“Joseph Haydn’s Keyboard Music”
TOWARD DEFINING GENRE
AND GENRE TYPES
When Hoboken enumerated Haydn’s instrumental output for his thematic catalogue in 1957, he organized it according to the traditional settings established during the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, when the various keyboard genres were highly unified and discrete entities. Indeed, in the works of Mozart and Beethoven the solo sonata, piano trio, and piano quartet are in practice clearly defined genres. But the usefulness of such categories is diminished in Haydn’s keyboard music: the genres are less clearly defined, some are interrelated, and within a given setting subgroups exist.
Since the 1960s several Haydn scholars have attempted to develop meaningful categories for the solo keyboard cycles; here, therefore, that genre will receive relatively little discussion. However, the remaining accompanied and concerted works have not been subjected to such careful scrutiny with regard to their generic titles, setting, cycles, and movement forms and types. These works have thus been allotted the bulk of the discussion in the ensuing survey of Haydn’s concepts of genre as found in the keyboard music, a summary of which is provided by Table VIII-1.
SONATAS
In the old copies and prints as well as in EK, the solo cycles up to 1771 are headed by the titles “Divertimento” or “Partita.”1 But to assign special characteristics to the Divertimentos and to the Partitas is well nigh impossible, for in their makeup there is no distinction. Although Haydn holds the term “Sonata” in reserve until 1771 for the impressive Sonata in C minor Hob. XVI:20, one should not attach too much significance to this event, for the solo cycles from the late 1760s are also works of substance although they have the older title “Divertimento.”
The early solo sonatas (up to ca. 1765) were classified in 1963 by Georg Feder (see Table IV-3) into Kenner and Liebhaber (connoisseur and amateur) styles,2 with a third category for those less advanced:Hob. XVI:1, 5, 16, and 12 were considered the most primitive; Hob. XVI:13, 2, 6, Es2, 14, and ES3 for the Kenner; and Hob. XVI:9, [11], G1, XIV:C1, XVII:D1, and XVI:7, 8, 10, 3, 4 for the Liebhaber. When the solo sonatas were published in Joseph Haydn Werke in 1966, Feder redefined these categories and proposed two groups: “Neun frühe Sonaten” (Hob. XVI:16, 5, 12, 13, 14, 6, 2, Es2, and Es3), and “Neun kleine frühen Sonaten” (Hob. XVI:1, 7, 8, 9, 10, G1, XVII :D1, XVI:3, and 4).3
The sonatas that follow from after ca. 1765 are for Kenner and professionals. In this case, László Somfai designed a needed outline of “genre typology” along sociological and stylistic grounds—based mainly on cyclic structure, technical demands, and movement styles—and used it to divide the five works composed from ca. 1765 to the early 1770s into two types:the three-movement early “concert sonata” (Hob. XVI:19, 20, and 46); and the two-movement early “chamber sonata” (Hob. XVI:18 and 44). The former then provided the basis on which Somfai categorized the three-movement Esterhazy “court sonatas” (Hob. XVI:21, 23, and 24), the “dilettante sonatas” of the year 1776 (Hob. XVI:27, 28, 29, 31, and 32), the “dilettante concert” style of the Auenbrugger set (Hob. XVI:35, 36, 37, 38, and 39), and the late “grand sonatas” (Hob. XVI:50 and 52). From the early “chamber sonata”—which also includes Hob. XIV:5 (recte XVI :5a), XVI:45, 25, 26, and 30—emerges the two-movement “Damensonate” of the 1780s (Hob. XVI:41, 42, 43, 48) and 1790s (Hob. XVI:51). For the remaining works, Somfai views Hob. XVI:22 and 34 as syntheses of the “concert and court types” and the “dilettante concert and grand sonatas” respectively, while the Genzinger Sonata Hob. XVI:49 derives from both the “Damen” and “grand” sonatas.4
Although undeniably stimulating and useful, the titles that Somfai applies are misleading from a historical viewpoint:such terms as “chamber” and “concert” are questionable, because none of the works in the two groups can be confirmed as having a background in either the court chamber or the public concert. Instead, these keyboard sonatas appear in the main to be Hausmusik, even if they were used in the residences of the aristocracy and perhaps even occasionally in a concertlike environment.5 Indeed, all the sonatas—with the possible exception of Somfai’s “grand” sonatas—were in the best sense “dilettante” and “Damen” sonatas, as evidenced by the nearly unanimous dedications to women, in contrast to the solely male dedications for the string quartets.6
KLAVIERSTÜCKE
Five of the eight Klavierstücke parallel the advanced language and idiom of the mature solo sonatas and keyboard trios. The two big variation sets, Hob. XVII:2 and 3, are truly independent works, while the famous F-minor Variations Hob. XVII:6—also known from authentic sources as “Sonata” and, somewhat surprisingly, “un piccolo divertimento”—is less extended and may well have been intended originally as the first movement of a sonata not unlike Hob. XVI:48.
