Skip to main content

Haydn: The London Symphonies: Symphony #101 "Clock"

Going through each of these six London Symphonies (after today, we'll have finished three of them) has been a wonderful experience. I can't believe I went this long through life and, until recently, never really listened to Haydn's symphonic works.
**********************
Sir Colin Davis and the Concertgebouw Orchestra
Joseph Haydn (1732-1809)
Haydn: 6 "London" Symphonies (Nos. 94, 100, 101, 96, 103 and 104)
Philips, 1977/2001

**********************
In fact, when I was a student, my limited familiarity with Haydn quickly morphed into contempt after playing his Trumpet Concerto a few hundred times too many at auditions for various All-State and All-County music competitions. Unfortunately, even the best music doesn't age well after countless repetitions.

But what a mistake I made generalizing from the fact that I got sick of this one work! Just like with my initial, trumpet-centric impression of Mozart, I had no idea what I was missing. Yet again, this blog has caused me to take a new look at a great composer and be overjoyed by what I find.

My reaction each time I fire up one of these symphonies is always a sense of mystification on how I missed out for so long on such wonderful music.

Listener notes for Symphony No. 101:
1) Once again the stylistic similarities between Haydn and Mozart are striking. If a week ago you played the first movement of #101, and told me it was Mozart, I'd believe you. Now that I've started this blog, however, I'll never be tricked again.

2) At 6:27 in the first movement (track 9 of this Philips disc), it sounds like there's a slight engineering error. The volume of the recording drops meaningfully mid-note and then the rest of the track is at that lower output level.

3) I love the whimsical second movement, where the "Clock" Symphony gets its nickname. Listen for the bassoons (with string bass accompaniment) playing the "tick-tock" theme. You think you're in for a pleasant, bouncy little piece of music. But then, at 2:33 into the movement, Papa Haydn pulls the rug out from under you with a booming, minor chord, followed by a loud and thrilling fugue-like passage involving the whole orchestra. Talk about injecting some drama! But then, a minute later, it's back to "tick-tock, tick-tock" whimsy. One again, you can tell Haydn wrote his music with a twinkle in his eye.

4) I'm also beginning to think that a close listen to any of Hadyn's London Symphonies might be an effective cure for depression. It sure worked for me the other day.


Comments

Laura said…
Great blow-by-blow description! And yes, how can the tick-tock not cheer one up?

Love the new song sample widget too.
:)

Popular posts from this blog

Does Bach Suck?

It's not often that you see a classical music-related comment that makes you spit out your coffee : "Bach sucks because he was not a true composer. A true composer hears the music before he writes it. Bach composed using a mathematical system of numbers which he tought[sic] his students. After his death one of his students published a book “How to write a menuet[sic] with little or no musical knowledge”. Frankly, the result of his work is not musical, the opening bars always sound musical because he copied someone else’s melody, broke it down into numbers and wrote counterpoint from it. Handel did not even like Bach, because Handel wrote music. Anyone who does like Bach does so because they are told to. For a comparison, listen to music by Frescobaldi, Rameau, or Couperin, then listen to Bach. The difference? Something that is musical throughout the entire piece, and something that is musical for 10 seconds and quickly loses interest." Once I'd finished mopping the co

Why Classical Music Writing is So Difficult to Read

Have you ever read the liner notes of a classical music CD and scratched your head wondering what the heck the writer was trying to say? Or attempted to read a classical music concert review in your newspaper and felt totally illiterate? One of the things that frustrates many people about classical music is its perceived elitism. It's unfortunate, but most of what gets written about classical music only worsens that perception. Most of the classical music writing I see out there--either in symphony concert program books, in concert reviews in major papers like the New York Times, or worst of all in the little essays in the booklets accompanying most classical music CDs--is quite simply terrible. Often, it is pretentiously written, it is full of industry jargon (yes, even the classical music industry has its own jargon), and it reads like an intellectually insecure liberal arts student's PhD thesis. There are a few reasons for this. First, there's the fundamental difficulty

Schubert: Symphony #3

I have a confession to make. Today's CD is not only further proof of my need to start this blog, but it is perhaps the most embarrassing example of how mindless and uncontemplative my life had become over the past several years. This CD sat on my shelf with more than a hundred other CDs for years, unlistened to, unnoticed, and collecting dust. It was just like all the rest of my CDs, except, uh, in one key respect: It was still in its cellophane wrapper. I had been so out of touch with myself that I bought CDs that I forgot I bought. I must have wanted to listen to this CD at some point, but apparently in the time between buying the CD and putting it on the shelf, I got distracted. For ten years. That is a prime, and admittedly foolish-sounding, example of why I'm taking a break from my career, and why I started this blog. I guess I didn't want to wake up in another ten years and hear myself making excuses for myself like "I work too hard and make too much money to