“Joseph Haydn’s Keyboard Music”
It is known from both tradition and the extant documents that Haydn had access to and probably used the full gamut of keyboard instruments: organ, harpsichord, clavichord, and fortepiano. Attempts to establish the way these instruments relate to Haydn’s stylistic development and which one is most appropriate for a specific work have resulted in widely divergent conclusions. For example, some commentators believe that Haydn began to compose for the fortepiano as early as 1760, while others place this change in the 1760s, 1770s, or even as late as the mid-17808. Thus, it is necessary to reexamine the question of idiom by combining our knowledge of keyboard instruments and music in Vienna and its environs as well as in London, the available Haydn documents, and the relevant aspects of style as seen in more than one hundred keyboard works.1
The instruments under consideration all have individual characteristics. The organ, essentially a wind instrument activated by keys, permits the performer the least flexibility with regard to ornamental dynamics. Of the stringed keyboards, the harpsichord is its closest neighbor in this respect: for both, the performer has control of the large dimension by the use of various stops and registrations. On the other hand, the two differ in their ability to sustain a given sound: on the harpsichord a rapid decay occurs, while on the organ the dynamic level can be sustained at the pleasure of the performer. In addition, very limited dynamic nuances are possible on the harpsichord by the manner in which the keys are struck.2
Modeled on Italian designs, Austrian organs and harpsichords were quite different from those commonly used in France and North Germany: the stops were relatively few, a single manual was the norm, and pedals were used sparingly. Thus, music by Austrian composers conceived for these instruments has relatively little to do with present-day concepts of the organ and harpsichord based on the multicoloristic effects of the French and the elaborate pedal parts of the North German schools.
However, one should not ignore the fact that the nobles in Vienna and the wealthy Esterházys were very much taken by French taste in general: it is only necessary to cite the Prince’s desire to imitate Versailles in the construction of Esterhaza. French music also played a more significant role in the musical life of the Esterhazys than has been generally acknowledged.3 It follows that French harpsichords were probably among those available to Haydn.
Another group is formed by the clavichord and fortepiano on which the performer can control dynamics by the weight of touch. In the case of the clavichord, where the string is struck and the contact is maintained as long as the key remains depressed, there are two ways for the performer to affect the nature of the vibration after the sound has begun: the Bebung, a vibrato effect indicated by a series of dots covered by a slur over a single pitch; and the Tragen der Töne (or portamento), notated with dots covered by a slur () enclosing several notes.4 The clavichord’s dynamic capabilities range from very to moderately soft, which restricted its use to solo performance and the accompaniment of lieder. It is likely that the new fortepiano eventually superseded all its stringed keyboard predecessors because it had the harpsichord’s power as well as the clavichord’s graduated dynamics and Tragen der Töne.
Each of these instruments had a defined function within the various institutions and social classes of eighteenth-century society. Although they could all be used for accompaniment of some sort, the situation most appropriate to each instrument was quite different. The harpsichord was used mainly in the theater and court chamber, as its restricted expressive capabilities were especially appropriate to the stylized court opera and chamber music. The organ was “indispensable in church music with its fugues, large choruses, and sustained style”; and as does the institution in which it is housed, “it provides splendor and maintains order.”5 The clavichord was used for music in the home; its mechanical simplicity, low cost, restricted dynamic range, and capabilities of expression rendered it best suited for the environment of middle-class life. It was recommended for the most intimate and deepest expression. The fortepiano, on the other hand, available in both a square form and a grand design, was appropriate for both Hausmusik and public performance.
While these musical, social, and expressive distinctions may seem clear enough to provide a basis for judging which instruments were intended for specific works, composers and publishers were reluctant to draw these lines too heavily and risk limiting a given work’s market. Thus, many title pages allowed the options of either harpsichord or fortepiano; Flügel, Cembalo, Clavicembalo, and Clavecin generally meant harpsichord but were also used in a generic sense, while Fortepiano, Pianoforte, and Hammerflügel indicated the piano.6 In addition, Clavier could be used as either a generic term for all keyboard instruments (e.g., “Clavier Sonate,”) or a specific term for the clavichord (e.g., “Sonate furs Clavier.”)7 Finally, pieces intended for organ were often not distinguished from others by title, but were simply known as for the Clavier, Cembalo, etc. Distinguishing organ works by South German, Austrian, and Italian composers from those for the harpsichord in genres common to both instruments, like the concerto, is nearly impossible: the composers seemed to make little or no overt stylistic distinction.
However, range can separate concertos performable on the organ, and therefore plausibly intended for it, from those for harpsichord.8 As discussed in Essay IV, the range of the stringed keyboards was expanding during the mid-eighteenth century. Older instruments commonly did not go beyond c’”, newer ones added d’”, e’”, and f’’’. While it was a relatively simple matter to purchase a new harpsichord, clavichord, or fortepiano, or even to have an older one modified, it was a major undertaking to expand the range of an organ, possibly entailing architectural alterations and aesthetic considerations. Therefore, organ works composed in Austria up to the end of the eighteenth century rarely exceeded c’”.9
The shift from the harpsichord and organ to the touch-sensitive instruments, particularly the fortepiano, is intimately tied to the change of style that took place during the mid-century. Since keyboard instruments were so basic to the musical education of composers and performers, their limitations and capabilities must have had a profound effect on the way the various musical parameters interacted within a particular work. With the touch-sensitive instruments it was possible to achieve certain kinds of rhythmic stress and dynamic nuance that altered the requirements for various other musical components and changed the whole character of the thematic line. Indeed, the generation of composers learning their craft during the mid-century were required to adapt to and adopt not just the new instruments but an entirely new language.10
It is unfortunate that there are very few specific descriptions of the keyboards to which Haydn had access during his compositional life. The first keyboard instrument that he came into contact with was probably the organ. If the chapel of the Harrach castle or the parish church in Rohrau had no instrument, there is little doubt that when Haydn went to study with a relative in Hainburg in 1737 or 1738, he must have become acquainted with the organ and perhaps the clavichord. While at the Kapellhaus in Vienna, where he had both lessons and duties as a choirboy, he certainly learned about the various species of keyboard instruments in common use. The first instrument that Haydn himself probably owned was an “old worm-eaten clavier” (a clavichord), which he used while he lived in the attic of the Michaelerhaus; he may very well have lost it or another instrument when his living quarters in the Seilerstatte were robbed sometime between the end of Porpora’s Viennese residence (1752–1757) and the Morzin appointment (ca. 1759-1761).11 During the 1750s, when Haydn taught a number of students, accompanied for Porpora, was a temporary resident at several noble estates (Mannersdorf, Weinzierl, and the Morzin residences), and held various positions as an organist, he surely acquired a knowledge that went beyond specific types of instruments to their individual “personalities.”