Both of the Capriccios/Fantasias, Hob. XVII:1 and 4—Haydn used these terms interchangeably—are based on Austrian/South German folk tunes and signal important advances in Haydn’s keyboard writing at two different points in his stylistic development, ca. 1765 and 1788—89. Were these two works intended to serve as preludes to solo sonatas, as was common in eighteenth-century practice? The G-major Capriccio Hob. XVII:1 from 1765 has been transmitted in an old copy from Kroměříž that contains the solo Sonata Hob. XVI:47 (see Example III-13). Although the tonality of the E-minor/E-major version of Hob. XVI:47 is possible, the Capriccio occurs in the manuscript after rather than before the sonata. Furthermore, it would be tempting to associate this work with one of the other sonatas of the 1760s, but the size of the Capriccio itself seems to exclude it from such consideration. On the other hand, the C-major Fantasia Hob. XVII:4 was composed at about the same time (1788—89) that Haydn was working on the two- movement C-major Sonata Hob. XVI:48 and—unlike its G-major counterpart— the Fantasia, in terms of both tonality and size, might be successfully combined with this sonata.
TRIOS
If one looks beyond their setting, the works of Hoboken’s Group XV clearly divide into two categories:the early trios (Hob. XV:34, 36-38, 40, 41, C1, and f1) and three transitional ones (Hob. XV:1, 2, and 35); and the twenty-eight mature trios dating roughly from 1784 to 1796.
The trios of the first category are known from contemporary copies under the common titles “Divertimento,” “Partita,” “Concerto,” “Trio,” and “Capriccio” (Hob. XV:35); the term “Sonata” is also found, but chiefly in prints. As with the solo sonatas, these titles have little meaning in terms of either style or cyclic structure:indeed, the only term found here that seems to have had a precise meaning is “Concerto,” which may simply refer to the concertante and obligatory nature of the violin part.
The fabric of Haydn’s early trios (Hob. XV:34, 36-38, 40, 41, C1, and f1) is a hybrid of the Baroque violin sonata and the newer accompanied style. Most of the first movements begin with the keyboard alone presenting the initial material, immediately followed by a solo violin repetition with the keyboard assuming a basso continuo role—sometimes indicated with figures; the cello simply doubles the bass line throughout. These characteristics bring to mind the trio texture found in a number of Baroque violin sonatas:the violin and the right hand of the keyboard are the two upper voices, while the left hand and cello realize and play the bass. Other portions of the first movements as well as most of the ensuing movements use the so-called accompanied texture:the violin either plays in unison or forms thirds and sixths with the right hand of the keyboard, participates in motivic play, and—less frequently—has independent material.7 Thus, in Haydn’s early trios the violin is an indispensable part of the texture; it does not function in the optional manner found in many examples of eighteenth-century accompanied keyboard music by other composers frequently used to illustrate this genre.8
The opening statement of Hob. XV:40 begins to reveal a synthesis of trio sonata and accompanied textures that marks a transitional style; the new approach is more pronounced in Hob. XV:1, 35 and—perhaps with less validity—in the possibly transcribed Hob. XV:2. In XV:35 the violin and keyboard share material democratically (Example VIII-1), without strong indications of the old trio sonata. In addition, there are passages in which the violin and cello are perceived as playing together (Example VIII-2); the keyboard and violin perform in a three-part sonority without the cello (Example VIII-3); and, in the first and last movements, the technical demands on all players exceed previous expectations. In Hob. XV:1 these developments are taken further:the opening phrase places the violin and keyboard on equal footing; the cello and violin are at times of equal importance (Example VIII-4); the violin independently carries the melodic material in the trio of the minuet; and double stops—supported by the cello—are used in the finale when the keyboard part becomes more linear (Example VIII-5). Without question, both of these works adumbrate the mature trios of the 1780s.9
In contrast to the early solo sonatas, these early trios are unusually uniform in size and difficulty. Excluding the transitional works, there are no movements as large and demanding as the most difficult of the early solo sonatas or as small and simple as the easiest of them. It seems likely that the trios were conceived with a single keyboardist or ensemble in mind.
The late trios all carry the title “Sonata for keyboard with accompaniments for a violin and cello” or its equivalent. This designation accurately describes their texture:the violin performs as an accompanying instrument as well as more soloistically; and, in general, the cello part supports the keyboard bass. This latter function, however, is more flexible in these works than has been recognized by such commentators as Donald Francis Tovey, who recommended that the late trios be played as violin sonatas and even rewrote some of the cello parts in conformity with nineteenth-century practice.10 Such an expectation has resulted in widespread criticism of the mature trios, even by the Haydn enthusiast Marion M. Scott in 1932:
EXAMPLE VIII-1. Hob. XV:35/1, mm. 1-8.
