# Haydn String Quartets much more engaging than his Symphonies?



## UrbanK (Sep 10, 2016)

I've been listening to a lot of Haydn's Symphonies and String Quartets and I find that the quartets - especially Op.20,64 and 76 - have me much more engaged than any of the symphonies. Even the famous ones like the London and Surprise. I feel like there's always something going on in the quartets and that each instrument is doing something interesting or they are doing something interesting together, whereas in the symphonies I find the sound often fades into unremarkable 'orchestra sound'. Especially in the tutti sections where I often struggle to hold onto anything. There are more instruments but they each seem to be doing less - so much less that the sum is less than that of the four instruments of the quartets. 

When I'm not actively listening the symphonies almost completely fade out from my awareness but not the quartets.

It may very well be my deficiency, but does anyone experience the same thing?


----------



## Gallus (Feb 8, 2018)

I agree with you, and I think most Haydn fans would agree with you. The string quartets are among the jewels of music, endlessly delightful and inexhaustibly interesting in their almost encyclopaedic motivic development. One of my favourite things is to put on a Haydn quartet and try follow the voices as they come in and out, you're very right that there's always something going on! 

The symphonies are fun, very fun, but they don't quite have the pure clarity and learnedness that the quartets do.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Not me. With Classical Era music, I find the timbres/colours/harmonic material in string quartets inadequate to hold my attention. I need to hear Winds!


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

I reject the premise that the string quartets are more compelling than the symphonies. I consider them equal in stature.


----------



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

I can't say as I find the String Quartets more compelling than the Symphonies (in general). I've also come by a real appreciation for Haydn's piano trios (and piano sonatas as played on the fortepiano---Schornsheim and Brautigam). I find the Piano Trios, performed by Trio 1790, to be just as compelling as the string quartets.


----------



## UrbanK (Sep 10, 2016)

vtpoet said:


> I can't say as I find the String Quartets more compelling than the Symphonies (in general). I've also come by a real appreciation for Haydn's piano trios (and piano sonatas as played on the fortepiano---Schornsheim and Brautigam). I find the Piano Trios, performed by Trio 1790, to be just as compelling as the string quartets.


I have to check those out. I love piano trios.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

UrbanK said:


> . Even the famous ones like the London and Surprise.


There's the problem maybe - those London symphonies are not the most interesting for everyone, just the most Beethovenian. Try for example 88 or 68 or 51.

The other thing I'd say is that Haydn's symphonies were often played congenially, agreeably. Some conductors who spiced them up a bit are Herman Scherchen, Hans Rosbaud, David Blum, Nicolas Harnoncourt, and Ferenc Fricsay, and if you don't know what they did, you may be in for a treat.


----------



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

UrbanK said:


> I have to check those out. I love piano trios.


As long as you're not expecting Mozart, they're easily the best piano trios of the 18th century (obviously some better than others, like his String Quartets). I find that the best way to listen to them, to really appreciate them in context, is to listen to CPE Bach's Piano Trios first-as the rigorous next step to CPE Bach's era (who Haydn deeply admired), and not as the pale precursors to Mozart's florid trios or Beethoven's. Haydn was famed for his piano trios in his own day. They were his bread and butter.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

-


----------



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

hammeredklavier said:


> My reservation for Haydn's quartet writing would be that, when he writes a lot of passages of repeated notes, the part writing feels a bit dull for the most part , as if it's not really going anywhere. The 1 hour- long Seven last words of Christ is a good example. It's rarely as concise and powerful as Mozart's chromatic adagios, K.540, K.546.
> Maybe because, in my view, Haydn overall is just not that great a composer of SATB. ( good, but not great). His final major work, harmoniemesse, strikes me rather as an exercise in pomposity.


After reading your comment I've been listening to the Emerson's recording of Seven Last Words. Expressing grief was never really in Haydn's pallet. His "grief", for lack of a better way to put it, was one of gestures rather than expressions of grief. In the entirety of Seven Last Words, there's never an Erbarme Dich or a Qui Tollis as in Mozart's Mass in C Minor. Haydn points at sorrow, Mozart expresses sorrow. No doubt part of that can be ably explained by music theory, but part is obviously the temperament of the two men. In his symphonies, I've always been of the mind that Haydn could compose movements to be played slowly, but not slow movements. Michael Haydn, on the other hand, less original that Joseph, had it in him to really express grief, as in his Requiem (that arguably influenced Mozart's).