There can be no doubt that as Vice-and full Kapellmeister to the Esterhazy family, Haydn had access to a number of different instruments, but for a variety of reasons none of the keyboards used for their chamber and theater performances survive. Fires destroyed the contents of Haydn’s home in 1768, when a keyboard is believed to have been a casualty,12 and again in 1776; the Esterhaza theater also burned, and according to the Pressburger Zeitung “the beautiful Flieg [sic] of the famous Kapellmeister Haydn” was destroyed;13 eighteenth-century keyboard instruments were not valued during the nineteenth century, when the modern piano was considered the supreme instrument to the exclusion of all others; Haydn’s family had little interest in preserving such items (one of his fortepiani reportedly became a feeding and storage bin for grain14); and what remained of the Esterhazy instruments was pillaged during the last years of World War II. One might expect to find purchase orders, repair bills, and inventories to document the instruments used for chamber and theater. However, these documents seem not to have survived. The same lack of specificity that characterizes Haydn’s musical autographs and letters is typical of the various repair bills, which frequently refer to the instruments in local dialects.15
There is but a single report of a performance on the fortepiano during the 1770s at Esterhaza. One G. F. von Rotenstein, who was at the princely residence during the visit of Empress Maria Theresa in 1773, wrote of a concert at which a musician was heard playing a Piano-forte.16 Unfortunately, we know nothing of Rotenstein’s ability to distinguish among the keyboard instruments, and Haydn’s name is not mentioned in this account.
One must wait until the 1780s for documents concerning specific instruments. Repair bills from the organ builder Anton Walter for work at Esterhaza and Haydn’s negative comments about Walter’s fortepiani —”Only one out of ten can be called really good, and besides he is extraordinarily expensive”17—have led to the belief that Haydn used one of Walter’s instruments. This hypothesis is further supported by the survival of a Walter piano with the number 18, with a direct connection to Eisenstadt, now in the collections of the Burgenländisches Landesmuseum. Whether this instrument was known to Haydn we cannot verify, even though the response and sound of this particular keyboard confirms Haydn’s opinion. Haydn himself preferred the instruments made by Schanz, one of which he owned during the late 1780s and another of which was purchased for Frau von Genzinger on Haydn’s recommendation: “His fortepiani have an unusual lightness and a pleasing action. It is most necessary for Your Grace to have a good fortepiano. . . .”18 The Kunsthistorisches Museum in Vienna owns several keyboards catalogued as having been in the possession of Joseph Haydn. Horst Walter has cast doubt on several of these attributions, including the Schanz Tafelklavier (i.e., a square fortepiano): the price Haydn paid for his Schanz keyboard was so high that it must have been of the grand design.19
Fortunately, it is easier to identify the organs for which Haydn might have composed church music, at least in Eisenstadt, as no fewer than seven still survive: the single-manual organ in the chapel of the Barmherzigen Brüder hospital, built ca. 1750–1770; the single-manual instrument in the Franziskanerkirche, built around 1750; the two-manual instrument of the Stadtpfarrkirche (St. Martin’s); the small instrument in the chapel of the palace at Eisenstadt, built ca. 1800; the old and new instruments of the Bergkirche, the former now in the Haydn-Haus in Eisenstadt and the latter a two-manual one constructed in 1797 by Johann Gottfried Malleck and used for the performances of most of Haydn’s late masses; and a small instrument at the Kalvarienberg.
When Haydn arrived in London he was immediately exposed to the products of Johannes Broadwood, the instrument maker to the royal family. He took up residence with Salomon and had a room at the Broadwood firm nearby, presumably furnished with one of its famous fortepiani. (According to Gyrowetz, Haydn composed the slow movement of Symphony No. 94 on a square piano, possibly a Broadwood.20) From his active social life in the British capital and associations with a number of talented pianists, Haydn also became familiar with instruments produced by Clagget and Stodart, two other important makers then active in London.
Nevertheless, when Haydn returned to Vienna he chose to take an instrument built by Longman & Broderip with a compass “From FF in the bass with the added keys up to c alt.” After Haydn’s death this instrument came into the possession of his long-time friend the Abbe Maximillian Stadler.21
Several other keyboards, acquired after his return from London, are known to have been in Haydn’s house in the Vienna suburb of Gumpendorf. One is described in the Nachlass Verzeichnis (HNV) as “a French piano fitted with mahogany and decorated with metal moulding [with a compass] from low F to high C—five and one half octaves with the usual stops (Veranderungen) by Erard et Freres Compagnie.”22 Haydn acknowledged the arrival from Paris of the Erard fortepiano in a letter of 20 May 1801; after noting some damage that occurred during transport, he concluded: “I must pay you the compliment that this fortepiano, from its outward as well as inner beauties is the greatest masterpiece of its kind I have ever seen or heard.”23 Although this Erard has not survived, it is presumably similar to the one sent to Beethoven, which is now in the Kunsthistorisches Museum in Vienna.24 Haydn seems to have owned two other instruments: a fortepiano, which he sold on 1 April 1809 (see Plate 1),25 and the clavichord on which he played “Gott erhalte Franz den Kaiser” during the last months of his life.
Apart from the Eisenstadt organs, the only authenticated extant Haydn instrument is a clavichord built by a comparatively little-known maker, Johann Bohak, in Vienna in 1794. The documents indicate that this keyboard was used in Eisenstadt and was later transmitted through a private English owner, a Miss Chapman, to the collection of the Royal College of Music, in London. Thus, Haydn occasionally used this instrument when he was in residence in Eisenstadt after the reactivation of the Esterhazy Kapelle in the mid-1790s.26 Despite the lack of additional documentation, Haydn probably used a clavichord throughout a good part of his creative life.
The two authentic portraits of Haydn sitting at a keyboard are not reliable indicators of his association with a particular instrument. Although there is no known documentation to prove that the actual keyboards pictured are anything more than a convention, the first of these portraits (Plate 9) was done by Frau Haydn’s erstwhile lover, Ludwig Guttenbrunn, who was employed by the Esterhazy family until 1772 and was also in London when Haydn arrived there in 1791.27 Guttenbrunn apparently prepared two versions of the portrait, the second of which—according to Somfai—served as the basis for Schiavonetti’s London engraving in 1792. Somfai’s first version, if it does date from the early 1770s and if the presence of the keyboard is more than a convention, supports the belief that Haydn had available at a relatively early date a square fortepiano of the English type. (The depiction in the portrait of a fairly young man cannot be accepted by itself as documentation for dating since idealization of portraiture to the point of misrepresentation was fairly common at this time.) The second portrait, a Johann Neidl engraving after a painting by Johann Zitterer, was issued by Artaria in two versions in 1800. In one of the versions (see Frontispiece) Haydn is seated at a square keyboard instrument with his left hand on the keys and his right near his face, and the slow movement of the “Surprise” Symphony (No. 94) is on the music rack.28
PLATE 9. Haydn at the keyboard, by Ludwig Guttenbrunn (early 1770s or 1790s?). (A-Eh)
Thus, with regard to the specific keyboard instruments that Haydn owned or had access to, the circumstances of their survival do not parallel his output. While we can identify the organs Haydn knew, he composed relatively little music for that instrument. On the other hand, of the stringed keyboards, for which he wrote numerous works throughout most of his creative life, only one survives and it was used after he had ceased composing for the instrument. To continue the pursuit of the question of idiom for these works, let us then enlarge our scope to the city of Vienna and examine the authentic documentation, as well as the works themselves.
