope this was helpful!


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Margaret said:


> Can't say I care much for it. I'm not saying I hate the sound; if I thought about it I could come up with an instrument I like less.


Maybe it depends how good the performer is to some extent. I've heard some quite characterless performances of the baryton trios sometimes. The Esterhazy Ensemble who recorded all of them are a little guilty of that, though they are quite expressive in the slow movements. Nobody else really wrote for it as well, so there is only the Haydn style you can really judge it in (and he stopped writing for it once he left his employment). It never developed as an instrument because of that I suppose.


----------