EXAMPLE VIII-2. Hob. XV:35/1, mm. 67-69.
EXAMPLE VIII-3. Hob. XV:35/1, mm. 138-41.
EXAMPLE VIII-4. Hob. XV:1/1, mm. 1-2, 8-9.
The problems of trio-writing for pianoforte and strings are extremely delicate. To do him justice Haydn did not know they existed. Indeed, they did not exist during the major portion of his working life. If he had met them earlier he might have solved them as thoroughly as those of the string quartet. They only emerged towards the end of his career, because they were bound up with slow changing of clavier and harpsichord for the modern pianoforte. . . .
If we recollect the tone of the claviers—or pianofortes—of his day, we have the explanation of his peculiar scoring. In thirty-one Trios in print, as Prof. Tovey says, “hardly for a dozen notes in the whole collection is it (the ’cello) allowed to diverge from the bass of the pianoforte. The only movement in real trio writing . . . is the Adagio at the beginning of the two-movement work in A major.”
EXAMPLE VIII-5. Hob. XV:1/3, mm. 74-78.
What sounded well in Haydn’s time is wrong for today. The thick doubling of the bass dulls the lower edge of the score; . . . it bores ‘cello players to the point at which they retaliate by leaving the Trios alone.
. . . It is only fair, however, to admit that he was perfectly content to carry on his “continuo” technique in the trios long after Mozart and Beethoven [sic] had shown him a better way.11
Within four months after publication, Scott’s and Tovey’s viewpoint was roundly rejoined by Arthur T. Froggatt:
In the thirty-one published trios there are seven hundred and forty-four bars in which the ’cello part differs from the pianoforte bass—an average of twenty-four bars to a trio. In this calculation I take no account of difference of octave, or of repeated notes, but only of a difference in the twelve notes of the scale. I have not counted the number of notes:possibly three hundred.
. . . Mozart wrote seven trios with a ’cello part, all composed between 1786 and 1788 . . . there are nine hundred and ten bars in which the ’cello doubles the pianoforte bass. (In the adagio of the first Trio, K. 254, it does nothing else.) As for Beethoven, there is not one of his trios in which the ’cello does not occasionally double the pianoforte bass; in the last and finest, Op. 97, there are a hundred and seventy-seven bars in which the ’cello (according to Miss Scott’s gospel) goes astray.12
Tovey was correct to some extent:Haydn’s late trios do tend more toward the violin sonata. This inclination is one that the composer himself acknowledged by taking one of his own works for violin and piano (“The Dream”), adding a cello part and a new first movement, and publishing it as a trio; later, when Haydn needed a gift of a “violin sonata” for Madame Moreau, the work was copied again with a second new first movement, but without the cello part. The exception to this generic concept is Hob. XV:9/1, in which the cello uses the higher positions and participates in true duet style with the violin (Example VIII-6).
EXAMPLE VIII-6. Hob. XV:9/1, mm. 1-8.
Apart from their settings, however, the mature trios and late solo sonatas follow the same evolutionary path: two- and three-movement cycles predominate, variation and part forms gain an importance comparable to the sonata form, and the same movement styles (e.g., siciliano, contradance, etc.) are favored. Thus, the title “Sonata”—which Haydn used interchangeably for solo sonatas and keyboard trios in letters to publishers, in the London Verzeichnis (LV), and in the Haydn Verzeichnis (HV)—is a valid one.
DIVERTIMENTOS AND CONCERTINOS
The works enumerated by Hoboken in Gruppe XIV, to which should be added Hob. XVIII:F2, come down to us in contemporary copies with such titles as “Concerto,” “Concertino,” or “Divertimento,” and all but two are scored for keyboard, two violins, and bass. Haydn himself used the terms “Concertino” on the autograph for Hob. XIV:11 and “Divertimento” on the autograph for Hob. XIV:4 and in EK for Hob. XIV:3. “Divertimento” is also the title on the presumed authentic copies of Hob. XIV:7—9, which were a part of Haydn’s Nachlass. A consistent distinction in terminology is made among these authentic examples:those called “Divertimento” consist of a Fast—Minuet—Fast sequence, whereas in the “Concertino” the minuet is replaced by an expressive cantilena slow movement. If we go beyond the authentic sources, the same generic distinction still holds true:those labeled “Concertino” are related to the cyclic form of the concertos, while those labeled “Divertimento” relate to the early solo and other accompanied sonata cycles.