To ascertain the availability and acceptance of the new fortepiano by the Viennese keyboardists to whom Haydn’s music would have been dedicated or sold, as well as by other composers active in Vienna during Haydn’s creative life, the first line of evidence must be the publications offered by Viennese firms and advertised in the Wienerisches Diarium until the end of the century. A perusal of this material suggests that the fortepiano did not gain sufficient acceptance in eighteenth-century Viennese society to become the first or only choice on title pages of prints. Before 1780, which marks the beginning of music publishing by Artaria, only two opera available in Vienna included “fortepiano” on their title pages, and then only as a second option: Boccherini’s “Six Sonatas for the Harpsichord or Pianoforte with an accomp. for 1 Violin or German Flute, Op. 3,” advertised in 1776; and Johann Christian Bach’s “6 Concertos pour le Clavecin ou le Pianoforte avec accomp. de 2 Violons & Basse, Op. 4,” announced in 1777.29 Perhaps the most convincing evidence stems from the title page of works by Leopold Kozeluch, the most popular keyboard composer of the last quarter of the century in the Imperial city: despite the fact that the Jahrbueh der Tonkunst 1796 states that “few authors have written so much for the fortepiano as he,” and Kozeluch required his students to play the instrument,30 the Viennese prints of his keyboard music carry the designation clavecin or offer the fortepiano as a second choice.31 Mozart used dynamic signs as early as 1774; the first documentation of his “delight” with Stein’s fortepiano dates from 1777. His preference for the fortepiano after 1781 cannot be questioned. Nevertheless, the title pages of contemporary Viennese publications generally present the option of the fortepiano only after the harpsichord; exceptions are a few prints from Hofmeister (e.g., K. 331, 481, and 511) and Artaria’s editions of the C-minor Fantasy and Sonata, K. 475 and 457, where the fortepiano is listed either first or as the only instrument.32 As late as 1802 even Beethoven’s compositions still carried the harpsichord or fortepiano option on their Viennese title pages.33
A second line of evidence stems from contemporary reports concerning performances in Vienna. Although we now know that the first public fortepiano performance took place in 1763 in the old Burgtheater,34 it is clear that the instrument did not immediately find favor among the most important resident musicians. When Charles Burney—a reliable witness—visited Vienna in 1772, he wrote in detail about the instruments used. Among others, the Emperor, the Countess Thun, Gluck, Marianna Martines, Hasse, Wagenseil, and Gassmann played the harpsichord; only two other persons played the clavichord—Vanhal and “a child of eight or nine years”; and one the fortepiano.35 One year later, in 1773, we know that Friedrich the Great sent a large Cembalo by Shudi to the Empress Maria Theresa: the Prussian king owned fortepiani from Silbermann’s workshop,36 yet he sent a harpsichord. Presumably the harpsichord was still the norm.
It was not until 1777 that the Countess Thun, mentioned by Burney, and the powerful Count Johann Rudolf Czernin acquired fortepiani made by Stein of Augsburg.37 In this same year Stein himself made a pilgrimage to Vienna, where his talented daughter performed at court on one of his fortepiani .38 Four years later, in the famous Mozart/Clementi contest, Mozart used the Countess Thun’s instrument; Clementi, however, played on a fortepiano from the Imperial court that was out of tune and had three sticking keys. That the court instrument was in such poor repair suggests that it was not normally used, and—one might add—since Mozart arranged to have the borrowed Stein instrument present, he must have been well aware of its condition.39
There are, however, indications that by the middle of the century the more touch-sensitive instruments, the fortepiano and the clavichord, were favored by some composers affiliated with the court. Although none of the surviving musical manuscripts used by the Imperial family containing music by Wagenseil, Birck, Steffan, Leopold Hofmann, and others contain dynamic markings or other touch-sensitive indications, works by Birck and Steffan distributed outside the court circle require dynamic shadings. In 1757 Wenzel Raimond Birck (1718–1763) published his Trattenimenti per Clavicembalo,40 which demands not only fortes and pianos but also contains the expressive indications amabile, crescendo, cantabile, and dolce. In some contexts the dynamics are strictly registrational and therefore easily negotiable on the harpsichord, while others suggest the necessity of a touch-sensitive instrument. Although this date seems early for the fortepiano, at the very least these pieces were conceived for the clavichord. If so, this publication is the only known verifiable print of music for North Germany’s favorite instrument from a composer at the Viennese court (Example V-1).
Birck’s younger contemporary Joseph Anton Steffan was, apart from Mozart and Haydn, the earliest and most effective composer for the fortepiano in Vienna. While his first two published opere follow to some extent the harpsichord style found in the works of his teacher Georg Christoph Wagenseil, his Op. 3, published in two parts ca. 1763,41 requires sforzando in addition to forte, piano, and dolce. As in the Birck Trattenimenti, many of these dynamic markings are registrational, but others could only indicate the clavichord or the fortepiano. In some of Steffan’s later works there can be no question of his interest in the fortepiano, since some solo keyboard compositions and concertos explicitly indicate on the title page “per il Forte Piano,” “Forte e Piano,” “Clavi Cembalo d’espressione,” or “Cembalo di Forte Piano.”42 Among the most idiomatic of these works (i.e., requiring techniques not possible on the harpsichord) are the Capricci, which survive in a copy at the Gesellschaft der Musikfreunde.43 Unfortunately, none can be dated with any precision, but it seems that many of them originated during the 1780s (see Example V-2).44
EXAMPLE V–1. Birck. Trattenimenti, mm. 13–26.
EXAMPLE V–2. Steffan. Capriccio 3 (Setkova 49; A-Wgm), mm. 35–43.
A final line of evidence has to do with our knowledge of the Viennese artisans who built these instruments. Once again we are plagued by the inability to date their activities precisely. Although by the late 1770s instruments by Stein of Augsburg had been ordered by residents of the Imperial city, Stein’s firm did not move there from Bavaria until 1794.45 Haydn’s correspondence indicates his awareness during the 1780s of the workmanship of both Wenzel Schanz and Anton Walter, who together with the Stein/Streicher firm were apparently for the Viennese the most important producers of fortepiani. However, the Esterhazy documents reveal that Anton Walter also maintained, repaired, and rebuilt all types of keyboards;46 the demand for the fortepiano apparently did not take up the bulk of his time.