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Seven Last Words isn’t really a piece for quartet, there’s even some doubt about whether Haydn wrote it. The choral version is more interesting IMO.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

UrbanK said:


> I've been listening to a lot of Haydn's Symphonies and String Quartets and I find that the quartets - especially Op.20,64 and 76 - have me much more engaged than any of the symphonies. Even the famous ones like the London and Surprise. I feel like there's always something going on in the quartets and that each instrument is doing something interesting or they are doing something interesting together, whereas in the symphonies I find the sound often fades into unremarkable 'orchestra sound'. Especially in the tutti sections where I often struggle to hold onto anything. There are more instruments but they each seem to be doing less - so much less that the sum is less than that of the four instruments of the quartets.
> 
> When I'm not actively listening the symphonies almost completely fade out from my awareness but not the quartets.
> 
> It may very well be my deficiency, but does anyone experience the same thing?


I can't speak to the premise since I don't listen to symphonic music by any composer very much. I vastly prefer chamber music over orchestral forms. That said, among all of of Haydn's works the string quartets are my favorites.

Complete sets by the *Festetics Quartet*, *Mosaiques Quartet,* the the three volumes by the *Schuppanzigh Quartet* are period instrument performances and is how I prefer to hear these works. But I also have several by modern groups and enjoy them as well.


----------



## Olias (Nov 18, 2010)

Haydn's Symphonies are great.
Haydn's Quartets are great.
Haydn's Piano Trios are great.
Haydn's Piano Sonatas are great
Haydn's Concerti are great.
Haydn was great.


----------



## newyorkconversation (Dec 6, 2017)

I cherish Haydn's quartets and they are enormously important in the quartet repertoire - dramatically more so than the symphonies in their repertoire, I think. I recall a string quartet competition where each ensemble had to play one quartet of their choosing, and one Haydn quartet. That seemed about right to me.


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

The string quartets are first-rate from Opus 20 onward. His symphonies are much more uneven. That being said, I like symphonies 44 and 49 better than any of his string quartets other than Op 77/1. IMO, Haydn's string quartets are the essence of the Classical spirit.


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

I need to get a recording of the Haydn string quartets; I have listened to all of them on streaming but that isn't the same. What do you reccommend?


----------



## Olias (Nov 18, 2010)

ORigel said:


> I need to get a recording of the Haydn string quartets; I have listened to all of them on streaming but that isn't the same. What do you reccommend?


Don't know if you want a complete cycle or individuals, but having said that, this is my absolute favorite version of the six Opus 33 Quartets.


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

Olias said:


> Don't know if you want a complete cycle or individuals, but having said that, this is my absolute favorite version of the six Opus 33 Quartets.
> 
> View attachment 145229


I consider the important string quartets to be Op 20 and later, the essential to be Op 33, Op 76, and Opus 77. I'll check it out.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

I like all his SQs (but some more than others) and agree that I find them more interesting to listen to than his symphonies. I enjoy the symphonies too but they are inconsistent in quality. I'm listening to other SQs this morning but I'll take on some Haydn quartets later today.


----------



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

Olias said:


> Don't know if you want a complete cycle or individuals, but having said that, this is my absolute favorite version of the six Opus 33 Quartets.
> 
> View attachment 145229


I've only listened to the first few bars and it's already my favorite recording. Reminds me of the Solomon Quartet's performances of Mozart's Haydn quartets.


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

Being an old guy I tend to go back to my Aeolian Quartet and Amadeus Quartet for my Haydn. Imprint versions and still favourites.


----------



## 4chamberedklavier (12 mo ago)

Been listening to Haydn lately & I have to agree. Just seems like there's more happening in the quartets.

Also, I prefer the Sturm & Drang symphonies to the Paris/London symphonies.