On the other hand, in both the Concertinos and Divertimentos of Hob. XIV, the movements are mainly in binary-based forms and do not, except for short cadential tuttis, even hint at a ritornello/concerto structure. In both, the two accompanying violins and the bass perform the same basic functions:they normally double the keyboard; they sometimes simplify the keyboard line; they occasionally contribute independent material; and the first violin only rarely participates in motivic play with the keyboard. Especially in the Divertimentos, the strings seem merely to be supporting an insecure performer (Example VIII-7); in three Divertimentos Hob. XIV:7, 10, and C1 the accompaniment could even be considered optional.
The distinction between works for Kenner and those for Liebhaber that Feder applied to the early solo sonatas is also relevant for these Divertimentos. For example, Hob. XIV:9, 10, and C2 are comparable to the smallest of the Liebhaber solo sonatas (Hob. XVI:7 and 8) in dimension and difficulty. But this Kenner/Liebhaber polarity is not as evident for the four Concertinos even though their size and difficulty remain within the boundaries of the early solo sonatas.
The three Concertinos of Hob. XIV and the little Concerto XVIII:F2 differ from most of the larger concertos of Hoboken’s Group XVIII in that they never approach the ritornello/concerto form. But this distinction, while certainly useful, is not as well defined as one might presume; for Hob. XVIII:5, 8, and 10 are intermediary works that form a bridge from the “Concertinos” placed by Hoboken in Gruppe XIV to the full-fledged concertante and solo Concertos of Gruppe XVIII. Hob. XVIII:10 represents a true formal and textural synthesis of the concertino and concerto genres:repeats divide the first movement into a binary form, but it still preserves elements of the ritornello both in the thematic structure and in the tutti/solo contrasts. Hob. XVIII:10 is also unlike the full-fledged concertos in its decidedly different approach to the keyboard/string relationship:one finds sections for the tutti with the keyboard playing continuo, the keyboard and strings doubling, and the keyboard accompanying the strings (mvt. 1, m. 35), as well as concertante sections. Hob. XVIII:5 and 8 stand closer to 10 because of their lessdemanding nature and probable liturgical function as organ concertos.13 Hob. XVIII:6 is a concerto for solo violin, the right hand of the keyboard, the left-hand keyboard basso continuo, and strings; it thus harks back to the concerto grosso for two solo treble instruments. The remaining early works (XVIII:1 and 2) are full-fledged mid-century concertos, while the later ones (XVIII:3, 4, and 11) are fine examples of the Classic concerto in a totally mature realization.
EXAMPLE VIII-7. Hob. XIV:9/1, mm. 1-9.
This overview of Haydn’s approach to genre in the keyboard music reveals a series of work groups interrelated by more than the inclusion of a keyboard instrument. Of the early output, the solo sonatas and accompanied divertimentos for keyboard, two violins, and bass are related by their cyclic structures and technical demands. Closely allied are the concertinos:both maintain the same relationship of the solo to the accompanying group. Yet the concertinos are also miniature concertos, as evidenced by their cyclic plan and similarity in movement structures and textures with the smaller concertos in Hob. XVIII. Of the early works, it is only the keyboard trios that stand apart, with their mixture of trio-sonata and accompanied textures.
Concerning the mature works, those entitled “Sonata”—whether they be keyboard trios or solo sonatas—are uniform in cyclic makeup, movement forms, and overall style. The mature concertos (Hob. XVIII:3, 4, and 11) also begin to consolidate form and style in a manner not seen in their predecessors.
The picture that emerges of Haydn’s keyboard settings and genres is therefore one quite different from the standard Classic repertoire as established by works of Mozart and Beethoven with similar settings. Nothing in the output of either composer approaches the practices found in early Haydn. Mozart’s piano trios, quartets, and the quintet with wind instruments are completely alien to Haydn’s early trios, divertimentos, concertinos, and concertos:Mozart exploited the dramatic possibilities by pitting the keyboard against a competitive block of sound and savored the give-and-take among the parts, a concept only rarely found in Haydn’s ensemble works. On the other hand, Beethoven was more interested in the full spectrum of the piano’s sonority in the solo sonatas and its ability to compete with and dominate its partners in both chamber and concerted orchestral music. Here, one could argue for a few of Haydn’s late solo sonatas and trios as one foundation for the Beethovenian approach.
Haydn’s concept of genre and setting is clearly couched in a totally different tradition, one that flourished in Vienna during the mid-eighteenth century, and one to which Mozart and Beethoven had little exposure. Here, there existed two basic types:solo keyboard settings, including Klavierstücke, along with accompanied sonatas, divertimentos, and concertinos, which used forms that depended little on contrasts and confrontations of the keyboard with other instruments; and the concerto, in which these contrasts and confrontations were the essence of the solo/tutti polarity and ritornello form.
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.