Just as it can be said that the Viennese fortepiani as a group have a more delicate action and intimate tone quality than their more powerful English counterparts, one commentator—presumably J. A. Schonfeld—published a comparative description of the fortepiani by Walter, Schanz, and Stein/Streicher:
The one artist who has become the most famous so far (and who, in fact, was the first creator of these instruments here) is Herr Walter. . . . His Fortepiani speak clearly with a full, bell-like tone and a strong, resonant bass. At first the sound is somewhat dull; but when it is played for a while, it becomes very clear—especially in the treble. However, if it is played a great deal, the sound becomes harsh and steely; nonetheless, this can be remedied by releathering the hammers. The instruments of this master often suffer a flaw, which must be watched for when selecting one: the treble and bass are not always evenly balanced. In some the bass is too thick for the treble; in others, too strong; and in still others, too harsh. . . . The second master of good repute is Herr Schanz. . . . [The] sound [of his instruments] is not as strong as . . . Walter’s instruments, but it is just as clear and for the most part, more pleasing. They also have a lighter action because the keys have a shorter fall and are not so wide. Actually, they are almost copies of the Fortepiano made by the Augsburg artist, Stein. This master also makes many smaller Fortepiani in the English shape [square], which are easily played and have a rather big sound. . . . The third great master, or rather mistress, is Madame Streicher. . . . Her instruments do not have the strength of Walter’s, but in evenness of sound, clarity, and a gentle sweetness that seems to float, they are matchless. The sounds blend together; the action needs a light touch, resilient fingers, and a sensitive heart. . . . Generally speaking, it is clear that we have, as it were, two original instrument makers, namely, Walter and Streicher, and that the rest imitate either the one or the other. Many especially copy Walter because they come from his school.
Inasmuch as there are two original instrument makers, we divide our instruments into two types: the Walter and Streicher varieties. Likewise, we seem to have two types of great pianists. One of these loves to treat the ears to a powerful clamor. So, they play with a full sound and extraordinary speed; they practice the fastest scales and octaves. All this demands strength and composure. In accomplishing this they do not have enough control to maintain a certain moderation, and so they need a Fortepiano that will not snap. For this kind of virtuoso we recommend the Walter Fortepiano. The other type of great pianist seeks nourishment for the soul and loves not only clear but also soft, sweet playing. These pianists can choose no better instrument than a Streicher, or the so-called Stein variety. Virtuosos who fall between these two types will also have no trouble finding a good instrument whatever their taste.47
Central to any discussion of idiom is the examination of the titles of the keyboard works in existing autographs as well as in authentic copies, prints, and catalogues (see Table V-1). In the entries in the Entwurf-Katalog (EK), on p. 20 (see Plate 2) the terms “Cembalo” and “Clavicembalo” both appear, while p. 21 has the term “Cembalo” exclusively, p. 22 “Clavicembalo,” and p. 23 “Cembalo.” The distinction between “Cembalo” and “Clavicembalo” here is apparently of limited, if any, significance. In the first place, the terms seem to be used interchangeably, and variances occur between authentic sources for the same work; e.g., for Hob. XVI–45 EK uses “Cembalo” while the autograph designates “Clavi Cembalo.” Second, although many of the sonatas and divertimentos were distributed in sets of three or six, EK only allows five works per page. Since the sonata at the top of EK 22 was probably composed about the same time and distributed with that at the bottom of EK 21, one might expect EK to have the same terminology, but that is not the case.
The autographs themselves do not enlighten us appreciably. For the three earliest works (before and ca. 1760), Haydn inscribed “per il Organo” on Hob. XVIII: 1, “Cembalo” on Hob. XIV: 11, and “Clavicembalo” on Hob. XVI: 6. During the 1760s he continued to use “Clavicembalo” or its shortened form “Cembalo.” For the following decade and through most of the 1780s, these terms were still employed—even for the C-minor Sonata Hob. XVI: 20, which has a number of dynamic and expressive markings. It is not until the E-flat major Sonata Hob. XVI:49 of 1789–1790 that Haydn writes for the first time “Forte-piano” on the title page of the autograph. However, this occurrence should not be taken as a “watershed,” for Haydn later reverted to less-precise designations.
The authorized prints of the solo sonatas and trios indicate fortepiano or its equivalent somewhat earlier than the autograph of Hob. XVI: 49. The first presumably authentic print of the so-called Esterházy Sonatas Hob. XVI:21–26, published by Kurzbock in 1774, allows for only the harpsichord on the title page, but the 1780 print of the Auenbrugger Sonatas Hob. XVI: 35-39, 20 consists of works “per il Clavicembalo o Forte Piano,” the preferred designation for Artaria’s prints. Hob. XVIII: I I, the only concerto to receive a possibly authorized print (1784), also follows Artaria’s general practice. The three sonatas for Marie Esterhazy, Hob. XVI:40-42, as published by Bossler also in 1784, specify the "Fortepiano."
In the case of the authentic prints of the trios, the first edition (1785) by Forster of Hob. XV: 5 together with Hob. XV: 3 and 4 allows the option of “Harpsichord or Piano Forte.” This designation or its equivalent is found consistently in prints until about 1790, when John Bland published Hob. XV: 16 and 15 with “Forte Piano” as the first option, before the harpsichord; however, since these two works probably belonged to the series of Le Tout Ensemble, the inscription must not be taken at face value. Although the Viennese publications of Haydn’s trios continued to offer an option, by 1794 the English prints began to use only fortepiano or its equivalent. The first Viennese print to use “Piano-forte” alone for a Haydn trio (Hob. XV :31) was that issued by Traeg in 1803.