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

I prefer pizza to tacos.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

They are not easily comparable and distributed differently during his lifetime. As people seem to exclude the early divertimenti opp.1+2 there are also almost twice as many symphonies than quartets. If one includes op.1+2 we have roughly

10 early quartet divertimenti (before around 1760) vs. ca. 25 early symphonies (until 1762-63)

18 quartets (op.9,17,20) around 1768-72 vs. ca. 30 symphonies 1764-73

6 quartet op.33 (1781) vs. ca. 25 symphonies 1774-82

33 "late" quartets opp.42,50,54,55,64,71,74,76,77 vs. 24 late symphonies 82-105 1785-95

So there are considerably more mature/late quartets than symphonies. And for a "typical" Haydn quartet mostly the ones before op.20 are ignored but "name" symphonies before ~1772 are not ignored, so a seemingly "random" pick will usually choose among ca. 45 mature quartets but among a larger and more diverse number of symphonies.
(It's even more skewed for the piano trios as there are only a bunch of often uncertain early works before the 1780s and almost all somewhat familiar ones are from around 1790 or later, i.e. contemporary with the London symphonies and the last 14 quartets.)


----------



## Coach G (Apr 22, 2020)

I like Haydn's symphonies and string quartets about equally, although I think that comparing the symphony to the string quartet is a bit like comparing apples to oranges. When I started with classical music as a teenager in the 1980s, I took to orchestral music and the symphony right away. The string quartet and the chamber music in general took me much longer to appreciate, let alone enjoy. For me, Haydn's symphonies are expressions of unbounded joy, a reminder that music (even that long-haired snob music!) is supposed to be fun. While the symphony takes us into the world the composer has created; the string quartet seems to invite us into the composer's mind. With the string quartet, the composer is the playwright, the four musicians are the actors, and we, the listeners, play an equally important part as we are taken through the conversions between the instruments, weaving through something abstract to find something that has some kind of order. I first heard Haydn's string quartets on an old VOX LP that features the Hungarian String Quartet, not to be confused with the Budapest String Quartet.


----------



## Ludwig Schon (10 mo ago)

I have always loved the Lindsays’ Haydn SQs. 

What‘s the best modern HIP to compare?


----------



## progmatist (Apr 3, 2021)

I have to agree with the OP. His symphonies tend to follow the classical formula dominant in his day. His quartets tend to be more adventurous.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

Mandryka said:


> Seven Last Words isn’t really a piece for quartet, there’s even some doubt about whether Haydn wrote it. The choral version is more interesting IMO.


Ive read a few conflicting pieces regarding the quartet version. Ignoring Wiki (a poor source of reliability at the best of times) Haydn definitely _sanctioned_ the SQ transcription but do I think he was the transcriber? It was certainly the idea of his publisher (Artaria) and I'm not so sure Haydn was that keen on the idea but some biographers insist he did rewrite it for quartet as he was keen to cash in on recent successes. Some have opined he didn't transcribe it due to errors in the score and some wind passages not rewritten for quartet and the whole thing was done solely by his publishers or friends (like the keyboard transcription for the same piece). However. I find this unlikely as it would possibly have come to light by now but accept that's its likely we'll never know for sure. Personally (but I'm willing to listen to opinions), I'm more inclined to think it was a rushed hatchet job to make some extra money (it was said to be a "popular" piece) particularly as he'd just got some more artistic freedom in his endeavours. I agree that many early quartets found the original score didn't work so well and this has been mentioned by more recent ensembles too such as the Brentano, Alexander, Kodaly and Casals quartets (to name a few) who opined that important details/markings had been missed but if he had rushed it (as I tend to believe until proved otherwise) then this would seem to be an explanation for the omissions and he wouldn't have heard a performing version to revise it. I definitely agree with you that it still doesn't work as well for me as the other quartets but in the right hands there have been some impressive recordings often with some rewrites and big changes in dynamic markings (Cuartetto Casals is one that springs to mind). I'm interested what you think about this Mandryka? Do you think it was his work or are you of the same mind as me?


