# Question about Haydn String Quartets Order - HELP!



## stealthjeditwentyone (May 13, 2014)

Hi everyone,

I am making a giant classical music collection and am currently working on Haydn. I acquired many of his works, using a thread from this forum for recommendations, so thanks for that. The thing is, I'm totally confused by the ordering of Haydn's string quartets. For example, for Opus 1, according to the wikipedia list:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_string_quartets_by_Joseph_Haydn

...it orders them by quartet number, but then within the opus itself, they have totally different numbers. All of the quartets I got (Opuses 1, 20, 33, 64, and 76) seem to be ordered this way. I am wondering what is the correct order and the correct way to listen to the string quartets? Am I following the quartet numbers, or the numbers within the opuses? Thanks in advance to all you Haydn experts!

Thanks,
Alex


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Nothing to worry about. Chronologically, the opus numbers are correct. Within an opus, the numbering is not always chronological, but why does that matter to you? It ain't like they are movie serials, or books in a fantasy series; they work each on its own. Relax and enjoy, guy.


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

SJTO, "relax and enjoy," but don't think you have to be a completist. Even the greats had a little downtime.


----------



## Alypius (Jan 23, 2013)

Stealth, Welcome to the TC forum.

Concerning Haydn's string quartets: Haydn was in many respects the inventor of the genre. In some of those early opus numbers (1, 2, 9), he is just beginning to shape the genre -- and so you won't find the same regularized numbers of movements and regularized tempo markings. As he gets going, the structure becomes ever more refined and in some ways predictable. That said, there is nothing predictable about the brilliance and ingenuity of Haydn's quartets. In fact, the predictable structure makes the creativity of individual movements or quartets all the more visible.

Concerning opus numbers: While his primary way of making a living in those early years was a composer-in-residence for the Esterházy court, he also published his works (thus the opus numbers, the equivalent of "volume"). In the case of his string quartets, he tended to publish them in groups of 6 (op. 17, 20, 33, 50, 66, 76) or in groups of 3 (op. 54, 55, 77). (I'm doing this from memory, but I think I got my numbers right). In the case of Haydn (and maybe only in his case), the number of quartet amid his total output is not what matters; it's the opus number and quartet number within the opus.

Where to start? My recommendation would be the six quartets of opus 20, then the six quartets of opus 76. Others would quite rightly argue for the equal importance of the six quartets of opus 33.

Recommended performance? I strongly believe in hearing them played on original instruments by performers who are sensitive to performance practices of the period. At least, I would recommend starting there before listening to them on modern instruments. Try the Quatuor Mosaiques, which have a justly acclaimed set of the Haydn. It's not complete, but it has the essentials. They were recorded by Astree in the early 1990s, then reissued by the French recording company Naive in the early 2000s and then finally boxed up just last year.










If you get interested, I suggest reading the article on Haydn's quartets in _The Cambridge Companion to the String Quartet_, ed. Robin Stowell (Cambridge University Press, 2003). If you want to pursue it further, try Floyd and Margaret Grave, _The String Quartets of Joseph Haydn_ (Oxford University Press, 2008)


----------



## stealthjeditwentyone (May 13, 2014)

So, just to confirm I'm understanding you right, it sounds like what you're saying is this, to use Op. 20 as an example:

Opus 20, the "Sun" quartets (1772)[edit]
Quartet No. 23 in F minor, Op. 20, No. 5, FHE No. 47, Hoboken No. III:35
Quartet No. 24 in A major, Op. 20, No. 6, FHE No. 48, Hoboken No. III:36
Quartet No. 25 in C major, Op. 20, No. 2, FHE No. 44, Hoboken No. III:32
Quartet No. 26 in G minor, Op. 20, No. 3, FHE No. 45, Hoboken No. III:33
Quartet No. 27 in D major, Op. 20, No. 4, FHE No. 46, Hoboken No. III:34
Quartet No. 28 in E♭ major, Op. 20, No. 1, FHE No. 43, Hoboken No. III:31

That's the Opus 20 according to the Wikipedia page. You're saying therefore that No. 1 (e flat) would come first, followed by No. 2 (C), followed by No. 3 (g-minor), etc...


----------



## Alypius (Jan 23, 2013)

Here's my notes based on the Quatuor Mosaiques liner notes:

String Quartet #28 in E flat, op. 20/1, Hob. III:31 (1772)
I: Allegro moderato
II: Menuetto: Allegretto
III: Affetuoso e sostenuto
IV: Finale: Presto

String Quartet #23 in F minor, op. 20/5, Hob. III:35 (1772)
I: Allegro moderato
II: Menuetto
III: Adagio	
IV: Finale: Fuga a due Soggetti

String Quartet #24 in A major, op. 20/6, Hob. III:36 (1772)
I: Allegro di molto a Schezando
II: Adagio: Cantabile
III: Menuetto: Allegretto
IV: Fuga a 3 Soggetti: Allegro

String Quartet #25 in C major, op. 20/2, Hob. III:32 (1772)
I: Menuetto
II: Capriccio: Allegro	
III: Menuet: Allegretto 
IV: Fuga a 4th Soggetti

String Quartet #27 in D major, op. 20/4, Hob. III:34 (1772)
I: Allegro di molto
II: Un poco adagio e affettuoso 
III: Menuet alla Zingarese
IV: Presto e Scherzando

String Quartet #26 in G minor, op. 20/3, Hob. III:33 (1772)
I: Allegro con spirito
II: Menuet: Allegretto	
III: Poco Adagio	
IV: Allegro di molto

I can't remember exactly, but there is a reason that the opus numbering and the FHE numbering don't precisely match (e.g. op. 20/1 = #28, which is out of order since op. 20/2 = #25). It might be because of scholarly research on the manuscripts which enabled scholars to determine the actual sequence of composition. If such matters matter to you, I strongly suggest that you not rely on Wikipedia, which is undependable, and instead rely on scholars who specialize in Haydn (e.g. the Floyd and Margaret Grave book cited above -- they discuss such matters in detail).