In Haydn’s correspondence a keyboard instrument is referred to only once with regard to a performance: the famous letter concerning the 1768 “Applausus” cantata mentions the expected practice of using the cembalo (“Cembalisten”). However, there are numerous letters to publishers beginning in 178048 in which Haydn refers to specific keyboard works. Although these references do not have the same authority as the catalogue entries, autographs, and authentic copies, certain conclusions can be derived from them, as seen in Table V-2. First, Haydn uses the term Clavier in a generic sense. Second, used as an adjective, “Clavier” seems to have been associated with multimovement musical genres. Even in the famous letter to Artaria of 26 October 1788, “Clavier Sonaten” is employed in conjunction with the request to purchase a new Schanz fortepiano in order to compose them. Only in one case does Haydn use a variant of “Clavier Sonaten”: the citation “Sonate furs Clavier,” which may signal Hob. XVI: 34 or one other work to be for the clavichord.49
The correspondence also contains an important letter written to Marianna von Genzinger concerning the E-flat major Sonata Hob. XVI: 49. For this work we need not rely on secondary sources, and the authentic evidence is consistent: both the correspondence and the title page of the autograph explicitly state fortepiano. Furthermore, Hob. XVI: 49 is more than a work for any fortepiano; it was composed for an instrument by a specific maker, Wenzel Schanz.50
The previous sections surveying the external evidence for the character of the various keyboard instruments, the instruments Haydn knew, and Haydn’s terminology have only outlined the complications that surround the selection of the proper instrument for the performance of Haydn’s keyboard music. Since the documents speak against the conclusion that some kind of decisive “turning point” occurred, the best conclusion one can draw is that Haydn was well aware of the attributes of the available keyboard instruments and that at times he composed with one or more in mind. In turning to the works themselves, let us pose two different but related questions: Which works did Haydn compose with touch-sensitive instruments in mind? In which works did he begin to realize most fully the character of the different instruments?
Dynamic Markings and Tragen der Töne
The first question is best dealt with through identifying the presence in Haydn’s keyboard works of dynamic markings and the aforementioned Tragen der Töne, both of which can only be fully achieved on touch-sensitive instruments. Yet not even the presence of dynamic markings means that a touch-sensitive instrument is an absolute requirement, as dynamic effects can be achieved by judicious changes in texture, sonority, harmony, and ornamentation. Indeed, in a number of Haydn’s works from the 1770s where authentic dynamic indications are first present, they are underlined by some of the same techniques that would attain like effects on the instruments without marked touch sensitivity; this differentiation aids in explaining the logic behind title pages that indicate the two types of instruments. Thus, we have two classes of dynamic markings: those whose effect could be achieved by their context on a touch-insensitive instrument, and those achievable only on a touch-sensitive instrument.
The following types of dynamic markings in Haydn’s keyboard works fall into the first category: sforzando on a dissonance; sforzando with an ornament; dynamic coordinated with complementary changes in texture or sonority; dynamic doubled by or present only in an accompanying voice; and crescendo in an accompanying part in a passage of active rhythmic acceleration. On the other hand, dynamic markings not realizable from their musical context are of the following types: dynamic intensification with the thinning of sonority and the reverse; dynamic change with no change in texture; sforzando or dynamic without dissonance; ornament followed by sforzando; crescendo with other elements relatively static; and more refined indications such as mezza voce, calando, perdendosi, etc.
With these classifications in mind, let us now examine the keyboard works in which dynamic markings and Tragen der Töne indications appear in order to establish which keyboard works were composed by Haydn with touch-sensitive instruments in mind. For this discussion, only authentic and other highly regarded sources will be used.
The earliest appearance of dynamic markings was in the initial movements of solo sonatas from just before or during the first half of the 1770s. In these works Haydn often used dynamic markings only in the sonata-form movements and dispensed with them in such sectionally oriented structures as rondos and variation sets. Perhaps the earliest markings are to be found in Hob. XVI: 46/1 and 18/1. In the latter, dynamics occur in the middle section of the exposition and in the retransition. A touch-sensitive instrument seems required for the musical continuity of the first instance and for the counteractivity of texture and dynamics of the second; i.e., as the dynamics increase, the number of voices remains the same or decreases (Example V-3).
Although Hob. XVI: 18 cannot be dated precisely, the autograph of the frequently discussed Hob. XVI: 20 gives us a potential starting date of 1771. Whether we adhere to the autograph or to the authentic Artaria edition of 1780 (see Plates 10 and 11), there is no question that the dynamic markings require a touch-sensitive instrument. A comparison of the exposition of the first movement in the autograph and in the authentic first edition of Hob. XVI: 20 from nine years later provides a picture of Haydn’s changing use of dynamics. The forte added to the first edition in m. 9 only confirms, as does the piano in m. 10, a dynamic already implied by the texture. The famous alternating forte and piano in m. 14 of both the autograph and the print does not lose its total effect on a harpsichord because of the motion of the melodic line—ascending for forte and descending for piano—and the possibility of a slightly more pronounced attack achievable on the harpsichord for the forte pitches. Yet in the second part of the transition in both the exposition (mm. 20-26) and recapitulation the harpsichord is no longer a possible alternative, since the forte and piano, as in Hob. XVI: 18, operate “counter to” the sonorities. Furthermore, in the first edition a pianissimo is added to mm. 76 and 87, and a fortissimo to m. 92, requiring more than two levels of shading. Thus, in terms of the dynamic effects required, the 1771 autograph of the C-minor Sonata does not represent an advance over Hob. XVI: 18, except that the shadings are more numerous and are used at a smaller dimension. However, with the 1780 edition the necessity of a touch-sensitive instrument is intensified.
EXAMPLE V–3. Hob. XVI: 18/1, mm. 12–17, 69–75.
Dynamic markings also are found in the E-flat major Variations Hob. XVII: 3 from ca. 1770—before 1774. However, they seem to have been taken from the original theme as found in the String Quartet Op. 9/2/3, as the variations themselves contain no shadings. Composed about the same time are the six sonatas for Nikolaus Esterházy, Hob. XVI: 21–26, which contain but a single dynamic marking, a forte in the autograph of Hob. XVI: 22/1. Its placement in m. 41, one measure before the recapitulation, is not musically convincing.
As distributed in presumably authentic Viennese copies, Hob. XVI: 27–32 also contain dynamic markings in only one sonata, that in F major Hob. XVI: 29 composed in 1774 (see Example V-18). Unfortunately, the autograph lacks dynamics, and the copies themselves are inconsistent in their placement. Nevertheless, an important conclusion can be drawn from this example: it is the first source to make extensive use of dynamics in contexts that do not allow other musical elements to compensate for touch. Measure 10 brings to mind m. 14 of Hob. XVI: 20: forte and piano alternate and are coordinated with a rising eighth-note passage. However, in the 1774 example these dynamics are not supported by the texture but operate in contradiction to it: the fortes apply to a single sound while the pianos are written for a triple simultaneity. On the other hand, the dynamic changes in mm. 21–23 are unlike anything seen previously in a Haydn keyboard work; in fact, a “crescendo” appears only twice in other sonatas from this decade—once in the E-flat major Auenbrugger Sonata Hob. XVI:38 and once in the D-major Esterházy Sonata Hob. XVI: 42—and is not encountered again until the late 1780s, although both “calando” and “perdendosi” are used in the meantime. In these measures of Hob. XVI: 29, the crescendo depends strictly on touch, as every other element remains constant.