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Gurn Blanston is good on this

Haydn Seek - 1787 – The Music part 5 - Have we got it wrong? 7 Last Words redux (fjhaydn.com)


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

Mandryka said:


> Gurn Blanston is good on this
> 
> Haydn Seek - 1787 – The Music part 5 - Have we got it wrong? 7 Last Words redux (fjhaydn.com)


Thanks for that, Mandryka. Interesting! Reading that piece, it would seem that some of my assumptions could be correct (or am I misreading it, lol?). I still seem to think it was a rush-job and listening to the less augmented recordings there is a certain 'hollowness' to the music that at first seems purposeful to fit the solemness of the music, in places, but then seems like the writing hasn't been fully fleshed out. I may pick this in the Weekly SQ thread on my next round as I'm curious what others think however I'm not sure if I can sit through over 50 different recordings at one time (Dvorak's Cypresses were testing enough and there was way less of those).


----------



## Gallus (Feb 8, 2018)

Ludwig Schon said:


> I have always loved the Lindsays’ Haydn SQs.
> 
> What‘s the best modern HIP to compare?


Quatour Mosaiques IMO


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Merl said:


> Thanks for that, Mandryka. Interesting! Reading that piece, it would seem that some of my assumptions could be correct (or am I misreading it, lol?). I still seem to think it was a rush-job and listening to the less augmented recordings there is a certain 'hollowness' to the music that at first seems purposeful to fit the solemness of the music, in places, but then seems like the writing hasn't been fully fleshed out. I may pick this in the Weekly SQ thread on my next round as I'm curious what others think however I'm not sure if I can sit through over 50 different recordings at one time (Dvorak's Cypresses were testing enough and there was way less of those).


I think it would be a really useful thing to do, to explore its reception on record. I’m listening to Tatrai now. 

It’s interesting that Gurn locates it in the same tradition as the Biber Rosary sonatas. An instrumental aid to a Christian meditation practice.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

fwiw I disagree with the claim of the thread. The quartets are more "systematic" but the symphonies are more varied and there are no such long gaps when he didn't write any symphonies (whereas there are ~8-9 year gaps between op.2 and op.9 and between op.20 and 33, and another 5 year gap after op.33). They also frequently have uses of instrumental color and/or concertante elements that make them particularly attractive. I clearly prefer several earlyish-mid symphonies to op.1+2 and also to some of op.9+17 and I don't think the mature/late quartets are "better" than the mature/late symphonies although as shown above there is an imbalance in numbers in favor of mature/late quartets.

edit: One reason for the opinion expressed by the threadstarter seems to me that during the 19th century the status of the string quartet didn't change in the way the symphony did. Sure, there are some huge and ambitious quartets like late Beethoven or Schubert, but even they are closer in dimensions, form and "spirit" to Haydn's quartets than an 80 min. Mahler symphony is compared with a 25 min. Haydn symphony. And these extraordinary quartets remained exceptions, many or most famous quartets remained closer to the classical dimensions and forms.

As for the 7 last words, it is a unique and fascinating work but I am mildly annoyed that it seems to be one of the most recorded "quartets" after a handful of nicknamed ones when it isn't really a string quartet.


----------



## wkasimer (Jun 5, 2017)

Ludwig Schon said:


> I have always loved the Lindsays’ Haydn SQs.
> What‘s the best modern HIP to compare?


If you like the Lindsays, you might enjoy the London Haydn Quartet's traversal on Hyperion. Personally, I can't stand it, due to the nasty whine that the violinists produce.

My HIP preference is for the Festetics set, soon to be reissued. I also like the Buchberger set on Brilliant; I believe that they use modern instruments, but are HIP influenced and play with a rather rustic character.


----------



## Ludwig Schon (10 mo ago)

wkasimer said:


> If you like the Lindsays, you might enjoy the London Haydn Quartet's traversal on Hyperion. Personally, I can't stand it, due to the nasty whine that the violinists produce.
> 
> My HIP preference is for the Festetics set, soon to be reissued. I also like the Buchberger set on Brilliant; I believe that they use modern instruments, but are HIP influenced and play with a rather rustic character.


Many thanks. I do like the Quatour Mosaiques, and they are my Mozart of choice for the SQs. Will check out the Festetics. Lindsays have been like an old friend, and very hard to give up on!


