Talk:Symphony No. 45 (Haydn)

4 movements or 5?

As is usual for symphonies, it is in four movements

and then

What follows is essentially a second slow movement, which is extremely unusual in Classical symphonies

This is inconsistent if not contradictory. I would suggest correcting the first of these sentences as follows: "The last movement, which gives the symphony its name, is an addition to the normal four-movement structure of this period," or something similar. Comments?--Zeisseng 13:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Good point. Sometimes the Farewell part is seen as part of the finale, other times its seen as a separate movement. Either way, its certainly not "usual". I believe that part was just carried over from another work as a template. DavidRF 01:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

This is an interesting observation. However, I don't think the case can be legitimately made that the work is written in five movements -- after all, this is Haydn and it is the Classical Era. Although the symphony is no doubt unusual (for a number of reasons), I think it might make more sense to refer to the "farewell" ending as a kind of extended cadenza and not as a separate movement altogether. --Todeswalzer|Talk 16:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I don't think one would want to say "cadenza". The music is not especially virtuosic, the original themes don't return afterwards, there's no trill, no fermata -- none of the hallmarks of a cadenza. For a real example of a cadenza in a Haydn symphony, take a look at the slow movement of Symphony No. 96, which does have all these things. Opus33 18:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Its certainly not a "cadenza"... my guess is that was a case of typing the wrong word. Extended "coda" is more like it. I have two copies of this symphony on CD. One gives it four tracks and one gives it five. In both cases, the fourth movement is labeled "Finale" which leads me to believe that its a "four movement" work. Either way, its a unique enough case compared every other Haydn symphony (except #60) where this could be spelled out in detail in the article. DavidRF 20:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, DavidRF. "Coda" is in fact what I meant. --Todeswalzer|Talk 20:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok. So, I think the best way to count the movements is to consult the score (as opposed to counting the tracks). I'll try to find one soon. Opus33 00:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I understand. Many tracks are setup to for convenience and are sometimes do not have the same number and location on different recordings. The fact that I found two CD's that had a different number of tracks showed that it was not a reliable method. I only settled on four because the fourth movement was titled "Finale". Again, this is a special case for a special symphony so any further explanation (or even acknowledgement of the ambiguity) is certainly welcome in the article. DavidRF 00:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I have the Eulenburg score (edited by Ernest Praetorius) which claims to be based on the complete edition of Breitkopf and Härtel of 1933. The contents page unequivocally indicates 4 movements, as you say, DavidRF, with the 4th movement marked Finale: Presto/Adagio. But when you look at the score itself the bar-numbering (measure-numbering) starts afresh with the Adagio! And the fact remains that, when you listen to the piece, there is a clear break between the presto and the adagio, and the material of the latter is utterly new compared to the presto. 5th movement? Extended coda? Take your pick! --Zeisseng 13:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh boy... --Todeswalzer|Talk 20:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Minor key unusual?

I propose removing the follwoing phrase, recently inserted: "It is particularly noteworthy that the symphony is written in a minor key, which would have been highly unconventional for the time -- most symphonies and, in fact, most music being composed in a major key."

Haydn wrote a number symphones in the minor key. especially in this middle period of his career (26, 39, 44, 45, 49, 52...), while to say that most symphones and most music is writtein the major is a generalisation which seems out of place in this specific context--Zeisseng 17:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The frequency of minor-key symphonies is a hallmark of the whole "Sturm und Drang" period of Haydn's career, so it's odd to single out the Farewell Symphony in this way. Opus33 18:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

If you'll notice the passage singled-out, I never said it was "unusual" per se -- I said it was noteworthy. At the time the Farewell Symphony was written, it was especially rare, i.e. "highly unconventional", for a composer to write a piece of music in a minor home key: Just compare the number of minor-key symphonies with those written in a major key. So I don't see why there should be much debate on this point. Therefore I still think it's worth noting in the article, perhaps in conjunction with something about the sturm und Drang movement of which this symphony is so obviously a part. --Todeswalzer|Talk 00:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Fine. I've added references to other minor-key symphonies of this period, along with a reference to the "Sturm und Drang" movement, as suggested.Zeisseng 19:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to create the impression of standoffishness, and I'm certainly not going to force my position on anybody who disagrees; however, I don't think anyone can reasonably deny that writing in a minor key is unconventional for classical-era music. This is the only point I was trying to make, and I believe it makes sense to point this out since a casual reader/listener probably will not be aware of this. --Todeswalzer|Talk 20:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

It's certainly true that most music of this era is written in major keys, but there is still a lot in minor keys and I'm not sure that composing a piece in the minor can be considered as unconventional. But even if it can, to say so in this particular article would logically imply saying so in the case of every other article concerning a symphony in a minor key. I would suggest such considerations belong in more general articles (e.g. Symphony). --Zeisseng 23:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, then, just a mention of Sturm und drang? --Todeswalzer|Talk 23:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I reluctantly agree that the majority of pieces at the time were written in major keys, however, some of the greates and most powerful pieces of music were written in the minor keys. For example, Haydn's Kyrie, Mozart's Piano Concerto No. 20 K. 466, Mozart's Mass in C minor, Mozart's Piano Concerto No. 24 and Mozart's Requiem was in the minor and was by no means unconventional. To say that writing a symphony in the minor keys was unconventional is absolutely absurd. Haydn was innovating, using music for what it was, expressing his emotions.Aross12345 (talk) 00:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Trio from Lamentatio Chant?

Robbins Landon points out that "The Trio is based upon a variant of an old Gregorian melody, the 'Incipit lamentatio'" that was also used by Symphony No. 26 (Haydn). Anyone else hear this? I will admit, though, that it was never obvious to which part of #26 contained the chant (I often need these things spelled out more explicitly with a score snippet). Should we add this note to the article? DavidRF (talk) 02:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

References

Is a bassoon called for?

A visiting anon has gone back and forth on whether this symphony has a bassoon part. Checking on IMSLP I find that in the edition edited by Robbins Landon, the bass line is marked as being shared by cello, double basses, and bassoon. An earlier edition edited by Praetorius is also given by IMSLP, with no bassoon designation on the bass line. I feel safer going with Robbins Landon, but I also wish we could see the original sources or some actual verbal discussion by an authority to be sure. Opus33 (talk) 01:42, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

That's a performance practice issue. Often there is no independent bassoon part, but many scholars feel that a single bassoon and double bass should double the cello part as part of the "basso". Webster is big on this and its how Hogwood reconciles only using one cello for half of the symphonies. There actually is a 'fagotto' in both of the above scores in final adagio of #45. It only plays four bars and its not solo... it doubles the first violin (an octave below) for two bars twice and then presumably walks off the stage. So, technically I suppose there is an obbligato bassoon, thought I've seen it left out of several scoring lists (Steinberg leaves it out) or included only as part of the "basso" (IMSLP general information section). Those four bars aside, there's always a question in the early symphonies as to how "independent" the bassoon part is. Its wasn't until the mid-to-late 1770s that the bassoon part was consistently independent. (Probably around the time that "two bassoons" became the standard scoring).DavidRF (talk) 03:57, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, David. Clearly I should have kept on looking through the whole score (oops). With regard to the article, I think we should keep the bassoon in the listing of the instrumentation -- if there are any notes that are a bassoon part, then surely there is a bassoon part. Opus33 (talk) 20:17, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Edmund White

Article might mention that Edmund White derives the title of his book The Farewell Symphony from this composition. (2604:2000:C5CA:AF00:6DE2:8EE9:1B02:C665 (talk) 18:45, 7 March 2016 (UTC))