Of the Auenbrugger Sonatas Hob. XVI: 35-39, 20 published in 1780, all except Hob. XVI: 37 contain dynamic markings. Viewed as a set, however, these sonatas “per il Clavicembalo o Forte Piano” must have represented in their use of dynamics a publisher’s ideal: some are more suitable for the harpsichord, some more suitable for the fortepiano. But few of the latter depend so heavily on their dynamic markings for the total effect as to exclude the set from the sizable market of harpsichord owners as, for example, the late works for London very well might have done. Indeed, one cannot cite many instances where the effect of the dynamics could not be felt either from the musical context or by careful preparation, e.g., shortening a note preceding a sforzando. Here dynamic indications are fairly common in movements not in sonata form.
The sonatas that are not a part of a set (Hob. XVI: 33, 43, 34) present no new dynamic effects; they seem less progressive with regard to idiom than some of those in the Auenbrugger set. The three Esterhazy Sonatas of 1784, Hob. XVI: 40—42, like Hob. XVI: 29, mark another important turning point in Haydn’s writing for the touch-sensitive instruments. Although the Bossler print of these sonatas—in all probability an authentic one—is unclear in its placement and interpretation of dynamics, the set contains a greater number of indications irrespective of movement form, requires the use of accents (fz) within the context of a soft level, and demands shadings from pianissimo to fortissimo. Furthermore, it can immediately be seen that the sforzandos and ornaments are used outside of the contexts expected for the harpsichord (Example V-4): e.g., the double graces in m. 19 are purely harmonic in their function, while the following fz is purely melodic and does not affect the integrity of the barline. Indeed, one receives the distinct impression that the solo works with the detailed indications, as in Hob. XVI: 20, 29, and 40–42, were compositions for specific touch-sensitive instruments and performers.
The two concertos composed perhaps during the 1770s, Hob. XVIII:4 and 11, do contain dynamic indications in the early sources but just in isolated passages: for example, Hob. XVIII: 4 contains sforzandos in the slow movement of the Boyer print and one of the Kromeriz copies (Example V-5). Nevertheless, these dynamics do not require a fortepiano: in Hob. XVIII: 4 the impact of the intervals themselves provides the sforzando, while in Hob. XVIII: 11 (Example V-6) the dissonance has the same effect.
EXAMPLE V–4. Hob. XVI:40/1, mm. 12–24.
EXAMPLE V–5. Hob. XVIII: 4/2, mm. 21–28.
EXAMPLE V–6. Hob. XVIII: 11/2, mm. 22–24.
About the same time that the prints of the Esterhazy Sonatas and the two concertos appeared, Haydn returned to the composition of keyboard trios. The dynamics in the keyboard parts of these new trios do not continue in the style of Hob. XVI: 40—42, but more closely approximate the solo works of the 1770s. However, this difference is partially compensated for by the dynamic capabilities of the violin or flute and cello: at times a dynamic marking occurs in one of the accompanying parts but is absent in the keyboard.
In the first of these trios, Hob. XV: 5 (Example V-7), the implied forte and the ensuing piano in the initial measures are underlined also by the texture and the tutti/solo effects. The fz of the third measure, although within the context of piano, is achievable on the harpsichord because of the quick arpeggiated approach to a”. The remainder of the movement has no shadings. The second movement of Hob. XV: 5 (Example V-8) continues to use dynamics in a manner still effective on the harpsichord; perhaps the fact that in m. 47 dynamics appear for the violin only speaks for the possibility that the accompanying instruments provide dynamic color for the monochromatic harpsichord, an interpretation supported by the increase of sonority and the more closed position in the keyboard part. Throughout this entire movement, only two measures (mm. 33 and 69) lose their effectiveness on the harpsichord. The same ambivalence of idiom is seen in the series Hob. XV:6–9.
The next set of three trios, Hob. XV: 11–13, should represent a significant change in style: Haydn wrote to Artaria that he needed a new Schanz fortepiano to compose them. Yet they contain little convincing evidence that the arrival of the new instrument affected Haydn’s compositions as profoundly as might be expected. Their innovations with regard to dynamics are as follows: In Hob. XV: 11/1 (Example V-9), the strings enter with a piano dynamic in m. 64 not to support a new dynamic level but to color an existing one; and in mm. 67–68 combined changes in dynamics, sonority, and texture occur. In the opening measures of Hob. XV: 12/1 (Example V-10) the strings are piano while the keyboard continues forte. And in the final measures of Hob. XV: 13/2 (Example V-11) piano and forte quickly alternate, but the sonorities remain constant. All these excerpts are best realized with a fortepiano. Perhaps the most immediate clue to their conception for a new type of instrument is the use of pizzicato in the accompaniment of Hob. XV: 12/2: with the harpsichord this color would be redundant as the plucking of strings in the accompaniment would lend only a new shade to the same effect, whereas with the fortepiano it provides a more percussive articulation.51
EXAMPLE V–7. Hob. XV: 5/1, mm. 1–3.
EXAMPLE V–8. Hob. XV: 5/2, mm. 44–49.
EXAMPLE V-9. Hob. XV: 11/1, mm. 60–70.
EXAMPLE V–10. Hob. XV: 12/1, mm. 1–7
EXAMPLE V–11. Hob. XV: 13/2, mm. 255–59.
Beginning with Hob. XV: 14, published in 1790, the shadings begin to approximate that of the 1784 solo sonatas in detail although not in scope. At the very beginning of the Rondo finale (Example V-12), the combined effect of downbeat with the written-out Haydn ornament (m. 2) followed by an accented syncopation on the second eighth is nearly the antithesis of instruments that are not touch-sensitive in that the downbeat is melodically stressed without support, followed by the fz with bass support. This passage requires four different levels of stress for the first four eighth notes of the movement, effects most easily achievable on a touch-sensitive instrument like Haydn’s new Schanz fortepiano.
EXAMPLE V–12. Hob. XV: 14/3, mm. 1-4.
During the late 1780s Haydn’s writing for a touch-sensitive keyboard peaked in three solo works: the C-major and E-flat major Sonatas Hob. XVI: 48 and 49 and the Fantasia in C major Hob. XVII: 4. The Fantasia, although it does not contain markings as detailed as those in the C-major Sonata, requires touch sensitivity not only to fulfill the dynamic indications but also to underline its middle-and small-dimension structure. Passages such as the one beginning in m.88 (Example V-13) require levels of accentuation to delineate the profile of figuration both within the measure as well as within groups of three, six, and twelve measures. In addition, the subito pianissimo of m. 116, the hand-crossing passage requiring one hand to change dynamics while the other remains constant, and the instruction “tenuto, intanto, finiche non si sente piu il suono” (mm. 192 and 302) all point to the fortepiano or clavichord (Example V-14).