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

I've listened through Haydn's SQs and symphonies completely once, but I've found myself revisiting his late symphonies (and the "sturm und drang" ones) repeatedly. His 12 London Symphonies in particular are works whose charms I never seem to exhaust. I just recently finished revisiting them again (this time via Minkowski; not my favorite set, but it has its moments) and found myself as consistently enthralled as I was on my first experiences. I also plan on revisiting his SQs again, and I would particularly like to make a conscious effort to listen to several of the late SQ cycles multiple times to get more familiar with them. 

Back when I did listen to his SQs what struck me as a contrast to the symphonies is how they seemed more "Haydn the musician" rather than "Haydn the man." By that I mean that the SQs, maybe if just by virtue of their pared down form, invite a more purely musical-minded approach to them; whereas the symphonies with their greater variety of instrumental, tonal, and timbral textures invite, at the very least, different approaches. EG, I think there's much more Haydn's humor and wit in the symphonies: it's not like you can do a bassoon "fart" joke in a SQ, nor would the "surprise" be quite so convincing with such limited forces. Some of Haydn's symphonies are even in part structured around this (like the Military). I'm not saying this makes the symphonies better, but it does offer a kind of diversity that the SQs can't achieve.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Haydn's quartets are not far more engaging of me than his symphonies.


----------



## Ludwig Schon (10 mo ago)

wkasimer said:


> If you like the Lindsays, you might enjoy the London Haydn Quartet's traversal on Hyperion. Personally, I can't stand it, due to the nasty whine that the violinists produce.
> 
> My HIP preference is for the Festetics set, soon to be reissued. I also like the Buchberger set on Brilliant; I believe that they use modern instruments, but are HIP influenced and play with a rather rustic character.


Given Festetics full set of Haydn SQs is 24hrs long, which opus’ do you think they do best? I really only know 33, 50 & 76


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

I think the question is probably misplaced and should be "String quarterts much more engaging than symphonies?" I have played, sung, performed and listened to classical music and collected recordings for half a century and I can only count 2 or 3 string quartets I ever listened to that I liked enough to retain copies of in my collection. The format simply doesn't do it for me and never has. It seems threadbare to me. Many of my friends argue otherwise; one told me the string quartet is the orchestra. Not to me, Haydn or anyone else.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

It is quite common not to like the sound of a string quartet (or other small string ensembles). I love string quartets and don't dislike their sound but I don't think I like them particularly because of that sound. There are just a lot of string quartets I like, probably simply because some of my favorite composers like Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, Brahms, Bartok, Dvorak... wrote lots of string quartets.
I very rarely think that a piece would or could be better if for a different instrument or ensemble, i.e. I never think of string quartets or piano sonatas as "being better if they were symphonies". While I tend to dislike effects like frequent double stops or tremolo lik Franck and Grieg do in their quartets, I don't think that these quartets would be better as symphonies (maybe I just like the imagination).


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Well, I seem to have stumbled across a fabulous performance of it - Tatrai. Can’t get enough of it, and in the past I’ve reacted pretty negatively to this music. 



Merl said:


> Thanks for that, Mandryka. Interesting! Reading that piece, it would seem that some of my assumptions could be correct (or am I misreading it, lol?). I still seem to think it was a rush-job and listening to the less augmented recordings there is a certain 'hollowness' to the music that at first seems purposeful to fit the solemness of the music, in places, but then seems like the writing hasn't been fully fleshed out. I may pick this in the Weekly SQ thread on my next round as I'm curious what others think however I'm not sure if I can sit through over 50 different recordings at one time (Dvorak's Cypresses were testing enough and there was way less of those).


----------



## Wigmar (8 mo ago)

UrbanK said:


> I've been listening to a lot of Haydn's Symphonies and String Quartets and I find that the quartets - especially Op.20,64 and 76 - have me much more engaged than any of the symphonies. Even the famous ones like the London and Surprise. I feel like there's always something going on in the quartets and that each instrument is doing something interesting or they are doing something interesting together, whereas in the symphonies I find the sound often fades into unremarkable 'orchestra sound'. Especially in the tutti sections where I often struggle to hold onto anything. There are more instruments but they each seem to be doing less - so much less that the sum is less than that of the four instruments of the quartets.
> 
> When I'm not actively listening the symphonies almost completely fade out from my awareness but not the quartets.
> 
> It may very well be my deficiency, but does anyone experience the same thing?