----------



## Alypius (Jan 23, 2013)

A few further notes concerning Opus 20:

From W. Dean Sutcliffe, "Haydn, Mozart, and Their Contemporaries," The Cambridge Companion to the String Quartet, p. 189-192: "
"When Joseph Haydn (1732-1809) returned to the quartet towards the end of the 1760s, he adopted a more systematic approach, with each set being carefully planned to yield a variety of keys ... and expressive typologies. Op. 9 was completed in 1769, Op. 17 in 1771 and Op. 20 in 1772. Haydn's obsession with the formal and affective properties of closure seems to date from the quartets of this vintage. Particularly common is the habit found in the minuets of making a beginning phrase into an ending one. The quartet is perhaps a particularly suitable locale for such game-playing. As a notionally non-public genre, there can be no sense, as there may be in a symphony, of a 'realistic' minuet for a social occasion. The effect also suggests a conversational mode, with the wit of discovering that a point made at the start has been returned to, 'proved' through subsequent discussion. It also flirts with the awareness of redundancy that must be central to a thoughtfully conducted conversation. Here of course the conversational ethos lies not so much in the interaction of individual parts as in a whole mode of utterance....

Compared with the consistent approach taken to movement-types in the two previous sets [= op. 9 and 17], in Op. 20 Haydn favours extravagant contrasts of typology, both formal and expressive. Indeed, of his future sets only Op. 76 is comparably diverse. This even applies to the three fugal finales, which have often been problematised, partly out of ignorance of their place in the Viennese tradition described earlier. The tendency to treat counterpoint monolithically has exacerbated this, blinding writers to the great variety found both between these three finales and within them (they are all based on several subjects). In one respect, indeed, Haydn provides a negative image of the monolith, instructing the players to perform each fugue 'sempre sotto voce', and it is only towards the end of each movement that the dynamic containment is overturned. Such softness of execution is incompatible with learned style, which demanded 'strength and emphasis', nor is it what one would expect of a finale altogether. Such containment may also be read as an attempt to draw both player and listener in, not so much simply to create a 'genuine chamber style' as to enact or dramatise a sense of genre. This also applies to the famous Affettuoso e sostenuto of Op. 20 no. 1. Proceeding almost uninterruptedly in even quavers in all parts, in a middle register and dynamic ('mezza voce'), this movement, more than any other, seems to have defined that part of quartet imagery that concerns communion, 'innerness' and privacy. It is not only a strong example of 'intrinsic' writing but also of chorale texture, and testifying to its impact is that at least three composers - Abel, Kozeluch and Mozart - seem to have used the movement as a model. The marking of harmony that naturally occurs in such a context, with so many other parameters being 'evened out', is even more apparent in the coda to the first movement of Op. 20 no. 5 in F minor, which contains a definitive example of a harmonic purple patch, marked 'piano assai'. Here the dynamic emphasises the mysterious and unfamiliar nature of the process, as if it were a 'secret science', yet it also draws the listener in. While the elevation suggests the connoisseurship of the few, the self-contained nature of such passages, and their clear signposting as special effects, invites a more broadly based listenership.

While in such examples the quartet seems to develop its own form of discourse, it remains open to impersonating or drawing from other media - a group of rustic musicians, the orchestra, vocal forms whether solo (aria) or even choral ('chorale' texture?), even, as William Drabkin has shown, the piano. In Op. 20 no. 2 sections of both the slow movement and the Trio suggest a Baroque ritornello for orchestra (which was, after all, very often just a string orchestra), while in between the Minuet hints at a musette, like a memory of folk music. A different kind of versatility is evident in the slow movement of Op. 20 no. 3. Here the composer uses the technique of bariolage, the playing of a repeated note in alternating stopped and open string versions. The first violin introduces the bariolage material near the end of the exposition; after the second violin's sustained use of it as a bridge back to the tonic, it passes to the viola at the end. Thus three of the protagonists play it, in a form of large-scale dialogue. Note, however, that it is not played by all four. On a shorter time-scale, such treatment of material a quattro is an obvious type of quartet syntax, one that is often used to define the boundaries of a thematic or modulatory area. But Haydn is not often arithmetical in this way; this avoids any sense of an imposed conversational structure."


----------



## stealthjeditwentyone (May 13, 2014)

Wow, did you type that all up from a book?

Actually, the one I am really curious about as to the order is the Op 1 - can you tell me which String Quartets are included in this opus and what the order is?

Thanks


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

stealthjeditwentyone said:


> *Wow, did you type that all up from a book?*
> 
> Actually, the one I am really curious about as to the order is the Op 1 - can you tell me which String Quartets are included in this opus and what the order is?
> 
> Thanks


Ha! Ha! Good one! :lol::lol:


----------



## Alypius (Jan 23, 2013)

stealthjeditwentyone said:


> Wow, did you type that all up from a book?
> 
> Actually, the one I am really curious about as to the order is the Op 1 - can you tell me which String Quartets are included in this opus and what the order is?
> 
> Thanks


Yes, I do read books, and yes, I do actually take notes on them. I think I've given you plenty of material in various posts in this thread. Time for you to do a little work.


----------



## stealthjeditwentyone (May 13, 2014)

???

your notes didn't have anything to do with my question. and the order you gave for op. 20 was not correct. not sure where the sudden rudeness came from.


----------