Of the two sonatas, the one in C major contains the most explicit and the greatest variety of markings in any work dating from before Haydn’s journeys to England. Most striking in the first movement is the total independence of dynamics from other previously dynamic-forming elements; i.e., the diminuendo in m. 2 on a rising pitch; the piano in m. 9 followed by a pianissimo in m. 10 with a roll-device, which on the harpsichord would be used for accentuation; and the pianissimo in m. 22, which occurs in the most tensive moment of the entire opening thematic statement (see Example X-43). The markings in the E-flat major Sonata, as in many of the earlier works, are less explicit. This contrast in treatment is perhaps explained by the circumstances of composition: the E-flat major Sonata was written for a keyboardist with whom Haydn had close contact—”There is much in [the Adagio] that I will point out to Your Grace . . .”—while the C-major Sonata was part of a commission from Breitkopf. In the latter case Haydn was writing for the unknown connoisseur, who perhaps needed direction in the new type of expression, for it too is “somewhat difficult but full of feeling.”52
Although the Liebhaber Variations in C major Hob. XVII: 5 from 1790 have no dynamics at all, the masterly F-minor Variations Hob. XVII: 6 of 1793 takes up the progression toward works requiring extreme touch sensitivity. The indications found in both the autograph and the authentic copies provide a virtual summary of Haydn’s repertoire by the year 1793: tenute, mezza voce, cresc., ;>,>, piano, forte, fz, <, ff, pp, and forte e tenuto.
EXAMPLE V–13. Hob. XVII:4, mm. 88–114.
EXAMPLE V–14. Hob. XVII:4, mm. 115–31, 191–98.
The gulf noted above between the number and type of dynamic indications in the trios as opposed to the solo works holds true for those composed in London. The touch-sensitive aspects of Haydn’s last three solo sonatas support the hypothesis that they were written for different instruments or performers: the type and number of dynamics in Hob. XVI: 51 clearly set it apart from Hob. XVI: 52 and 50, which are remarkable for the way in which they consistently combine dynamics and sonority for the grandest effects. The only completely new dynamic effect occurs in Hob. XVI: 50, in which a passage for the open pedal commences a long crescendo (Example V-15).
A second characteristic of touch-sensitive keyboard instruments is the notation of the Bebung and Tragen der Tone. Although there is no example of the Bebung in Haydn’s keyboard works, the Tragen der Tone is used sparingly beginning in the 1770s, becomes more prominent during the 1780s, and is found with relative frequency after 1790, a situation parallel to the usage of dynamic markings. Its presence in both keyboard trios and solo works, including Hob. XVI: 49 (“per il Forte piano”), rules out Haydn’s use of the articulation exclusively for the clavichord; it is merely indicative of a touch-sensitive instrument.
Tragen der Tone appears first in the Variations in E-flat major Hob. XVII: 3, composed ca. 1770 but before 1774; however, like the dynamics, its use is confined to the theme and derives from the bowings of the string quartet version. Perhaps of greater import is the use of this device in Hob. XVI: 24/2, 38/1, and possibly 32/1, all sonatas from the 1770s. During the 1780s and 1790s the Tragen der Tone is used with the same lack of consistency seen in the 1770s. In Hob. XVII: 6 from 1793 Haydn even notated it with a rest between each pitch (Example V-16).
EXAMPLE V–15. Hob. XVI: 50/1, mm. 120–24.
EXAMPLE V–16. Hob. XVII:6, mm. 50–51.
Realization of Idiomatic Styles
The second question posed goes beyond the problem of touch sensitivity: in which works did Haydn begin to realize the potentialities and limitations of the various keyboard instruments? The answer, of course, can only be speculative. The hypothesis offered here is that the realization of any one style also affects the opposite polarity. Thus, when Haydn became conscious of the special qualities of one keyboard, the potentialities and limitations of the others probably came into sharper focus.
Haydn’s concertos for organ do not seem to develop in the same way as those for the stringed keyboards. A comparison of those works for organ that do not exceed c’’’ (Hob. XVIII: 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, and 1o)53 with those for harpsichord or fortepiano that do (Hob. XVIII: 3, 4, and 11) reveals that the latter have a more active surface rhythm. This difference in rhythmic activity—which may well emanate from differences in the instruments’ attack and release of sound—is especially evident when comparing the secular works for obbligato cembalo and voices from the 1760s—the two Esterhazy (Hob. XXIVa:3–4) and the “Applausus” (Hob. XXIVa: 6) cantatas—with the two liturgical works with obbligato organ from the 1770s. Registration markings are known to exist only in the Rajhrad copy of Hob. XVIII: 5.
Haydn’s earliest solo sonatas (before 1766) seem to be the most neutral in terms of instrument but are probably in the main for the harpsichord. Although Haydn had the readiest access to a clavichord when writing his very earliest solo compositions, it cannot be accepted as the first choice: 1. No pervading stylistic distinction with regard to instrument can be found between the ensemble pieces (i.e., trios, accompanied divertimentos, and concertinos) and the solo pieces; since the former were without question composed for the harpsichord, the latter are probably for the same instrument. 2. Since Haydn’s early solo divertimentos seem to be modeled on the type of keyboard sonata composed and distributed in Vienna during the 1750s and early 1760s, works that appear to have been written for the harpsichord, it follows that Haydn’s were also for this instrument.54 3. In his autobiographical sketch Haydn states that he learned the true fundamentals of Setzkunst from Porpora; since most of the keyboard works are highly skillful and stylistically homogeneous, they were most likely for the type of instrument Porpora presumably used, an Italian harpsichord. 4. Not a single Haydn source contains the notation for the Bebung, the only explicit and exclusive indication for the clavichord.
During the 1760s Haydn also came into contact with new keyboards that had additional keys and the short octave. The original version of Hob. XVI: 47, the Variations in A major Hob. XVII:2, “II maestro e lo scolare” Hob. XVIIa: 1, and the Sauschneider Capriccio Hob. XVII: 1 (1765) all have stretches for the left hand that can be negotiated only with the short octave;55 there is no internal evidence from these works of the 1760s to lead one to believe that the instrument was a fortepiano. The fact that f’’’ appeared in several works from the late 1760s suggests that Haydn may have secured a new instrument after his house burned in August 1768.
The highly expressive solo keyboard compositions with dynamic markings from the late 1760s and early 1770s seem most appropriate for the clavichord, especially since the fortepiano was not greatly cultivated in Vienna until around 1780.
The intense character of these works—especially the great C-minor Sonata Hob. XVI: 20—also points to the clavichord tradition; since the fortepiano did not achieve a reputation as a “lonely, melancholy, inexpressibly sweet instrument,”56 it is almost certain that these sonatas were composed for the clavichord. Larsen’s statement that the C-minor Sonata was much too modern to have been written for the clavichord cannot be accepted:57 this idea seems to result from viewing history by moving backward in time from the period of full development of the fortepiano style. Since dynamics have always been relative rather than absolute indications, the dynamic range in the C-minor Sonata must not be taken to mean anything approaching modern levels of volume; one of the most famous and idiomatic works for the clavichord, C. P. E. Bach’s “Abschied vom Silbermannschen Clavier,” also has a notated dynamic range from pianissimo to fortissimo.