Yes. I have a complete set of Haydn's symphonies, however I must admit that those lp records have not been used for years, whereas I am listening much to his string quartets. Take e.g. op. 64:5, 'Lark', or op. 77:1, some of the finest works I have in my collection. Very elegant works.

Best regards,
wigmar


----------



## Chilham (Jun 18, 2020)

I struggle with Op. 64. I listened to it again earlier today. Love Op. 20, Op. 33, Op. 76. Just can't settle in to Op. 64.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Chilham said:


> I struggle with Op. 64. I listened to it again earlier today. Love Op. 20, Op. 33, Op. 76. Just can't settle in to Op. 64.


Not even op 64/3?


----------



## Chilham (Jun 18, 2020)

Mandryka said:


> Not even op 64/3?


Nope. I listened to the Mosaiques 64/5, 64/1, 64/2 and half way through 64/3 swapped to the Festetics to see it improved. To me, it didn't. Love Haydn. Love his SQs. Just can't yet get on with Op.64.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

I listened to the Mosaiques disc I have (only 1,3,6, unfortunately) a week or so ago and liked it; so I doubt it is the recording's fault. I am not even that fond of the "lark" but it is obviously one of the most popular Haydn quartets (and has been for decades, it's on many anthologies of ensembles who recorded only one or two LPs with his quartets). #2 is also a favorite of mine, somewhat unfairly I tend to think of it as an improved version of op.33/1 
In my half-baked "theory" of Haydn quartet development, op.50 extend and intensifies the "thematic development" of op.33, then op.54/55 goes into a different direction with a very diverse collection of some brilliantly virtuoso (54/1) and some picturesque, almost experimental 54/2 and 55/2 works. op.64 is both a synthesis of these approaches and also a bit of "moderation" which can appear a step backwards but I always found these pieces very accessible (except maybe the first one as this lacks a bit of contrast).


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Chilham said:


> Nope. I listened to the Mosaiques 64/5, 64/1, 64/2 and half way through 64/3 swapped to the Festetics to see it improved. To me, it didn't. Love Haydn. Love his SQs. Just can't yet get on with Op.64.


64/1 is a bit unprepossessing; London Haydn are remarkable in 64/3, and pretty unique.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

Strangely enough I've had the Kodaly's fine but occasionally uneven cycle on in the car this week and I've been playing random quartets. Yesterday it was 71/1(which I enjoyed quite a bit) but this morning I went to work on 64/3. I'd forgotten how much fun that opening movement is with its galloping strings and how beautiful the adagio is. Gotta say the Kodaly did a damn fine job with it. I like the op.64s. It's an intriguing set for me and I always think the last two are quite different in style and atmosphere to the others (that might just be me) in that they feel 'bigger' (more adventurous) and less intimate than the previous 4.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

kute, @2:52




(54/3/iv)


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

Merl said:


> I like the op.64s. It's an intriguing set for me and I always think the last two are quite different in style and atmosphere to the others (that might just be me) in that they feel 'bigger' (more adventurous) and less intimate than the previous 4.


I have seen the idea that at least op. 64/5+6 were played in or even intended for Haydn's first season London concerts, therefore the exposed violin solos in #5,i and the trio of #6. It seems pretty clear that op.71/74 were intended for London concerts, therefore a bit more "crowd-pleasing" than the "intimate" style of earlier works. However, except for these solos (and there is virtuoso/exposed writing before, e.g. 54/1+2) I find these style differences very slight, but I am probably not a sufficiently subtle listener


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Kreisler jr said:


> I listened to the Mosaiques disc I have (only 1,3,6, unfortunately) a week or so ago and liked it; so I doubt it is the recording's fault. I am not even that fond of the "lark" but it is obviously one of the most popular Haydn quartets (and has been for decades, it's on many anthologies of ensembles who recorded only one or two LPs with his quartets). #2 is also a favorite of mine, somewhat unfairly I tend to think of it as an improved version of op.33/1
> In my half-baked "theory" of Haydn quartet development, op.50 extend and intensifies the "thematic development" of op.33, then op.54/55 goes into a different direction with a very diverse collection of some brilliantly virtuoso (54/1) and some picturesque, almost experimental 54/2 and 55/2 works. op.64 is both a synthesis of these approaches and also a bit of "moderation" which can appear a step backwards but I always found these pieces very accessible (except maybe the first one as this lacks a bit of contrast).


The adagio of op 54/2 certainly. I remember how my jaw dropped to the floor when I first heard the Lindsay quartet play it.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

Although I've since read about 64/5 & 64/6 being intended for London I hadn't read/taken in that info in when imprinting on these pieces, years back. It's more of a 'gut' feeling I get with them. Perhaps I have subconsciously absorbed this info or maybe ensembles play them slightly differently with this in mind (I think that could be closer to the truth). I'll need to relisten and compare sometime along with the other quartets in the set.


----------



## Laraine Anne Barker (8 mo ago)

UrbanK said:


> I've been listening to a lot of Haydn's Symphonies and String Quartets and I find that the quartets - especially Op.20,64 and 76 - have me much more engaged than any of the symphonies. Even the famous ones like the London and Surprise. I feel like there's always something going on in the quartets and that each instrument is doing something interesting or they are doing something interesting together, whereas in the symphonies I find the sound often fades into unremarkable 'orchestra sound'. Especially in the tutti sections where I often struggle to hold onto anything. There are more instruments but they each seem to be doing less - so much less that the sum is less than that of the four instruments of the quartets.
> 
> When I'm not actively listening the symphonies almost completely fade out from my awareness but not the quartets.
> 
> It may very well be my deficiency, but does anyone experience the same thing?


Yes indeed. But then chamber music (including solo instrumental works) is my special passion. At the moment I'm exploring the Great Weiss. I bought Michel Cardin's complete set and I also have a few from Robert Barto. Amazing music, every bit as good as Bach's. Maybe better?


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

"Haydn, Bariolage, and the Frog Quartet (Op. 50 #6)"



UrbanK said:


> I feel like there's always something going on in the quartets and that each instrument is doing something interesting or they are doing something interesting together


The texture is quite similar to the symphonies,




although the kind of "light-hearted intellectualism" (as demonstrated in Op.33 No.2) is often different.



UrbanK said:


> There are more instruments but they each seem to be doing less - so much less that the sum is less than that of the four instruments of the quartets.


Here's an instance where he exploits the greater number of instruments (No.45/v, time-stamped in the video);





and instances where he exploits the large, massed sound of the orchestra (No.65/ii, No.83/ii);


----------



## kuniklo (Jun 21, 2020)

wkasimer said:


> If you like the Lindsays, you might enjoy the London Haydn Quartet's traversal on Hyperion. Personally, I can't stand it, due to the nasty whine that the violinists produce.
> 
> My HIP preference is for the Festetics set, soon to be reissued. I also like the Buchberger set on Brilliant; I believe that they use modern instruments, but are HIP influenced and play with a rather rustic character.


I bought the several of the London Haydn's quartet recordings unheard based on the great reviews and my general esteem for Hyperion. Unfortunately I too find them almost unlistenable due to the violin sound.

I've been previewing the Festetics set and I think it might be my new favorite of any era, a position previously occupied by the Lindsays.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

The Festetics and the Mosaiques are both period instrument groups, and IMO are better than modern quartets for these works. The Festetics are a bit more rustic than the Mosaiques, but both are excellent.


----------



## Wigmar (8 mo ago)

SanAntone said:


> The Festetics and the Mosaiques are both period instrument groups, and IMO are better than modern quartets for these works. The Festetics are a bit more rustic than the Mosaiques, but both are excellent.


I had decided to order the Festetics Quartet when I accidentally came across the Kodaly Quartet. I listened to some samples and changed my mind. I am very glad for the Kodaly set. Good sound and so many indeed fine interpretations


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

kuniklo said:


> I bought the several of the London Haydn's quartet recordings unheard based on the great reviews and my general esteem for Hyperion. Unfortunately I too find them almost unlistenable due to the violin sound.


It seems that the London Haydn quartet is the most polarizing ensemble in some time. People seem to either love them or hate them with little middle ground.


----------