Although in terms of their overall style, most of the remaining solo sonatas up to the mid-1770s are probably for the harpsichord, there is a significant movement toward idiomatic realization in these works. By way of example, the exposition of Hob. XVI: 26/1 from 1773 (Example V-17) typifies the crystallization of a style appropriate for a harpsichord with limited coloristic possibilities, while that of its chronological neighbor, Hob. XVI: 29/1 from 1774 (Example V-18), exhibits a fortepiano style. In the later work, dynamics are present in a reliable source, suggesting that it was conceived for a touch-sensitive instrument if not for the fortepiano specifically, while in the earlier movement no overt characteristics of idiomatic style are evident.
EXAMPLE V–17. Hob. XVI:26/1, mm. 1–29.
EXAMPLE V–18. Hob. XVI:29/1, mm. 1–31.
It is also useful to consider these two movements from the viewpoint of compensatory activity. In Hob. XVI: 26/1 the limited dynamic and coloristic capabilities of the harpsichord are compensated for by shifts of texture, figuration, and tessitura at the phrase and subphrase level. For example, the transfer of material from one octave to another in the opening bars, the subsequent contrapuntal texture (mm. 11–13), and the active three-voice fabric beginning in m. 14 result in a series of well-defined but short ideas. These ideas are further underlined by the prevalence of beat marking and the relatively fast harmonic rhythm; in addition, rhythmic stress is often created by ornaments or chromaticism.
Some of the same elements that provide activity at the level of the phrase and the subphrase in Hob. XVI: 26/1 are used in Hob. XVI: 29/1 to define the structure of the exposition (mm. 1–14, 15–26, 27–31). Although a contrast of register occurs in the opening statement, the effect is streamlined and the surface and harmonic rhythms are less erratic. In mm. 7–10 the alternating forte/piano sequences with the one-against-three-voice sonority are in total opposition to a harpsichord style, and the structural use of the crescendo beginning in m. 22 contributes to the resolution of the tonal conflict in mm. 26-27. The repetitions with no change of register found in mm. 15–20 imply dynamic nuances possible only on the newer instrument. In sum, the capabilities of the fortepiano are successfully realized in the first movement of Hob. XVI: 29 to the degree that the functional divisions of the exposition emerge with unusual clarity.
Like Hob. XVI: 26 and 29, the remaining sonatas of the “1776 set” as well as the Auenbrugger Sonatas published in 1780 reveal a mixture of styles, some for harpsichord and others for a touch-sensitive instrument, a characteristic that also seems evident in the miscellaneous sonatas of this period, Hob. XVI: 33, 43, and 34.
During the 1780s up to Haydn’s departure for England, his keyboard works are for the most part fortepiano compositions.58 Among these, the solo works can be divided into those from the time before Haydn acquired his Schanz fortepiano in 1788 (which include the three Sonatas for Princess Esterhazy Hob. XVI:40–42) and after (the great C-major and E-flat major Sonatas Hob. XVI: 48 and 49, and the Fantasia Hob. XVII: 4). Circumstantial evidence seems to favor the fortepiano built by Anton Walter for the three Esterhazy Sonatas: the Esterhazy bills of payment to him for working on the keyboard instruments at Esterhaza during the 1780s; Haydn’s references to Walter in a 1781 letter; and Haydn’s evaluative comments, indicating a thorough familiarity with a number of his instruments in his 1790 letter recommending the Schanz instrument to Frau von Genzinger. The keyboard trios of this period remain in the mixed style of the keyboard sonatas of the previous decade; while the fortepiano is to be preferred, the harpsichord is a very serviceable alternative. The last work Haydn composed before departing for London, the little Variations in C major Hob. XVII: 5, was written for the fortepiano, according to the contract with Artaria, but could be effectively performed on the harpsichord or clavichord. Its use of the Tragen der Tone, however, favors a touch-sensitive instrument.
Even though Haydn had an opportunity to become acquainted with the London fortepiani after 1790, the F-minor Variations Hob. XVII: 6 must have been written with a Viennese instrument in mind; it was composed in Vienna during 1793 for a Viennese virtuoso, Barbara von Ployer. The ideal performance of these variations would be on either a Schanz fortepiano or a clavichord, as its demands seem to parallel the C-major Sonata Hob. XVI: 48.
In England there was a profound difference between the grand—used and owned mainly by the rich, the virtuosos, and serious students—and the square fortepiano, which presumably found a place in the living quarters of most amateurs. The former had a wider dynamic range, especially on the louder end of the spectrum, and a fuller sound; while the latter had a somewhat restricted strength and a more delicate touch. Haydn composed two of the last three solo sonatas and one set of trios for the professional Miss Jansen (Mrs. Bartolozzi). Among the three solo sonatas Hob. XVI: 50–52, those in C major and E-flat major seem more appropriate on one of the large instruments of grand design;59 while the D-major Sonata— with its lighter sonorities and fewer dynamics—seems better suited to the popular square instrument. It is perhaps for this type of keyboard that most of the late piano trios, as well as the English Canzonettas and many of the other London vocal works, were conceived, although a song such as “Fidelity” and the Trios Hob. XV: 27—29 might benefit from the use of the larger instrument.
Table V-3 summarizes the external and internal evidence for each authentic or plausibly authentic keyboard work and the resulting selection of the preferred instrument(s) for its performance. Although the remarks offered may be neither definitive nor complete, they point out the significant touch-sensitive requirements for specific works. While the preferences of this list are personal and could probably never be realized by any one performer, it may provide some insight into the ways Haydn’s keyboard music might be most effectively realized.
It should be remembered, however, that emphasizing the differences among these eighteenth-century instruments may obscure a more important consideration for the twentieth-century performer: that is, the differences between the harpsichord and fortepiano of the eighteenth century are not nearly as pronounced as the disparity between the modern Steinway or Bosendorfer piano and the old Stein or Walter fortepiano. The instrument made in Germany and Austria during the eighteenth century had a brightness and crispness of articulation that seems to have had little aesthetic connection to the more massive and darker-sounding large English pianos that are the true ancestors of the modern instrument.
Performances of Haydn’s sonatas, trios, divertimentos, concertos, and pieces—especially the pre-London ones—therefore lose much of their character when performed on today’s instruments. Yet if only the twentieth-century piano is available for concert performance, the performer who has an understanding of the characteristics of the keyboard(s) for which a given work may have been intended can potentially achieve a more satisfying performance than one who has not.
We use cookies to analyze our traffic. Please decide if you are willing to accept cookies from our website. You can change this setting anytime in Privacy Settings.